Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Are you for or against legalization of Marijuana?
Yes 45 73.77%
No 13 21.31%
undecided 3 4.92%
Voters: 61. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-30-2008, 11:20 AM
 
Location: DFW, TX
2,935 posts, read 6,716,398 times
Reputation: 572

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4 View Post
Yeah, we behave so responsibly with the drugs that _are_ legal...let's add some more so I can see more deaths, injuries, and social problems. Wheeee!
Just curious... can you point me to a documented case of a death due to weed?

And don't we already have laws prohibiting illegal behavior such as assault, wreckless driving, child endangerment? Does it matter what drives people to commit these acts, or should we punish the act itself?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-30-2008, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Ohio
1,140 posts, read 2,203,133 times
Reputation: 398
From all the evidence I've seen, weed is much less intoxicating, and dangerous for you than alcohol. Also, it is cheaper than alcohol, you can't become addicted to it, doesn't cause fits of rage, and actually has some medical benefits. Oh and you can't OD on it, you would have to die of smoke asphyxiation first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2008, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Texas
44,259 posts, read 64,365,577 times
Reputation: 73932
Quote:
Originally Posted by twojciac View Post
Just curious... can you point me to a documented case of a death due to weed?

And don't we already have laws prohibiting illegal behavior such as assault, wreckless driving, child endangerment? Does it matter what drives people to commit these acts, or should we punish the act itself?

I can point you to about a billion people I've had to treat b/c of stupid behavior on weed.

But it's true...it's no different than people who drive drunk or people who give themselves cancer by smoking. I'm just so tired of seeing this. It's a waste of money to all of society.

Btw, weed can be addictive and it does cause cancer. So don't go thinking those two things aren't true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2008, 11:25 AM
 
146 posts, read 350,215 times
Reputation: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4 View Post
Yeah, we behave so responsibly with the drugs that _are_ legal...let's add some more so I can see more deaths, injuries, and social problems. Wheeee!
People are going to use marijuana whether it's legal or not; for thousands of years, it has been a part of human society and shows no signs of just poofing away because of totalitarian enactments against this beneficial and endlessly useful plant. Cannabis is one of the safest kinds of psychoactive plants and medicines that exist; it is impossible to die from cannabis consumption. You could eat two ounces in twenty minutes or smoke a pound in a day and you won't come even close to reaching a lethal amount. You can't say the same about even as ubuquitous a substance as caffeine (though caffeine still remains one of the safest mind-altering substances, it isn't as safe as marijuana).

Cannabis can be valuable to treat depression, ADHD, glaucoma, and many other disorders. Carl Sagan especially was a proponent of medicinal marijuana. While people die every year from using pharmaceutical, chemical-based medications, no one has ever died of overdosing on marijuana.

Prohibition does not work. The Drug War (which is more like a war on Nature and the American people), like the Eighteenth Amendment, has been a tragic failure that has driven responsible use of cannabis underground, ruined many honest, hard-working peoples' lives, and has wasted hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in the pursuit of controlling private citizens' private lives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2008, 11:26 AM
 
146 posts, read 350,215 times
Reputation: 81
Marijuana does not cause cancer.

Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection - washingtonpost.com

Breakthrough Discovered in Medical Marijuana Cancer Treatment - Salem-News.Com

Even if smoking marijuana did cause cancer (which it does not), cannabis can be consumed in many other ways besides smoking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2008, 11:28 AM
 
Location: Ohio
1,140 posts, read 2,203,133 times
Reputation: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4 View Post
I can point you to about a billion people I've had to treat b/c of stupid behavior on weed.

But it's true...it's no different than people who drive drunk or people who give themselves cancer by smoking. I'm just so tired of seeing this. It's a waste of money to all of society.

Btw, weed can be addictive and it does cause cancer. So don't go thinking those two things aren't true.

You point me toward one piece of credible evidence that shows weed can be physically addictive. Just because some people like it so much that they don't wanna do without doesn't mean it is addictive. Fat people are addicted to food, doesn't mean food is addictive. Oh and weed doesn't cause cancer, the act of smoking it does. You can also bake weed into brownies. The active ingredient thc is harmless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2008, 11:29 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,554 posts, read 86,977,099 times
Reputation: 36644
Quote:
Originally Posted by RalphKNS View Post
It's insane for the government to try to ban and eradicate a plant.
The Kansas Noxious Weed Law was first enacted in 1937. It is designed to control, manage, and eradicate 14 plants designated as noxious weeds by the Kansas Legislature.

The law assigns specific duties to private and public landowners, counties, and the state.



http://www.ksda.gov/plant_protection...t/238/cid/1167
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2008, 11:30 AM
 
146 posts, read 350,215 times
Reputation: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
The State Department of Agriculure in Kansas has designated 12 "noxious weeds", and it is an offense for a land owner to allow such weeds to grow on his property without making an effort to eradicate them.
Can a landowner grow such a plant inside the privacy of their own home?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2008, 11:46 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,554 posts, read 86,977,099 times
Reputation: 36644
Quote:
Originally Posted by RalphKNS View Post
Can a landowner grow such a plant inside the privacy of their own home?

Dunno. Go to the link and read the law. (I updated my post while you were responding). Probably not, without a special permit. Marijuana is not considered a noxious weed in Kansas. But there are counties (Doniphan, for example) who earn a large part of the county revenue by confiscating the cars of out-or-staters who harvest trunk-loads of wild marijuana along the side of back roads there. They used to make about 50 arrests a year, and confiscate the cars of weed harvesters who were passing through, and looking out the window, and saying "Hey man!".

edit

Apparently, the link to the law does not open. Tyry googling, if you're really interested.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2008, 11:57 AM
 
146 posts, read 350,215 times
Reputation: 81
I would if it weren't a PDF file; my computer couldn't handle one of those right now. But, if a person can't grow any kind of plant in their own home, then I see that as a totalitarian and unjust law. There are certain plants that can harm agricultural activity, and in a state like Kansas which relies heavily on agriculture, I can understand (though I may not necessarily fully agree with) regulations against allowing such plants to grow outside, where they may spread to neighboring land.

It boils down to personal responsibility. A person should be allowed to keep a dog in their own home. If that dog roams at large and starts to kill livestock in a farm a mile away, then that's a serious problem. But it would be primarily the fault of the dog's keeper for not being a responsible pet owner, not dogs as an animal.

However, this is beginning to become an irrelevant digression. The cannabis plant does not aggressively spread and harm property like kudzu, a plant which, while being aggressive and potentially harmful to agriculture *can* be legally grown in many parts of the country and is used for food.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:22 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top