Talk:Legal history of cannabis in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hashish

Are we claiming this article doesnt cover hashish which also has a history of consumption and prosecution in the US. Why focus only on herbal cannabis? Hashish clearly is treated as a drug in the US. Why is it being ignored? SqueakBox 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hashish is made from marijuana, so there were no laws directly dealing with hash, as it was classified under marijuana. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 00:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that marijuna includes hashish? (this is quite difficult to get my head round as marijuana only ever means herbal cannabis in the UK) SqueakBox 00:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not saying marijuana includes hashish. Hash is a way to prepare marijuana for consumption and therefore it is classifieid under marijuana in U.S. law and needs no seperate law or mention in the article. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 02:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You are saying it then. It would be good to have a source for this (because of the naming dispute). I would say that both marijuana and hash are preparations of the plant cannabis but it may be seen differently in the US, which is why a source would be good, SqueakBox 03:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am saying what then? Like many English words marijuana has two meaning, the dried flowering leafs or the entire cannabis plant. Examples: WordNet, American Heritage, Random House Unabridged Dictionary. the Marihuana Tax Act. Next time try looking things up instead of asking for sources for things that are not hard to verify. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 05:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think that was more appropriate for you to do (after all you are the American and the one insisting we should callt his article marijuana), and thanks, SqueakBox 18:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus that a desire for consistency should supersedeWikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English, and thus no consensus to move the page. If desired, any move request relating to Cannabis rescheduling in the United States can be discussed separately. Dekimasuよ! 23:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Legal history of marijuana in the United States → Legal history of cannabis in the United States

This decision may also apply to:

• Decriminalization of marijuana in the United States → Decriminalization of cannabis in the United States

• Places that have decriminalized marijuana in the United States → Places that have decriminalized cannabis in the United States

• Cannabis rescheduling in the United States → Marijuana rescheduling in the United States

There is a Summary of arguments and Summary of views expressed at the bottom of this section.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English, says, Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country. For example: American Civil War: American English usage and spelling; Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings: British English usage and spelling. Cannabis is refered to most often as marijuana in the United States. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 06:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Allt he articles are to cannabis and you cant even be bothered to fix the redirects, SqueakBox 18:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Other articles are named cannabis because they are about cannabis in general. If you are referring to cannabis in the United States, it should be referred to as marijuana per Wikipedia manual of style.

If you are referring to the re-direct pages you changed when you moved Decriminalization of marijuana in the United States to Decriminalization of marijuana in the United States without any prior discussion on the talk page, no I did not change them back from cannabis to marijuana, as every time I revert the incorrect changes you made, you revert my edits, so it is a waste of my time to change anything until this issue is resolved because I do not want to engage in an edit war. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 19:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

All the articles are named cannabis. Stop putting silly templates on my user talk. Double redirects, on the other hand, are unacceptable and failure to change them when moving a page knowingly could indeed be construed as vandalism though I am not doing so as I dont go around making dsilly claims of vandalism when inappropriate. The plant and the drug are called cannabis, marijuana is a slang term used in North America, and to calla rticles such will do nothing other than confuase our non North American readers, SqueakBox 19:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"All the articles are named cannabis"

Did you not read what I wrote above?

"Stop putting silly templates on my user talk"

I put page move warning templates on your user talk page because you continued to move the article multiple times without discussing it on the talk page and without putting up a Template:move, even after I notified you of your mistakes. We should request for comment from other Wikipedia editors to resolve this conflict. I believe this article should be kept as marijuna until this issue is resolved; however, everytime I change it to back to marijuana, you revert my edits and I do not want to to engage in an edit war, so I will just leave it as the current title until this is resolved.

"The plant and the drug are called cannabis, marijuana is a slang term used in North America"

Marijuana is not the slang term. According to the American Heritage Dictionary slang is defined as "A kind of language occurring chiefly in casual and playful speech, made up typically of short-lived coinages and figures of speech that are deliberately used in place of standard terms for added raciness, humor, irreverence, or other effect."

Marijuana, not cannabis, is the term that has been used in:

• Most all scientific reports in the United States, just look at the Decriminalization of cannabis in the United States#References for some examples.
• The majority of the new media in the United States, as shown when you type in 'marijuana' in google news and you get 16,109 results and when you type in 'cannabis' you only get 3,012 results (as of May 11 [1][2])
• United States Government titles, a few examples are National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, and the DEA's Marijuana: Facts for Teens

Furthermore:

• Slang drug terms like 'shrooms' or ‘crank’ are not found in the dictionary, when marijuana is.
• In British English, they have different words than American English, but it doesn't mean that all words that are different between British English and American English are slang, they just have minor differences in their dialects.

"to calla rticles such will do nothing other than confuase our non North American readers"

According to the MOS, I am following the correct guidelines; however, I did feel some non-North American readers may be confused, that is why I put "marijuana (also referred to as cannabis)" in the first senstance of this article to prevent confusion.

—User:Christopher Mann McKay 19:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, despite widespread North American use, the word "marijuana" is a slang term for the cannabis sativa plant. Dictionaries do contain slang terms for other drugs. Merriam-Webster defines blow and snow as slang for cocaine, speed as a term for methamphetamine and amphetamine related stimulants, smack and junk as slang terms for heroin, acid as LSD, and I am certain there are plenty more. No decent dictionary is without definitions for common and slang terms. As you pointed out below, they also contain the word nigger, and the MW dictionary also makes it clear that said word was used by great writers such as Joseph Conrad, Mark Twain, and Charles Dickens without derogatory intent. --Thoric 03:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Merriam-Webster defines blow and snow as slang for cocaine, speed as a term for methamphetamine and amphetamine related stimulants, smack and junk as slang terms for heroin, acid as LSD" My point exactly, they define other drug terms as slang, but they make no reference to marijuana being a slang word, but give an actual defination[3]. Furthermore, in the Merriam-Webster, the slang term weed is linked to marijuana, not cannabis[4]. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 23:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox is wrong. As these specific articles are about the United States, per WP:MOS#National varieties of English, if "there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect." It is my opinion that articles about the United States have a strong tie (stronger, in fact, than some of the examples in WP:MOS), that US dialect should be used - specifically, marijuana. Additionally, revert warring is wrong. You should both stop it and seek further input, like the input I've provided here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I did stop reverting and I am seeking further imput, see my comment above. Also, I did not give any revert warning, I gave a Template:Uw-move3 warning, which was not "wrong". —User:Christopher Mann McKay 20:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been debated thoroughly and marijuana is a slang term. It is Christopher who needs to stop reverting and make false accusations repeatedly, SqueakBox 19:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a citation to this "thorough" debate? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not with our current archive policy, no (too many archives to look through), SqueakBox 21:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

On what article talk page was did this dicussion take place? I can look through the achives. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 21:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Lokk through the cannabis (drug) archives. If you search using the regular expression slang that should suffice, SqueakBox 21:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 3#Marijuana discusses using marijuana verses cannabis in the article and they decided to use cannabis because marijuana is only used in the United States. The discussion did not involve an article that deals with the United States, so I don't think it is too relevant. There was some debate on if marijuana is a slang term or not, but not a whole lot of debate. There was also debate on the orgin of marijuana; however, the orgin of the name does not change the fact that marijuana is the common name for cannabis throughout the United States. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 06:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I note that this must not be the "thorough" debate which Squeakbox refers, because it was only about one article. As such, pending his citation of a source for this "thorough" debate, I believe this issue is settled - articles should remain at Marijuana if they deal with US only issues, Cannabis if they are not region-specific. Hipocrite - «Talk» 10:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion comes up again and again and again. Basically the Mexican slang for the flowering tops of the cannabis plant ("marihuana" or "marijuana") was purposely chosen by American bureaucracy for the express purposes of controlling and criminalizing the hemp plant (cannabis sativa) by associating it with poor Mexican immigrants. Popular, common, legal or even scientific/medical use of the word "marijuana" in the United States over the past 75 years does not make it the proper terminology, nor appropriate for use in Wikipedia. It has racist roots with respect to Mexican immigrants, and I would find it no more appropriate to use the derogatory term "spic" or "nigger" in an article title regardless of popular use in one or any particular country. Case closed. --Thoric 23:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

