Talk:Cannabis dispensaries in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comment (recalled from archive)[edit]

temporary author comments[edit source | edit]

The author disagrees with the reviewers below who suggest this article should be a subset of the "cannabis" article. Cannabis is one item sold at dispensaries. They can also sell accessories, related merchandise, pipes, vaporizers, souvenirs, etc. Hovering your mouse over the first and second footnotes will help the reader see that the term "marijuana dispensary" is defined in several of the United States and now in other countries. Just as Drugs Stores and liquor stores are a separate and unique types of retail stores, marijuana dispensaries deserve the same distinction. The various local, state, and country laws regarding dispensaries deserve their own subsection. Noteable dispensaries deserve their own subsection. I will aim to demonstrate my belief by creating more depth and citing my references. --Potguru (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Potguru, part of the problem that I see is that you haven't done the necessary research on the subject beyond a quick google search. Wikipedia articles require additional research to create a topic. Most, if not all of the information you have added already appears in different articles, so if you want to create a new article on a singular topic, you first need to start with a good source that covers the topic, not pick different sources and combine them together. Have you been to your local library or consulted any bibliographies on this subject? To begin with, you should be able to identify at least one good print source (book, newspaper, magazine article) that summarizes the subject before continuing. Then, you can work from there. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The above poster set to war with me and gone to great efforts to stop the publication of this article including recommending it for deletion. In the process he changed the original name of the article from marijuana dispensary to his prefered cannabis dispensary, a thing I for which I can find no evidence to support its existence. --Potguru (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The edit war is over now, it's probably best to forget it. Let's move on to more productive conversation, please. I think we'd all like to help improve the article at this point, at the bottom of this Talk page is more discussion relating to the article title and the appropriateness of various terms. Chrisw80 (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I hope to remove much of the misguided noise (that I created) below. Please jump to current discussion (current bottom of page) here.

  • (note veriditas removed the content I created the link to so I will rebuild it here.) --Potguru (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons categories[edit]

I started

I see also shops. Same thing? Please advise. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Awesome, yes they all the same, thanks you rock!!! --Potguru (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


being discussed below --Potguru (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Famous Amsterdam shops[edit]

I commented out a request for more info on this on the article space. The Bulldog and the Grasshopper (now defunct) are probably two of the best known; I think there are a few others. It's been awhile since I've visited.OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that, now we have some names. Anyone have any pictures? Or a location? What are they called today, still coffee shops? --Potguru (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't realize that we already have an article for Coffeeshop_(Netherlands), and as I noted in the [[1]] for this article, this article's title should probably be moved to Cannabis dispensaries in the United States, since that is the major scope of the coverage. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Done. Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Coffeshops are country specif, and they are NOT marijuana dispensaries... they are illegal operations which (by definition) is not what a marijuana dispensary is. --Potguru (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

They are not illegal? Theroadislong (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, coffeshops are illegal whereas marijuana dispensaries are fully regulated. --Potguru (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC for "Cannabis dispensaries" or "Marijuana dispensaries"[edit]

The result of this discussion is for the article to be titled "Cannabis dispensaries in the United States". North America1000 09:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I am proposing an RfC regarding the use of "Marijuana dispensary" vs "Cannabis dispensary". As noted above, there is some discussion about which is more appropriate given common use and correctness of terminology. There's been quite a bit of fragmented discussion on the topic and it would be helpful to bring it together. Chrisw80 (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments Welcomed Here[edit]

