![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
The result of the proposal was no consensus that a desire for consistency should supersede Wikipedia: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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
According to: WP:MOS#National varieties of English:
According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)
Marijuana is the more widely used and accepted term in the United States
Prevent confusion
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. — JackLumber /tɔk/ 22:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
(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
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)
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)
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)
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
We should mention the Solomon-Lautenberg amendment somewhere... not sure where is the appropriate place... Captain Zyrain 18:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
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" [1]
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)
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)~
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)
What is the legalization status of marijuana in California? Do you think marijuana will be legalized?-- Jessickuhh ( talk) 05:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
links to a page about canadian law Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 00:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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.
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.
The above concerns are still present in the article. Thank you for your hard work. Racepacket ( talk) 06:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
^ "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)
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)
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)
The file was "reverted" 4 June. SOFIXIT. 129.97.58.107 ( talk) 16:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
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 welcome feedback, especially if anybody has additional source material. Dusty| 💬| You can help! 17:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
" 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)
Interesting, but can not verify the facts as to just how much influence Harry and his promotion of the story of Victor Licata had.
60.242.247.177 ( talk) 21:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
--
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. [2]. 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. [3] Rpizano9 ( talk) 14:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
References
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
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)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 [3] 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)
People with more time than me might incorporate some of the info from these articles, and their supporting references:
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:
[1]
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.
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 07:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
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, 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)
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)
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)
@@ 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)
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? This article is not very clear on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.45.87 ( talk) 21:51, 24 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
The result of the proposal was no consensus that a desire for consistency should supersede Wikipedia: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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
According to: WP:MOS#National varieties of English:
According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)
Marijuana is the more widely used and accepted term in the United States
Prevent confusion
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. — JackLumber /tɔk/ 22:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
(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
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)
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)
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)
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
We should mention the Solomon-Lautenberg amendment somewhere... not sure where is the appropriate place... Captain Zyrain 18:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
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" [1]
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)
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)~
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)
What is the legalization status of marijuana in California? Do you think marijuana will be legalized?-- Jessickuhh ( talk) 05:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
links to a page about canadian law Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 00:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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.
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.
The above concerns are still present in the article. Thank you for your hard work. Racepacket ( talk) 06:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
^ "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)
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)
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)
The file was "reverted" 4 June. SOFIXIT. 129.97.58.107 ( talk) 16:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
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 welcome feedback, especially if anybody has additional source material. Dusty| 💬| You can help! 17:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
" 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)
Interesting, but can not verify the facts as to just how much influence Harry and his promotion of the story of Victor Licata had.
60.242.247.177 ( talk) 21:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
--
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. [2]. 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. [3] Rpizano9 ( talk) 14:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
References
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
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)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 [3] 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)
People with more time than me might incorporate some of the info from these articles, and their supporting references:
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:
[1]
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.
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 07:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
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, 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)
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)
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)
@@ 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)
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? This article is not very clear on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.45.87 ( talk) 21:51, 24 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)
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)
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)