While the word may have been formed out of racist propaganda, there is no racist meaning to the word today. For example, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, marijuana is "the dried leaves and flowering tops of the pistillate hemp plant that yield THC" while the racist term nigger is "usually offensive; see usage paragraph below : a black person." Notice in the marijuana entry there is no mention of it being an offensive term. I highly doubt the government, news media, and researchers would all use a term deemed derogatory by a certain group; marijuana's origin is irrelevant. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 02:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We cannot dismiss such important history so quickly. While it may have been perfectly acceptable and commonplace to use the word nigger as recently as the first half of the 20th century, it is most certainly not acceptable today. Would you want to be remembered as arguing that "nigger" is a perfectable acceptable word to describe an African American person? Of course I realize that I am being a little extreme to push my point, but I truly believe that the word "marijuana" carries a lot of social-political baggage that may be viewed in a different light 30 years from now. The term "nigger" was deemed derogatory in the 1800s, yet was used by news media up until the 1940s or later. Origin is never irrelevant. We should use the word "marijuana" very sparingly, and only when appropriate. --Thoric 03:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

While you have a valid point regarding the usage of marijuana, you need to keep in mind that Wikipedia articles should follow and Manual of Style, which clearly states we should use marijuana and has no exception for terms that may be viewed as racist or derogatory in the future, but are presently not accepted as racist or derogatory terms. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 03:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've said above, this argument comes up again and again, and every time it is put to a proper vote, cannabis wins as the proper term by a wide margin. We argue this every few months. Cannot we make it officially noted in a central place (i.e. a drug project page) that "cannabis" is the official and proper term to use in article titles, and that having redirects from the "marijuana" versions of said articles to the "cannabis" version is perfectly acceptable? --Thoric 03:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Have these arguments focused on articles that are exclusively involving the United States? Please provide a link to these votes. Thank you. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 03:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the answer is to create a cannabis project, and yes this issue still needs sorting urgently asd these 2 articles are badly named, SqueakBox 22:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "create a cannabis project"? What is that? —User:Christopher Mann McKay 23:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Its a Wikipedia:WikiProject. Cannabis (drug) is a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants but IMO should now have its own project, which would be the ideal place to deal with issues like this, where a watchlist for all the cannabis articles (like this) can be created, etc, SqueakBox 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "the answer is to create a cannabis project", I doubt it will have any difference on the outcome of this decision. Just wait a few days and see what other editors have to say. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 23:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree it shouldnt be created solely as the way to resolve this problem but it strikes me as a very good idea and if it were created we could indeed decide on the marijiuana/cannabis issue as a whole. BTW I believe this issue first arose when cannabis was called marijuana and was the debate that cvaused the name to be changed to cannabis (cannabis (drug) didnt exist at that point, SqueakBox 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act Section 1. B: "The term 'marihuana' means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds, or resin- but shall not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination."

This is a government document that clearly adds to my point that marijuana is the acceptable term in the United States. Not only is it used in most every government document, but it is also defined in federal marijuana legislation. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 02:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I came here from WP:RM, and what an interesting debate! Thoric makes a provocative argument. It makes me think of words such as Tory, impressionist, cynic, Quaker, cowboy, Gothic architecture, Tar Heel and suffragette, that were all originally intended derisively - not racial insults, but insults nonetheless. A more relevant example might be Chicano, but its etymology seems too unclear to say for sure.

Despite its origins, I don't buy that marijuana is still a slang term. It's the common name of cannabis in American English. We don't say oak is "slang" for Quercus trees, but rather a common name. Common names aren't determined by an appeal to correctness, but by common usage.

On the other side of the coin, we don't refer to the Romani people as "Gypsies", nor to the Sami people as "Lapps". I'd say we could easily go with "marijuana" in a US focused article, except for the possible racism question. However, I don't think it's as open-and-shut and Thoric presents it.

It may be that "cannabis" will replace "marijuana" in professional discourse in the US, but I don't think Wikipedia's place is at the vanguard of that change. I think we should reflect the most common usage in authoritative sources on which the article is based. This would certainly allow a possibility that sources will be updated in the future with others, using different language. We can't really predict that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is we then have the majority of articles that call it cannabis and a few that call it marijuana. That kind of inconsistency is not good for the encyclopedia, SqueakBox 03:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't accept that as an absolute, but it's a factor. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"That kind of inconsistency is not good for the encyclopedia" Is this your opinion or is this an offical Wikipedia guideline? To my knowledge there is no offical WIkipedia policy regarding this, so it is irrelevant. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 04:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I wouldn't get too technical about it. Consistency is a desirable trait in an encyclopedia, and our mission is to be the best encyclopedia we can. The question is more whether we wish to be consistent about using US dialect in US articles, or consistent about always referring to the same plant (and/or drug) with the same word. Both would be desirable, but we can't have both, so which are we more willing to do without? It's a fair question. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"The question is more whether we wish to be consistent about using US dialect in US articles, or consistent about always referring to the same plant (and/or drug) with the same word." Then the answer is to use the U.S. dialect in the page title, since the MOS says to use U.S. dialect and the MOS says nothing about keeping page names of articles dealing with different dialects under the same universial word. I was not getting "technical about it", I was only pointing out if consistency in page titles is not a policy/guideline of wikipedia, then we should follow the guideline that wikipedia does have.—User:Christopher Mann McKay 06:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I understand your argument. One is mentioned in the MOS, and the other isn't. That does not, however, make one relevant and the other irrelevant. The fact that an argument isn't based in a written guideline doesn't invalidate it. It's better to consider ideas on merits than on whether or not they happen to be listed in a rule-book.

I'd prefer to see an argument that the encyclopedia is actually better for using "marijuana" instead of "cannabis" in this particular article. Arguing that it's better simply because it's a written rule isn't very satisfying. What if this is a case where that rule really shouldn't apply? How will we know unless we talk about it?

It does no harm to get behind the rules and talk about why they should or shouldn't apply, and it often helps. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

IMO it is much more important to have all the cannabis articles named cannabis than to stick to US word usage on those articles particularly relating to the US (though in practice all the cannabis articles use US spelling and grammar but still use the word cananbis. This was thoroughly discussed when mopving marijuana to cannabis and I certainly do not see how we can justify using marijuana based on an interpretation of policy, SqueakBox 16:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"this was thoroughly discussed when mopving marijuana to cannabis" if you are referring to the Cannabis (drug) dicussion, that was not about an article that was about the United States, so it is irrelevant; if you are not talking about the Cannabis (drug) dicussion, then please provide a link to this dicussion. "I certainly do not see how we can justify using marijuana based on an interpretation of policy" I certainly do don't see how we can justify using cannabis when there is no any policy or guideline, or consensus to support using cannabis over marijuana.—User:Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 17:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well other than your opposition there is clearly no problem using cannabis as that is what all the other articles use without any problem so to claim marijuana is demanded by policy is simply not true. As I said before our current policy of burying archive discussions doesnt facilitate this discussion (cannabis alone has 7 archives!). if we are serious about creating a good encyclopedia of course we should be consistent and use the word cannabis, which everyonne understands, rather than the word marijuana which is exclusive as a non slang term to North Americans, SqueakBox 17:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Well other than your opposition there is clearly no problem using cannabis as that is what all the other articles use without any problem so to claim marijuana is demanded by policy is simply not true" It is not demanded by policy, but by a guideline, the MOS. Below I have complied a summary of the views that were expressed in this dicussion, as clearly I am not the only opponent to moving the article and clearly you need to wait for more comments from editors before concluding "there is clearly no problem using cannabis".—User:Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 17:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in MoS that demands we uise marijuana in some articles and cannabis in others, that's for sure, and to claim that MoS demands we use the term marijuana (rathjer than saying you want to use the term) is OTT. If there had been a problem using cannabis the other articles would not stick to the name cannabis and whenever the debate came up before doubtless the cannabis argument would have been rejected instead of being accepted. Cannabis (drug) is not called marijuana and IMO nothing more needs to be said, SqueakBox 18:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"If there had been a problem using cannabis the other articles would not stick to the name cannabis and whenever the debate came up" There is only one article involving the United States and marijuana, Cannabis rescheduling in the United States, and it has not been the subject of any debating reagarding cannabis or marijuana as the proper term. Articles that decided to use cannabis over marijuana (like Cannabis (drug)) are not involving the U.S. and have no revelence to this debate; the MOS's guideline to use marijuana over cannabis is only true for articles about the United States, other articles should use cannabis. Is there something about this you do not understand? Because you keep using the "cannabis as that is what all the other articles use" argument and I have explained before that is not revelent to this debate. —User:Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 18:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that it's "not relevant". Something doesn't have to be written down in a guideline to be relevant. Things aren't justified by policies or guidelines, they're justified by reasons, and "where is it written?" isn't an argument against something. Unless you address the actual advantages or disadvantages of consistency, I can't see the "it's not a guideline" argument as anything other than bureaucratic.