  • Comment: I have no preference either way, to be honest. Marijuana seems to predominate search results in news media. In academia and print both seem about equally used, although there are several overall instances of just "dispensary" being used once the topic gets going. It thus looks like marijuana is the most common term in this context. The subject matter of the article doesn't change, so this is just a minor issue. A redirect for cannabis would work just fine. What I do think is the article should express a world view of the topic, and not just a US-centered view, but this is also easily fixed by a copy edit and posterior move in the future. Anyway, those are my thoughts. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: My feelings are very similar. I do not feel strongly, and having a redirect makes it easy for readers to find the page, whichever term they search under. Roughly, my impression also is that "marijuana" is the more frequently used word, but I would like to hear from other editors about it. I notice that related pages tend to use the word "cannabis" in their page names, and use both words variably within the page. It may be desirable to have some standardization of word use for all pages dealing with availability of the substance, in the US or more broadly. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Cannabis dispensaries - although in Canada they are called "Marijuana dispensaries" and/or "and Compassion Clubs" because other forms of Cannabis such as extracts are not regulated in this manner.[1] Cannabis dispensaries contain several different types of products[2]....and is the source term most used in real publications.[3][4][5][6] Got to remember Marijuana is only one form of the drug that dispensaries have.[7][8][9]--Moxy (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: cannabis is the most accurate, precise, and neutral term for the drug, and our best reliable sources on the subject use that term because it is the scientific term for the subject and has a very long history of global usage. The word marijuana on the other hand, was used and popularized by Harry J. Anslinger for cannabis prohibition in the 1930s, and he used the term for racist, xenophobic reasons to scare the American public about the people who smoked it. There is an enormous amount of historical literature showing how Anslinger subverted the term "cannabis" and instead changed the discourse by using the term "marihuana" to argue for prohibition. Reefer madness is the epitome of this kind of fearmongering. The first cannabis dispensary in the US was known as the Cannabis Buyers Club, not the Marijuana Buyers Club, and the professional literature reflects this usage (International Journal of Drug Policy, etc.) Although US prohibitionist language surrounding cannabis is still found, our best sources use cannabis, the most accurate, precise, and neutral historical term free from regional drug politics, and historical connotations of racism and xenophobia. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Cannabis dispensaries The decision is not a function of how many Google hits each term gets, but rather community consensus. Cannabis has already been established by the community as the preferred term (e.g. Cannabis (drug), 420 (cannabis culture), Medical cannabis, Cannabis in the United States, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cannabis. While "marijuana" is used synonymous for it (rightly or wrongly), especially in the United States, cannabis is more broadly popular and technically correct. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Cannabis dispensary: I think "Cannabis dispensary" is better as a matter of
  1. Consistency - most of our current cannabis related articles begin with "cannabis"
  2. Specificity - the dispensaries sell other cannabis products besides marijuana.
  3. Global terminology - According to prior debates in the archives of Talk:Cannabis (drug), the word "cannabis" is used more than the word "marijuana" (which is primarily used in North America)
Google scholar shows academic sources using both terms, though "marijuana dispensary" is more common (probably because most cannabis dispensaries are in North America). Using "Cannabis dispensary" is not without precedent, though is currently not the WP:COMMONNAME Sizeofint (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Bing news has 21,700 results for "Cannabis dispensary" and "123,000" results for "Marijuana dispensary". Again, the latter is clearly the common name but the former does have fairly significant usage. As pointed out below, some statutory language may use "Marijuana dispensary" so "marijuana dispensary" has that going for it as well. Sizeofint (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild support for Cannabis dispensary:
    • I believe that accuracy and consistency is crucially important for Wikipedia and should be strived for with the best of our abilities. As discussions have already taken place prior on Wikipedia on this topic, and Wikipedia articles overwhelmingly use 'Cannabis', I think that 'Cannabis dispensary' is suitable and that the any necessary changes to the article are relatively minimal and non-burdensome and I would gladly help make said changes. Wikipedia editors have addressed this at length, and after some digging I turned up:
ANI and talk page discussion from 2010, regarding mass changes between the two terms:
See here
See here
An AfD discussion regarding "Marijuana Parties" (political) vs. "Cannabis political parties", ended in redirect to "Cannabis...":
See here
Should the Cannabis (drug) article section about the dried whole flower have own article:
See here
Cannabis (drug) Talk page and Move review discussion in 2014 regarding a disputed move for Marijuana to Cannabis (drug):
Talk:Cannabis (drug) Archive 9
Move review log, 2014 January
  • While 'marijuana dispensary' follows the common and popular usage in the majority, often these two terms are interchanged with no difference in meaning (by the law, by the businesses in question, and the consumers of the products). In addition, as cited elsewhere, there are a non-trivial number of genuine scholarly articles to support the usage of 'cannabis' also, and these should not be discounted out of hand. The common usage carries a great deal of weight, certainly (which is why my support is weak), but it is not EVERYTHING in the discussion. In my opinion, the wide variance in usage materially invites us to make our own interpretation by consensus. In that respect: According to Oxford English Dictionary, marijuana is only the preparation used for smoking in cigarettes (joints). However, most dispensaries sell far more than just dried leafy goodness, they also sell hashish, edibles, hemp products, and plenty of other cannabis-related products.
  • As potguru has cited, WP:NPOVNAME states that a common name is ideal. However, it also states that there are two cases where that common name would often be avoided. The case that, IMO, applies here is: "Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious". I think that 'Cannabis' is obvious enough given the existing article names, the lack of consensus in the industry, the more general nature of the dictionary definition, and the presence of non-trivial numbers of scholarly work under that term.
Edit: A redirect such as is already in place from "Marijuana dispensary" to "Cannabis dispensary" solves many problems also.Chrisw80 (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Best to quote WP:NCMED in a case like this. -- Moxy (talk) 07:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Cannabis dispensaries.  I agree with Viriditas and Moxy. Cannabis is the more accurate, precise, and neutral term for the drug. Also Cannabis dispensaries sell the drug in more forms than just marijuana.
    Richard27182 (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Cannabis dispensaries Currently marijuana redirects to cannabis. Wikipedia's word for the term is currently cannabis. It would not be useful to individually debate each article. Keep the discussion at that one main article. If it changes then others may change. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Cannabis: largely per Moxy and Chrisw80 above. While marijuana is commonly used as a general term, especially in less formal registers (and from the links I added to the “international” section below, it’s evidently quite dominant in Canadian journalism), like pot, weed, &c. it refers most often to the dried leaves and buds in a more-or-less natural state, as distinct from such preparations as hashish, oil, kif, and the various comestible forms—all of which fall more comfortably under cannabis IMO. Viriditas’ point on the ‘ghettoizing’ history of marijuana is well taken, but to me is less decisive: many terms have shifted from pejorative (or positive) to neutral, or vice versa, over the course of time, and emphasizing the original usage is akin to an etymological fallacy. I just don’t get the impression that this ‘alienation factor’ has loomed particularly large in public awareness for the last few decades. <soapbox>(Perhaps it’s been lost among all the other demonizing propaganda that governments and medical establishments have emitted over the years, which they have periodically reframed to appeal to the prejudices of each generation.)</soapbox>—Odysseus1479 01:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Cannabis dispensaries Per OhNoitsJamie et al. I'm for consistency across the encyclopedia, but I also agree with the argument that it's the most neutral word for the substance. Fdssdf (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of above comments[edit]