On the other hand, SqueakBox seems to be ignoring our convention of using American dialect when writing about America. If you guys talk past each other, you won't find a consensus that way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely relevant because allt he articles are primarily about cannabis, whether or not they are specifically about the US is far less relevant than the fact that they are about cannabis, and to keep all the articles talking about the same thing is common sense. What exactly is your argument? SqueakBox 18:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My arguement is we should follow WP:MOS#National varieties of English, which says:

"If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect: Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country"

Marijuana has a much stronger tie to the United States than cannabis, as stated above.

"Articles should use the same spelling system and grammatical conventions throughout."

This is why I am against using cannabis in the title while using marijuana throughout the article.

"Try to find words that are common to all."

In American English dialect marijuana is the word that is common to all, not marijuana. On Google, which also searches non-American web sites, marijuana returns 2,900,000 more articles than cannabis (as of May 16) and the majority of the news media in the United States use the term marijuana (because it is common to all), as shown when you type in 'marijuana' in google news and you get 18,528 results and when you type in 'cannabis' you only get 2,879 results (as of May 16).

"If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article."

I am first major contributor, as I wrote 98% of this article and the two other articles that you feel should be moved (Decriminalization of marijuana in the United States & Places that have decriminalized marijuana in the United States) and I prefer to use marijuana.

—User:Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 19:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:OWN as they arent your articles. I am absolutely not disputing that this article should be written in American, just as Cannabis (drug) is written in American but holding to spelling and grammar conventions for the US does not mean we ahve to rename cannabis to amrijuana, indeed I would very strongly say we musnt use the word marijuana merely because an article follows US spelling. These artigcles are aboutr cannabis in the US bvut they are not written for US readers. According to your interpretation of MoS we should call Cannabis (drug) marijuana because the article is written in US English whereas I am arguing we should use one word for cananbis not two words, and that these articles are about cannabis much more than about the US, SqueakBox 19:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am very aware that this is not my "own" article, I never said it was; I was just saying the "spelling style preferred by the first major contributor" applies to my preferred spelling of the word. I know these articles are not written just for U.S. readers, but they should use the U.S. dialect, as that what the MOS says to do. As said before, people who are unfamiliar with the term marijuana, can read the second sentence of this article that reads "In the 1800s, marijuana (also referred to as cannabis)" to understand what marijuana means. Your basic argument is to ignore the MOS and I don't believe that is the correct thing to do. —User:Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 19:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"these articles are about cannabis much more than about the US" What are you talking about? This entire article is about marijuana laws in the United States; this article does not have information on international laws regarding marijuana or any other kind of information that is not involving the United States, only information about the U.S.; therefore, it classifies as having "a strong tie to a specific region" that region being the U.S. —User:Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 19:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And as I have made clear I have no objection to the US dialect and this is what the articles would do whether using marijuana or cannabis, eg Cannabis (drug). On the other hand it makes these articles look sloppy and unprofessional because allt eh articles need to be callaed cannabis, its not about what people understand as it is about having a style that fits all the articles and that makes wikipedia look professional. No other encyclopedia would dream of using two different words for the same substance and I suspect there is not one other example of where this happens on wikipedia either. We should either call all the articles marijuana (something rejected in the opast by the community) or all the articles cannabis and MoS does not contradict that basic common sense necessity, SqueakBox 19:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You have a valid point; however, as you know I am in disagreement because the MOS says "Articles should use the same spelling system and grammatical conventions throughout." Let's agree to disagree, stop arguing and hopefully after few days pass there will be some more editors who want to offer their input, so we can reach a decision. —User:Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 20:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

MoS

Says "Try to find words that are common to all." which cannabis is and marijuana isnt. Otherwise what is obvious to me is that MoS fails to address this issue, and it certainly cannot be used to justify this conflict, SqueakBox 19:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat confusing guidelines, as the guidelines also say "If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect." I interperted the meaning of "common to all" to apply to which word under American English dialect is common to all; for example marijuana is more common than ganja; however, this is only my interpretation, I am not asserting it is the correct interpretation. —User:Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 20:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this might clarify the "Try to find words that are common to all" issue. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names): "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things ... except [when using] National varieties of English"—User:Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 20:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Err, and isnt that common word cannabis and esp given that Cannabis (drug) which is in US English, calls it cannabis (while explaining that marijuana is an alterrnative word in the opening), SqueakBox 20:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As stated before mutliple times, marijuana is the common word in the U.S. Although, the Cannabis (drug) article is written in American English, it does not have a "strong tie to a specific region" (that region being the United States) and that is why it does not use the term marijuana; what happened on Cannabis (drug) is not relevent to this article; I have explained this before. —User:Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 20:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well we are agreed that we disagree (and are both coming from a good faith space) so lets hoppe we can get further input etc. For me the fact that the article is about cannabis is much more important than that it is about the United States and may well propose a change at MoS to reflect this, SqueakBox 20:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" this absolutely conflicts with the naming of other cannabis article. Marijuana as a aname promotes confusion whereas my cannabis proposal is aimed at avoiding confusion, SqueakBox 22:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The only article this conflicts with is Cannabis rescheduling in the United States —User:Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk}

I don't think it's fair to say that either title "promotes confusion". It's a pretty trivial matter, actually. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that there are conflicting guidelines without clear resolution. First and foremost, consistency is important to an encyclopedia, especially with respect to botanical names. It was clearly decided that "cannabis" was the most appropriate word to use to refer to what is also known as "marijuana", mainly because "marijuana" is primarily an American term, and also because "cannabis" is the actual name of the plant (whereas "marijuana" was originally a slang term of questionable origin). The manual of style primarily covers the aspect of using English (spelling and words) common to the region specific to the article, but that does not necessarily mean that the article title should break with established naming conventions. If you were to look at all Cannabis related articles within a central index or category, it would look out of place for some of them to use "cannabis" and others to use "marijuana". While the American government still uses the word "marijuana", I would not cite this as evidence that this is the proper American terminology for the reason being that it was the American government who purposefully chose to use this word as a deception of the American people back in the 1930s. Of course they are going to continue to push and support their agenda. Cannabis counter-culture within the United States and around the world use the word "cannabis", as do governments, scientific and medical institutions. The Canadian government also uses the word "cannabis" rather than "marijuana", and I feel that is significant as well. --Thoric 22:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Summary of views expressed

Support move

• "if we are serious about creating a good encyclopedia of course we should be consistent and use the word cannabis, which everyonne understands, rather than the word marijuana which is exclusive as a non slang term to North Americans" —SqueakBox

• "[marijuana] has racist roots with respect to Mexican immigrants, and I would find it no more appropriate to use the derogatory term 'spic' or 'nigger' in an article title regardless of popular use in one or any particular country. Case closed" —Thoric

• Support no need to play the race or nationalism card. "Cannabis" is simply more formal in tone (in the US or elsewhere), and for an encyclopedia, more formal is better, up until the point where it becomes distracting. --Trovatore 07:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • PS I am American. --Trovatore 08:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Against move

• "As these specific articles are about the United States, per WP:MOS#National varieties of English 'there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect.' It is my opinion that articles about the United States have a strong tie (stronger, in fact, than some of the examples in WP:MOS), that US dialect should be used - specifically, marijuana.—Hipocrite
• "Marijuana, not cannabis, is the term that has been used in ... Most all scientific reports in the United States ... The majority of the new media in the United States ... United States Government titles" —User:Christopher Mann McKay
• "With respect to the question of whether to use 'cannabis' or 'marijuana', I have reviewed the discussion at Talk:Cannabis, and agree that "cannabis" is the more internationally recognized term, so the article should stay there. For this article, however, because it is an article about decriminalization in the United States, the national preference ("marijuana") should be used, again with a clarification at the beginning of the article" —Ground Zero (Excerpt taken from Talk:Decriminalization of marijuana in the United States#Replace "marijuana" with "cannabis" throughout the article, as it directly relates to this article.)
• Oppose - cannabis is generally understood, in the U.S. at least, to be the scientific name of marijuana's genus. Most Americans would also recognize it as the scientific or legal jargon synonym for marijuana, but it is not the primary term. Since "cannabis" is the name of the drug in other countries, this comes down to a "which dialect was used first" question, which the MoS is very clear on - stay with the original. --Yath 03:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Undecided

• I'd say we could easily go with "marijuana" in a US focused article, except for the possible racism question. However, I don't think it's as open-and-shut and Thoric presents it. —GTBacchus

• • I am not sure about the rascism issue. I live in Central America and nobody here thinks marijuana is rascist and were surprised at me asking the question, SqueakBox 20:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Summary of arguments

Support move

• Popular, common, legal or even scientific/medical use of the word marijuana in the United States over the past 75 years does not make it the proper terminology, nor appropriate for use in Wikipedia. Marijuana has racist roots with respect to Mexican immigrants and should not be used.

• Cannabis is the term recognized internationally and marijuana is only used in North America; Marijuana in the article title may confuse non-North American readers.

• Excluding these three articles, all Wikipedia articles use the term cannabis (examples: Cannabis (drug), Cannabis rescheduling in the United States and we should have consistency.

Oppose move

According to: WP:MOS#National varieties of English:

• If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect: Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country (Marijuana in the common term in the U.S.)

• Articles should use the same spelling system and grammatical conventions throughout (Cannabis should not be in the title when marijuana is used throughout the article.)

• if all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor to the article. (Christopher Mann McKay is first major contributor, and wrote 98% of this article and the two other articles that have been proposed to be moved and he wants marijuana to be used in the title.)

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)

• Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things ... except [when using] National varieties of English.

Marijuana is the more widely used and accepted term in the United States

• Wikipedia:Search engine test
  • On Google, which also searches non-American web sites, marijuana returns 2,900,000 more articles than cannabis (as of May 16)
  • On Google news, marijuana returns 18,528 articles, but cannabis only reterns 2,879 articles (as of May 16).

• Marijuana is the term that has been used in most all scientific reports in the United States and in United States Government titles such as, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, and most every publication from the DEA regarding marijuana.

Prevent confusion

• "The second sentence of this article reads In the 1800s, marijuana (also referred to as cannabis)...' to clarify what marijuana is for non-North American readers.

Marijuana will confuse non-North American readers? Tell me another. British dictionaries list it without comment,[5] [6] [7]; it occurs 137 times in the British National Corpus, and it's widely used in Spanish, Italian, etc. Note, however, that "spelling system and grammatical conventions" have nothing to do with the marijuana vs. cannabis issue, which concerns vocabulary. —^Jack_Lumber ^/tɔk/ 22:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither title is likely to confuse anybody, as far as I can tell. This is a fairly minor aesthetic choice with very little practical upshot in either direction. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Additional comments on requested move

(The previous move dicussion is archived; place any comments under this section)

Proposed page move: Legal history of marijuana in the United States → Legal history of cannabis in the United States

• Support for all the reasons mentioned including the more formal/scientific/universal term and consistency. Perhaps, with a redirect from "Legal history of marijuana in the United States." Ursasapien 05:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Jack Herer's conspiracy theory about DuPoint

From the invention of plastic based in coal or oil plastic was a comercial success. The simple reason for this was that coal and oil was cheap. There was no shortage of oil and coal for plastic in 1936. Hemp was a much more expensive than oil or coal as a raw material. But the present text assumes that hemp was a competitive alternative in that time. What happened with hemp in the countries where it was legal to grow hemp for fibers. Nothing. Plasic was a comercial success also in those countries. Jack Herer's conspiracy theory is a imaginative product of Jack Herer but it is just imagination Dala11a 21:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The text does not assume hemp was a competitive alternative in that time, but rather states "if hemp would have been largely exploited, it would have likely been used to make paper and plastic." Prior to the Marihuana Tax Act, hemp paper was widely used in the U.S., but hemp plastic was not used because the process for creating hemp plastic was not fully developed and exploited prior to the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act. Present day, hemp is used to make paper and plastic in countries where it is legal to grow commercially. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 22:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"the process for creating hemp plastic was not fully developed". Yes, and a competitive solution was not in the pipe line in the next year or the next decades in any country. I do no find any hemp plastic products i the super market where I live 60 years later. So what is relevant for Wikipedia? The theory could be an article but not as a true story but as a good example of a popular myth.¨18:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dala11a (talk • contribs)

I am going to research congressional records and see if I can come up with some of the quotes Jack Herer uses in his book. If the racist remarks said about cannabis are true, it needs to become public knowledge.

--The Pot Snob 23:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

UN an US worked together to outlaw Cannabis around the world

I think is important to mention a section about the United Nations, and its work with the United states and many other European countries to effectively outlaw cannabis around the world. The Act passed in the UN in 1971 should be referenced and documented. Also perhaps a comparison with the United States Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Then we should document when cannabis was illegalized in international locations and see if there is any correlation, and present the data for people studying the international state of marijuana.

Anyone discussing the international state of cannabis in international governements, will have to look at the US law, because it is the main factor in so many others instituting the same law.

Anyone let me know if you agree with this concept, because a short legal international history of cannabis can be drawn from the US involvement in the UN. It does not have to be long, because it will just take the Act and a few other references to draw up the clear picture on why marijuana has been illegalized all over the world, even though it often goes unenforced.

--The Pot Snob 21:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Summary" not equal to text

The article has a very long summary in the beginning. The text in the summary is not a summary of the the following text, it is an article partly in conflict with the text below. The text below has references, the "summary" has no references. The solution must bee to have a very shorter summary without ambition to explain a long and complex story in just a few lines. 22:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Dala11a

What part of the lead section "is not a summary of the the following text." Can you be more specific? Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 22:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Solomon-Lautenberg amendment

We should mention the Solomon-Lautenberg amendment somewhere... not sure where is the appropriate place... Captain Zyrain 18:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Quote

I removed the following text:

Harry J. Anslinger, the nation's first Drug Czar, publicly spoke about marijuana's effects; for example, Anslinger claimed, "[African American]s' satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others"

The reason is the source, which doesn't seem very reliable as a primary source for such a damning quote. Is it possible to track down the actual source? -Kris Schnee (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

High Times is a reliable source according to WP:RS and WP:V. I reverted the removal of the quote. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Where does the quote come from, though? I've examined the article and it gives the quote (and an even nastier one) without attribution. I'm reminded of one of WP's articles on global warming, where there was a quote from someone important saying "even if global warming is false, we should tell people it's real." The quote was removed because no one could trace it to anything more reliable than a single book denouncing global-warming theory. Here, a pro-marijuana magazine article seems to be the only source given.

Looking up what's supposedly the documentation of the 1937 drug law hearings is more useful. These two links ([8] and [9]) quote Anslinger and attribute the words to his speech in a hearing on the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. This site ("Hearings On H.R. 6385") has what are apparently transcripts of this and other hearings. The key document, a transcript of Anslinger's statements on HR 6385, is at [10]. This transcript does not contain the quote in question. Nor can I find it elsewhere in that set of documents, although there are similarly racist remarks made by other people. In summary I see that "people say" Anslinger said that in a hearing, but see no evidence of it in the transcripts. -Kris Schnee (talk) 07:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Compare with this from Anslingers book The Protectors from 1964, chapter Jazz and junk don't mix: "Jazz entertainers are neither fish nor fowl. They do not get the million-dollar protection Hollywood and Broadway can afford for their stars who have become addicted - and there are many more than will ever be revealed. Perhaps this is because jazz, once considered a decadent kind of music, has only token respectability. Jazz grow up next door to crime, so to speak. Clubs of dubious reputation were, for a long time, the only places where it could be heard. But the times bring changes an as Billy Holiday was a victim of time and change, so too was Charlie Parker, a man whose music, like Billie's is still widely imitated. Most musicians credit Parker among others as spearheading what is called modern jazz."( p.157) The quote need another reference or it should be removed --Dala11a (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

1700s and 1800

I deleted most of the text for several reasons. 1) I was not about the years before 1900. 2)The quatation is included in hemp. 3) The technology in wood pulp and paper industry has developed a lot since 1916. 4) Most of it is not true today and a big part of it was not true in 1937, read the article about hemp. Some people believe that the earth is flat and some people believe that pulp hemp could have been a strong competitor in the 1930s to plastic from oil and wood pulp. I shake my head.The long-term price on oil and pulpwood was quite simply to low. Dala11a 20:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)~

I entered this text "One group that absolutely did not shared the believe on a big future for hemp was the professional investors in the pulp and paper industry. The long term cost per ton for pulpwood supplied to a plant was so much lower than the same price for hemp. Pulpwood was, and still is, a low priced by-product of timber in the forest industry." and user Christopher Mann McKay revert it. Why ? User Christopher Man must explain why he delete. Dala11a 02:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dala11a (talk • contribs)

The same amount of hemp per acre can make 4 times as much paper as pine trees can. I beileve hemp became a controlled substance before marijuana was ever controlled due to its multitude of uses and for fear that it would out-do pine trees and tobacco as cash crops. Why isn't this mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.185.73 (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Legalization Status

What is the legalization status of marijuana in California? Do you think marijuana will be legalized?--Jessickuhh (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"U.S. founding fathers who cultivated cannabis"

As accurate as this may be, it seems a little over-the-top, as if it appealing to patriotism in attempt to sway opinion on marijuana. 68.197.187.215 (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. These statements and images seem to have little relevance and I may remove them unless someone can come up with a very good reason they should stay.Danny (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The United States

Why are links to the United States being removed. People need to be able to knopw where this country and something about it. l;eaving our readers deliberatley confused about which country we are dealing with makes no sense, SqueakBox 22:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You wrote "United States states" and I replaced it with "states" because this article is about the United States, why would it be referring to the legal status of marijuana in states of a different county? If you were wondering you could just click the "states" link and be directed to the U.S. state article... The title has United States link now, so I don't think it an issue anymore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Christopher Mann McKay (talk • contribs) 23:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Indeed not, SqueakBox 23:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

BARACK OBAMA LEGALIZED MARIJUANA ON JANUARY 22, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.210.146.34 (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

While this isn't worth making a huge fuss about, quite frankly I don't see much point in linking to the United States article in the first sentence. As a rule of thumb, extremely specific articles should not link to extremely general ones. Very few readers will not have heard of the United States. The fact that a reader is looking up the US legal history relating to marijuana does not make it particularly more likely that the same reader wants to know that the US is a federal constitutional republic, how many states there are, or where the US is located. --Trovatore 21:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We dont know not most readers know about the US. We would link it with every other country and we shouldnt make an exception for the US, SqueakBox 21:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any guideline that extremely specific articles should not link to extremely general ones. This is done throughout Wikipedia. Alive and living 21:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Narcotics Control Act

links to a page about canadian lawSerialjoepsycho (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Some asshole

I don't know how to fix it, but the reference that says "# ^ Supreme Court / Marijuana / Busing / Speedy Trial NBC News broadcast from the Vanderbilt Television News Archive" was pointing to some jackhole's 'you've been hacked' website which likely contains spyware so be careful when verifying this. 24.27.74.131 (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Medical use before 1937

For 60 years Cannabis was one of the main medicines in the united states were indian hemp extracts. An image of one of these is in the wiki but no information on the medical use, mode or any figures of how widespread/often/how much was used. The emperor wears no clothes states that during those 60 years it was always in the top 3 medicines being used, and also that very large doses where normal proscribed to be taken orally. I think that it is important to note the common medical usage to understand how marijuana "something the Mexicans where smoking" that most Americans didn't connect the two thus giving up their right to a potent medicine. Anyways on a medical and legal note in 1937 3000 doctors where prosecuted for proscribing these medicines in Anslinger's persecution of the AMA for taking a stance against him, and the following 10 years only 3.

quoted text from The Emperor wears no clothes by Jack Herr "Anslinger's FBN was responsible for prosecuting doctors who prescribed narcotic drugs for what he, Anslinger, deemed illegal purposes, they (the FBN) had prosecuted more than 3,000 AMA doctors for illegal prescriptions through 1939. In 1939, the AMA made specific peace with Anslinger on marijuana. The results: only three doctors were prosecuted for illegal drugs of any sort from 1939 to 1949." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.117.158 (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Too much Jack Herer

There are many cites to Jack Herer in this article. Over at Hemp, most of the Herer material was eventually removed as unverifiable. Several Herer claims are known to be false (Declaration of Independence written on hemp paper, hemp used for US currency, hemp used in early Levi's jeans.) See [11]. --John Nagle (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed some more Jack Herer stuff. He's self-published, not a reliable source, and some of his claims are known to be false. --John Nagle (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Legal history of cannabis in the United States/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Thank you for nominating this article. I enjoyed it. Please fix disamb. links for Jamestown and Newark. Fn 17 is a dead link.

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   "relates to the lawfulness of marijuana use"->"relates to the regulation of marijuana use" - less POV and more accurate

   "Prohibitions of Cannabis"->"Prohibitions on the use of Cannabis"

   "reschedule cannabis have failed and the United"->"reschedule cannabis under the Act have failed, and the United"

   "state by laws instituted through the"->"state by laws adopting the" - "uniform laws" are model laws that a state can adopt or a state can adopt a law on the same subject that is different from a uniform act. It is a decision made by every state legislature.

   "ban trade with fibers"->"ban trade in fibers"

   Please reword "As a result of the Uniform State Narcotic Act the Federal Bureau of Narcotics encouraged state governments to adopt it." - two separate ideas. First, that a expert panel drafted a model Uniform State Narcotic Act and second that the Fed government recommended that states adopt the uniform act. Avoid implication of cause and effect.

   "push to outlaw all drugs."->"push to outlaw all recreational drugs." ???

   quote template broken?

   "was based on hearings[24] reports.[25]"->"was based on hearings[24] and reports.[25]"

   "1989 and are fast growing in number."->"1989 and have spread since." - subjective as to rate of growth. Do you count courts or population affected by those courts as a measure?

   "in lieu of serving a jail sentence."->"a conventional criminal court with the possibility of serving a jail sentence." - parallel

• Done. CrowzRSA 23:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Need more accessdates

   I had to fix a few refs, but I think they're good now (accessdates aren't required if there is a date available per Wikipedia:CITEHOW). CrowzRSA 23:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   What role has NORML played in lobbying for legal reform?

   Benefit of a drug court is the rehabilitated offender does not have a criminal record.

   Any statistics as to the number of criminal marijuana prosecutions per year or the cost of incarcerations?

   There is a statistic on arrests from 1965 to 2009

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars.

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing the article on hold so that you may address the above noted concerns. Racepacket (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

June 13 reading

Thank you for your recent changes in response to the review. The article no longer has disamb. or invalid external links. We still have a few concerns, which were raised above.

• Please summarize Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States#Advocacy in a paragraph for this article.
• "Offenders will have to plead guilty to the charge"->"To enter this program, offenders are required to plead guilty to the charge"
• Consider adding to the Drug Court section that some Drug Court programs leave the offender with an expunged criminal record. Racepacket (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• I am still unclear about this sentence in the lead paragraph, "were regulated as a drug in every state by laws adopting the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act.[1]" The source says, "By 1937 every state had enacted some form of legislation relating to marijuana, and thirty-five had enacted the Uniform Act.43" - so although every state outlawed marijuana, only 35 out of 48 laws adopted the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act. How about rephrasing it: "were regulated as a drug in every state, including in 35 states that adopted the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act.[1]"

The above concerns are still present in the article. Thank you for your hard work. Racepacket (talk) 06:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to add the bit about the expungement as the nominator is more familiar with the subject than I, perhaps he can consider it on his return.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Wehwalt for stepping in, and congratulations to all on another Good Article. Racepacket (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Early history = unencyclopedic mess.

Other than the fact that all settlers were required to grow hemp, it's just a random assortment of all the things hemp could be used for, which then proceeds to duplicate events from further down. It's a sentence worth of material, puffed out with trivia that reads like a paragraph lifted from a legalization argument. There's not even a mention of recreational, medicinal, spiritual, or alimentary use, which all seem important, especially the first three since hemp fabric and foodstuffs, unlike psychoactive preparations, remain legal to import. I've removed all but the first two sentences (in-depth discussion of uses of hemp is an extreme digression), but there's got to be more to say here. Twin Bird (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Was that material in there when it passed GAN? Chaosdruid (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. However, it's such a small part of the article that I expect it would have been passed over fairly easily. Still, especially now that there's a separate section for the late 19th century, the "early history" section doesn't need a retread of criminalization in the early 20th, nor does it need an explanation of all the uses for hemp fabric. Hemp has been a common fabric and rope fiber since antiquity, as it remains, even in the United States where the fibers must be imported. This has nothing to do with its legality. Also, a stylistic edit I made was undone by User:Brianshapiro, I suspect by accident since he says nothing about it; I'm putting it back since I don't think the reader needs to be reminded at every turn that hemp is a form of cannabis, and I doubt that George Washington only grew it in the year 1797. Twin Bird (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Marijuana Tax Act"

Wasn't the act spelled Marihuana? Oh wait, it most definitely was -- there is even an article on it already so readers don't have to see a red link that resulted from someone thinking they were fixing a spelling error... Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 --NBMATT (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Links are fixed, but until there's a proper debate, I've kept the spelling with the "j", even though the actual act uses an "h". --James Duggan 18:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

References

^ "Marihuana Conference HELD DECEMBER 5, 1938, in the UNITED STATES Bureau of Internal Revenue". Gametec.com. Retrieved 2011-03-09.

Just FYI, I am the one who originally went to all the work to put this online -- laboriously hand-typing the whole thing. You can find the original at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/1938_mhc.htm and under http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/taxact.htm

I would appreciate the courtesy of correcting the link to the person who actually did the work. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.118.114.230 (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Reference #5 is a broken link, and should reference Bulletin #98 (which appears to have been published as part of a compendium of Bulletins 96-99). The full text, at page 96 of 883 using the Google pagination, is at: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=7KdUAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&authuser=0&hl=en&pg=GBS.RA2-PA1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.110.102 (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hemp for Victory

This article seems to leave out the reinstatement of Hemp in the agricultural industry during World War II. I would be more than happy to create a small entry for it soon, but for now I just wanted to bring it to the attention of those who are active on this page. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelbernardy (talk • contribs) 03:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The cultivation of Hemp during World War II was done without any change of the laws. The administration issued more licenses and that was possible with the law from 1936. Dala11a (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Controlled Substances Act

I added a subsection on the Controlled Substances Act, moving some text from the 1937 Marihuana Act. The CSA could use more info though, especially since it is the most important piece of narcotics legislation in current US law. Looking at the legal history a minute ago, the CSA would have barely registered, even though it is central to the past 40 years of marijuana-related law. Mxheil (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Non-medical use: Image, Color scheme needs to be changed.

The file was "reverted" 4 June. SOFIXIT. 129.97.58.107 (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced Claim in Lede

The lede to the article as currently written claims that "Regulation of Cannabis sativa began as early as 1619." What is the source of this obscure claim? The New England colonies whose legal history is continuous with "the United States" weren't around in 1619. Was it regulated in Spanish or French colonies? However this question is answered, it isn't clear that the claim helps the content of the article remain consistent with the title of the article, which is "...in the United States." It isn't a general history of regulation of Cannabis Sativa. Or is it? Matthew Baldwin (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

→apologies, I see the claim relates to Virginia, and a decree of King James dated 1619, and is sourced to Robert Deitch's book, in the first section of the main article. I could dispute, however, the claim that England's law imposing obligations on a colony to grow hemp represent "legal regulation of cannabis in the United States."Matthew Baldwin (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Poisoned cannabis

I removed this content from the section Strengthening of poison laws (1906-1938):

with potential to be poisoned along with alcohol, probably in response to the proliferation of dirty moonshine in post-prohibition America

• I was unable to find anything in the cited source to support the idea that cannabis might be poisoned, although it does mention that it was included in the scope of poison laws and was therefore presumably considered a poison itself.

• There is nothing in the source about alcohol whatsoever, and so the speculation about dirty moonshine needs to be taken out. The fact that alcohol itself is toxic even in small amounts renders its inclusion in poison laws completely logical on its face and the dirty moonshine comment appears to be original research (since it is not in the source). In any case, the article is about cannabis, not alcohol, so we can avoid this particular controversy completely by simply omitting reference to alcohol altogether.

I welcome feedback, especially if anybody has additional source material. Dusty|💬|You can help! 17:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Legal history of cannabis in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121110113439/http://www.sfgate.com:80/business/bloomberg/article/Washington-Colorado-Allow-Recreational-Use-of-4016776.php to http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Washington-Colorado-Allow-Recreational-Use-of-4016776.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Indian Hemp

"Indian Hemp" is another species entirely. I think this article may be confounding the two plants. For example, was Washington really planting marijuana? or was it the medicinal plant Indian hemp, which is native to North America? I can't tell from this discussion. I think this needs to be clarified and corrected if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eperotao (talk • contribs) 18:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

As many references will attest, hemp, marijuana, and cannabis are different names for the same plant, Cannabis sativa. That should be made clearer in the entry. Nicmart (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Harry Anslinger - Department of Prohibition 1929

Interesting, but can not verify the facts as to just how much influence Harry and his promotion of the story of Victor Licata had.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-influence/real-reasons-marijuana-is-banned_b_9210248.html?pbx=25&te=Upworthy

60.242.247.177 (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Grammar in Marijuana Tax Act

The Marijuana Tax Act section contains quite a bit of garbled English, especially the "The company DuPont..." paragraph. Most of this problematic prose seems to be the work of user Dala11a. I feel that any further edits by him/her should be double-checked for grammatical errors. 38.106.100.57 (talk) 04:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Completed, thanks to User:Wordsforthewise. Thanks! 38.106.100.57 (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Habituation

I note the use of habituation/habituate in the article. Is it used correctly? Habituation technically does not mean addiction or forming a habit, it refers to getting used to something or accustomed to it. It is like a rat running across the room, & you jump & scream. Yet if this happens over & over day after day, your emotional response diminishes eventually to the point where you shrug & say, "There goes the rat again." At that point, you are habituated to the rat. If the secondary source uses the word the wrong way, it would tend to support the POV that the secondary source is not a reliable source. (PeacePeace (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC))

I think I agree that it is not a modern use of "habituation"; however, it's a 1914 source so it may have been used differently then. Can you suggest a re-wording of the passage in question? - Brianhe (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Medical / recreational cannabis

The Medical Cannabis section is very short compared to other sections. This section should include more information regarding the legal status of medical cannabis and what it is used for. A short overview of each medical use would be sufficient as this page can always link back to the main Medical cannabis wiki article. Should also cover pharmaceutical cards given to buy medical cannabis.

When it comes to non-medical cannabis, this article should cover on more of the negative externalities it generates . The article should include information regarding the black market that has been created for recreational cannabis and the lack of quality control it leads to. Should also talk more in depth of all the money/resources being wasted on keeping people in prison for non-violent offenses such as selling or possessing cannabis.

Some of the sources are also very "pro-weed" and should be looked into.

Yesenia.h.97 (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You have some valid points, let me just address one. I see that the article cites NORML three times out of 130+ sources and dankweed.com, cited once, probably isn't a good citation for anything. Other than that, everything looks pretty neutral: the majority of the article is cited to major news sources, scholarly books, and government web sites. What do you feel is too "pro"? - Brianhe (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Racism

I think the article should say that not only Mexicans brought marijuana to the U.S.

but also black people (most of the jazz musicians), and quote Anslinger where he

says that Mexicans and black turned into killer when smoke marijuana.

Racism took place in the prohibition of cannabis, and the article doesn't say too much about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.98.56 (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, I din't get your name.

But If you- or anyone- will provide this "Anslinger quote" -

"where he says that Mexicans and black turned into killer when smoke marijuana"

that is prob'ly something I can add to the article w/out attracting the usual emo 'colorblind' denials supporting racism. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 17:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

After reading other material before this wikipedia article, I was amazed that the indications of racist origins of the proscriptions was largely ignored. example: http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/ Qureus1 (talk) 06:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And this sentence from <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis#Recreational_use> implies racism is somehow not even an issue.

YET THIS SAME SENTENCE PROVES THE RACISM - by acknowledging the legal intent extends to "eastern immigrant" hashish users :

--"Because of that, the passage of the initial laws is often described as a product of racism,

"yet use of hashish by near eastern immigrants were also cited, as well as the misuse of pharmaceutical hemp, and

"the laws conformed with other legislation that was being passed around the country.

"Mexico itself had passed prohibition in 1925, following the International Opium Convention" (see below).[link to reference #23 re: Mexico's legal suppression of 'Marijuana' ]

We live in denial. What the article needs now is references, academic publications, etc. making the clear and strong case for race . Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 17:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

--

Economic Research

There have been multiple programs that were designated to research any health or social costs for the use of marijuana. In 2000, a research experiment started by policy makers launched the Cannabis Youth Treatment where the main focus was to study adolescents use of cannabis compared to adults to see if there was a significant difference between health costs and benefits. This experiment looked at all angles of the issue, by attracting young users and giving them treatment including interventions for the drug users, health insurance and services provided if any adolescents has suffered any drug abuse in order to find what could be the main costs for them.. Though even with as much research contributed to find any issues with the drug, most of these programs have not found much evidence of marijuana's economic costs outweighing benefits in the U.S. So far it only appears that the legalization of marijuana has not been major threat to the economy, but large increases in costs come from enforcement for strict control over the drug. Rpizano9 (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Legal history of cannabis in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deamuseum.org/dea_history_book/1970_1975.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080622214536/http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/history/1985-1990.html to http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/history/1985-1990.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017021537/http://prohibitioncosts.org:80/endorsers.html to http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/endorsers.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140918141353/http://www.huffingtonpost.com:80/2014/09/16/house-no-welfare-for-weed_n_5833148.html to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/16/house-no-welfare-for-weed_n_5833148.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718081143/http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/MironReport.pdf to http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/MironReport.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

hemp decorticator had been already invented by the 1916 (?)

Hi there, folks

In "Marihuana Tax Act (1937)" there is a speculation about hemp decorticator invention (probably claiming it was around 1936) and it's connection to marihuana prohibition: "They argue that with the invention of the decorticator hemp became a very cheap substitute for the wood pulp that was used in the newspaper industry."

Though we have that sentence in the article about decorticator itself: "Misconceptions spread about the device includes the suggestion that the first working hemp decorticator was invented in the United States in 1935. In 1916, there were already five different kinds of "machine brakes" for hemp in use in the United States, and still others in Europe.[4]" And a paper from 1916: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17855/17855-h/17855-h.htm

Would that be reasonable to discard that speculation at all or am I missing something?

Thank you,

Igenno (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It is my impression that, while a great work for advocacy, Jack Herer's non-academic writings have seeded a bunch of ahisotrical and conspiratorial beliefs about cannabis, particularly the "Dupont/Hearst wanted to get rid of competition" that has since been debunked by scholars. This article needs a good combing to remove incorrect pop-cultural beliefs about cannabis history. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Added the following sentence: "Moreover, by the year 1916 there were at least five "machine brakes" for hemp and it is unlikely that in 1930s hemp became a new threat for newspapers owners." Hope it will add a little clarification to the fact that hemp decorticator could not be the problem for Hearst in 1936/7. Igenno (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Legal history of cannabis in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130713184209/http://www.hempfood.com/iha/iha01213.html to http://www.hempfood.com/iha/iha01213.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080617044034/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003118645_webpot10.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003118645_webpot10.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070606042550/http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/gov_johnson2.cfm to http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/gov_johnson2.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150801064052/http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/16/tribe-bets-on-legal-pot to http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/16/tribe-bets-on-legal-pot
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/16/house-no-welfare-for-weed_n_5833148.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718081143/http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/MironReport.pdf to http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/MironReport.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Legal history of cannabis in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430032241/http://matters.ecnp.nl/number11/interview2.shtml to http://matters.ecnp.nl/number11/interview2.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080605031828/http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/election2004/archives/2004/11/proposition_z_w.html to http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/election2004/archives/2004/11/proposition_z_w.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504073007/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=11001-12000&file=11357-11362.9 to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=11001-12000&file=11357-11362.9
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504073007/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=11001-12000&file=11357-11362.9 to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=11001-12000&file=11357-11362.9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Legal history of cannabis in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040721202601/http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/politics/judbranc/ovrweb03.pdf to http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/politics/judbranc/ovrweb03.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111129161611/http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/51/51.F3d.269.94-5711.html to http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/51/51.F3d.269.94-5711.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Article needs some cleaning up

So, I took the time to read through this article recently... and have some improvements to suggest. First thing I noticed is that "State-level decriminalization (1973–1978)" and "Compassionate Use Act of 1996" are listed under "Criminalization (1900s)", which doesn't make any sense. I was thinking "State-level decriminalization (1973–1978)" can just be deleted, because it is very short and already covered with more detail under "Efforts to decriminalize (1970s–) / Non-medical use". "Compassionate Use Act of 1996" can then be moved under "Efforts to decriminalize (1970s–) / Medical use". So those are two quick easy fixes that can be made.

A few other portions of the article could also be trimmed out. I already went ahead and removed the "Crime" section along with a chunk from "Non-medical use", because the material pertained to very detailed and obsolete info about California and Oregon state cannabis penalties, and seemed like a no-brainer to get rid of. "Advocacy" I'm thinking should also be removed. The article, as indicated by the title, is supposed to be about legal history / legislation. People / groups that support cannabis reform does not fit this criteria. Furthermore, we already have advocacy sections on Cannabis in the United States, Medical cannabis in the United States, and Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States, so there is really no need to have another one here when it barely fits the scope of the article. "Drug courts" could also perhaps be gotten rid of under this criteria, although that one seems more borderline to me.

Another thing that could be done is getting rid of the federal bills that were introduced but never became law, under the section "Federal reform efforts (2013– )". There have been a ton of cannabis bills that have been introduced over the years, but to list them all here would be silly. Similarly, it doesn't make much sense to list just a few of them either. I think a good rule for this article is: if it becomes law, then it is notable. If it doesn't become law, or hasn't become law yet, then it is not notable. The article, as indicated by the title, is supposed to be about "history" anyways, so legislation that might become law in the future does not fit. Of the legislation listed in the section, only Rohrabacher–Farr amendment became law, so I'm thinking delete the whole section and move Rohrabacher–Farr somewhere else.

I'd like to go ahead and implement these changes sometime soon, but wanted to give a heads-up here first. After making these changes, there is still some reorganization that probably could be done, but that can be dealt with later.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Maps

Regarding the two maps recently added to the article, there's two points I'd like to make. The first is that the bottom map contains all the information that the top map does, so the top map (medical-only) should be removed as it is completely duplicative. The second point is that I think the article is better off without either of the maps. The article is supposed to be about the history of U.S. cannabis laws, so a map of current U.S. cannabis laws is not very relevant to the article's topic. The map seems especially unnecessary considering that it is used in all of the other 6 main articles covering U.S. cannabis policy (Cannabis in the United States, Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction, Medical cannabis in the United States, Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States, Timeline of cannabis laws in the United States, and Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act). Including it here as well, when it is barely relevant to the scope of this article, seems like overkill. So I plan on removing it and wanted to give a heads up here.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed and done. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Intro section

Since the intro is only supposed to summarize the main points of the article, does the paragraph about whether cannabis is a narcotic really fit? Seems like a rather minor technical detail so I'm thinking it should probably be removed. It also contains no citations, and the statement about cannabis not being sleep-inducing seems questionable. I would say that cannabis actually does induce sleep, particularly certain strains such as indica.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Not (in the etymological sense) a narcotic?

Medically, cannabis does not have a narcotic (i.e., sleep-inducing) property.

Uh... doesn't it? I'm pretty sure one of the conditions it's approved for is insomnia, to the extent I've often worried about the social acceptability of this vis-à-vis the memetically foolish practice of smoking tobacco cigarettes - a stimulant - in bed. Of course, the plural of anecdote is not data, but there's no citation for this particular factoid. I understand "narcotic" and "opioid" are roughly synonyms in medicine (though not in law) today, but this sentence goes out of its way to use the etymological sense of a soporific, which in many jurisdictions may be the only one marijuana does meet. Twin Bird (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Cannabis is a stimulant. It's only the come-down which makes people feel tired, like amphetamines. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, the article says that THC (only one of the many active components of cannabis) has a "stimulant effect" – but that it also acts as a depressant as well. So I don't consider the article to be conclusive, and I have never heard of cannabis being classified as a stimulant before. Regardless – per my overlooked post one section above, the point still stands that this is not material that should be included in the intro section.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hearst vs. hemp - bogus?

The claim that William Randolph Hearst had an anti-hemp program because of his "significant interests in the timber industry, which manufactured his newsprint paper" may be bogus. Is there a reliable source for this? Such statements appear on various blogs, and in material from pot activists like Jack Herer, but a reliable source is hard to find. References to the "Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division of Kimberly Clark" show up in activist material only, while Kimberly Clark history shows their newsprint operation as a joint venture with the New York Times, which was not a Hearst paper. The Times was their only newsprint customer.[12] --John Nagle (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless somebody comes up with a reference to a reliable source soon, I'm going to delete the Hearst material. --John Nagle (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. --John Nagle (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? It is certainly not bogus... What ever gave you this idea? Hearst owned a vast network newpapers and news outlets, all of which published "Yellow Journalism", demonizing "marihuana", in a deliberate attempt to confuse the public in regards to the difference between industrial hemp and marijuana. He also lobbied Congress heavily to pass prohibition laws along with DuPont. This is all documented. An example of something appearing in a nationwide column in Hearst papers: "Users of marijuana become STIMULATED as they inhale the drug and are LIKELY TO DO ANYTHING. Most crimes of violence in this section, especially in country districts are laid to users of that drug.” “Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim’s life in Los Angeles?… THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES — that is a matter of cold record." Yonskii (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Addition info and evidence- "Among the most effective proponents of the Uniform Act was the Hearst newspaper chain. These papers began editorializing in favor of enactment within days after the [Marihuana Tax] Act had been approved in 1932." - Charles H. Whitebread, 11, and Richard J. Bonnie (1972). "The Marihuana Consensus: A History of American Marihuana Prohibition". University of Virginia Law School. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) "A great deal of public interest has been aroused by newspaper articles appearing from time to time on the evils of the abuse of marihuana, or Indian hemp, and more attention has been focused upon specific cases reported of the abuse of the drug than would otherwise have been the case. This publicity tends to magnify the extent of the evil and lends color to an inference that there is an alarming spread of the improper use of the drug, whereas the actual increase in such use may not have been inordinately large." - "The History of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937". Yale University. 1972. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "author-David Musto" ignored (help)Yonskii (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Whitebread himself didn't agree with the Hearst-DuPont idea. See his speech at For one thing, he says, it doesn't explain the 30 states that outlawed marijuana before Anslinger came to the FBN. There are lots of other good reasons to doubt it, too. There was no particular reason for any industrialist to consider it a threat because it was a rapidly fading crop at the time. See the report of the 1934 hemp crop at Also, on the same page, see the testimony of the representatives of the hemp industry during the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act. The hemp farmers didn't really object to marijuana prohibition because they weren't making any money on hemp, anyway.

DuPont wouldn't have really cared because nylon has lots of applications that hemp doesn't, and the DuPonts made their fortune selling explosives, anyway. You can find a longer discussion of reasons why it wouldn't be true at Jack Herer (RIP) was a great guy, and I appeared with him at public events many times. But he was a better story teller than an academic historian. 64.118.114.230 (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

References

I'm guessing that George Soros wasn't around yet to get blamed for this as well. Who are these "scholars", and how is "purportedly" and "may" in a source sufficient to use it as a reference (Earlywine)? How is "If an alternative raw material for paper had emerged, it would have lowered the price of the paper needed to print Hearst's many newspapers—a positive thing for Hearst." a motivation for Hearst to demonise hemp instead of promoting it? The decorticator was not a new invention at all, and where is the evidence on the actually achievable cost difference? And mainly, why would Hearst have had to have a financial motivation instead of simply being against it because it was associated with Mexican immigration? I'm calling bogus, this should not be in Wikipedia without credible supporting evidence. — RFST (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Article is light on racism and early cannabis prohibition laws

People with more time than me might incorporate some of the info from these articles, and their supporting references:

• Library of Congress highlights racist origins of cannabis prohibition. June 17, 2020. By Tom Angell. Marijuana Moment.
• The Surprising Link Between U.S. Marijuana Law and the History of Immigration. Time magazine. By Olivia B. Waxman. April 19-20, 2019.
• Why Is Marijuana Illegal in the U.S.? By Amy Tikkanen. Encyclopædia Britannica.
• Google search: Racism and drug war.

I may add more articles as I find them.

From this version of Harry J. Anslinger:

In the 1930s Anslinger's articles often contained racist themes in his anti-marijuana campaign: Colored students at the Univ. of Minn. partying with (white) female students, smoking [marijuana] and getting their sympathy with stories of racial persecution. Result: pregnancy. Two Negros took a girl fourteen years old and kept her for two days under the influence of hemp. Upon recovery she was found to be suffering from syphilis. Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men. References

Of course, supposed quotes from Harry Anslinger need good WP:RS sources. A lot of the quotes are poorly sourced. See: Wikiquote: Harry J. Anslinger and especially Wikiquote: Talk:Harry J. Anslinger.

• Harry J. Anslinger. Links to many sources of what Anslinger wrote and said. From: Schaffer Library of Drug Policy.

--Timeshifter (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times article

This article appears to have been published as a joke. Sort of a April fools kind of thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.124.206 (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Towns-Boylan Act,

Towns-Boylan Act, was later repealed as it was seen to increase the black market for opiates. It was not targeted towards marijuana. All subsequent legislation has had the same effect: to increase the black market and many other criminal activities. The whole idea of legislating drug use stems from the temperance movement which was illustrated to be a total failure in all respects.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.124.206 (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) 

500 Hashish houses in New York City

This should be put in perspective as there were over 215,000 taverns in America by 1900. In comparison 500 is a vanishingly small number. In Boston alone the taverns had 227,000 customers a day. It seems that it was not a real social issue in any true sense of the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.124.206 (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

New Jersey status, early 2021

According to this legal analysis, the legal status of cannabis in New Jersey is going to be unclear for a while. I don't think anybody argues that the state constitution has not been changed. It has been, making personal use legal:

“ The growth, cultivation, processing, manufacturing, preparing, packaging, transferring, and retail purchasing and consumption of cannabis, or products created from or which include cannabis, by persons 21 years of age or older, and not by persons under 21 years of age, shall be lawful and subject to regulation... ” — https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp

But there is not yet regulation for legal sales. In other words, if someone were charged for possession, use, or sale on January 1, I doubt that the court would find them guilty of anything (maybe failure to collect sales tax?). I don't know exactly how we describe this in the limited space given by this table. But describing it as "not legal" doesn't seem correct to me. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be conflicting views on the current status of cannabis in New Jersey. This article seems to indicate it will still be illegal: https://www.app.com/story/news/local/new-jersey/marijuana/2020/11/30/nj-marijuana-legalization-legal-weed-stops-unless-lawmakers-ok-rules/6422146002/

I'm honestly not sure how to approach this. Legislation was meant to be enacted by January 1 and we're in a legal grey zone right now. I will defer to the consensus, if we can find one. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. We can also discuss in articles the varying interpretations, and what legal experts and administrative/executive officials say. WP doesn’t always have to find "the truth". ☆ Bri (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@@Bri: it seems your edit has been reverted on Cannabis in New Jersey. Sources are referring to weed as being stuck in limbo: https://www.app.com/story/news/local/new-jersey/marijuana/2021/01/01/new-jersey-marijuana-legalization-legal-weed-vote-results-phil-murphy/4079150001/

I won't re-revert but once Gov. Murphy signs the legislation I'll probably change the legalization date to that, with this note: "Question 1 was added to the state constitution on January 1, but enabling legislation was not signed by the governor until [date]." PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Indian Hemp

The whole legislation around Indian Hemp is what has caused the problem. Indian Hemp is not Cannabis, but rather Apocynum Cannabinum. It is a powerful narcotic and was what they used to call marihuana. If you smoke a cigarette made from this Indian Hemp it will get you very stoned as it is a narcontic and poisonous. Hemp is not poisonous as it was a major component of many people's diets. When in 1937 they made Hemp illegal I am sure they did not even know what plant they were dealing with. They thought they making the narcotic Indian Hemp illegal, but instead made Hemp illegal which then caused enormous problems with many economies. There never was a Cannabis Indica, as stated in the legislation. This is a modern claim with no foundation. The references claim that there are three 'species' of hemp. However I have grown all three 'species' from the same seed. It is the way they are planted that causes the differences in the appearance of the plant and not the plant itself. Sorry. It is legal to grow here in Canada and I have undertaken the experiments and recorded the results on film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.33.229 (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

What is the real reason why marijuana is illegal?

What is the real reason why marijuana is illegal? This article is not very clear on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.45.87 (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The US government put it on the list of schedule 1 substances, therefore it became illegal. As to why this was done, there is no evidence. speculation leads me to say that drug companies saw the potential of it to hinder their prescription drug sales and the cotton growers did not want to compete with hemp, but this is speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frmorrison (talk • contribs) 22:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree -- all the sections on early regulation omit any descriptions of problems from marijuana use and their impact on forces for regulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5810:4C30:46D:1F92:23B4:BA33 (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yesenia.h.97, Rpizano9. Peer reviewers: Yesenia.h.97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 December 2018 and 20 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Trgeorge6.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)