    • Comment: to Moxy - Off topic. Your analysis begins well but then you move into a discussion of what the drug is or should be called. This is about what a regulated and licensed store IS called, based on actual evidence. The evidence you present in your opening agrees with the notion that the correct term is "Marijuana dispensaries". (although in Canada they are called "Marijuana dispensaries" and/or "and Compassion Clubs"). --Potguru (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes in Canada they are called Marijuana dispensaries by the public and media but not by the actual sites that sell it like [10]. but this is because until recently they only have Marijuana not hash or oil or extracts.[11]...most dispensaries outside Canada like in the USA sell all forms of the drug.[12]
    • Comment: to Viriditas - Off-Topic. With all due respect the issue is not whether people should prefer to use one term over the other when describing the drug that is not the topic at hand. The issue here is, simply, what references exist to support the claim. Here is a list of the references to support my claim. This article should not be the place where people debate the subject of regional preferences for one term over another when describing the name of a contentious drug, this needs to be a fact based conversation about the subject matter at hand ... these "facilities". We seem to lack any/many reliable sources that refer to these regulated and licensed organizations by the term cannabis dispensary. (There is one exception from IBCTimes but the body text does not support the title). --Potguru (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
"There is an enormous amount of historical literature showing how Anslinger subverted the term "cannabis" and instead changed the discourse by using the term "marihuana" to argue for prohibition. " - completed unsubstantiated conjecture. The Anslinger article uses as a reference the Emporer Wears No Clothes, written by a glass pipe salesman. --Potguru (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I met and talked with Jack Herer in 1989, and I can tell you he was no "glass pipe salesman". While he may have popularized some of the less controversial ideas, they are based on public documents that many scholars and writers have also made use of in their work, including Martin Booth (Cannabis: A History), Rudolph J. Gerber (Legalizing Marijuana Drug Policy Reform and Prohibition Politics), and Whitebread & Bonnie (The Marijuana Conviction: A History of Marijuana Prohibition in the United States). It is strange that someone who goes by the name "pot guru" is not familiar with these seminal texts. If you were, then you would know that Herer, Booth, Gerber, and Whitebread & Bonnie (among dozens of other respected authors) all draw upon the same archival US documents featuring Anslinger's work. Stranger still, I already corrected you on this point in another discussion, yet you have repeated it again as if you never heard it before, and I know you read it because you previously responded to it. This is a good example of IDHT. Viriditas (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding your false statement: "I met and talked with Jack Herer in 1989, and I can tell you he was no "glass pipe salesman"". Viriditas (third warning) Please stop responding with nonsense. Wikipedia is not the place for your original essay about how you met Jack Herer. This is a place for facts, facts like [13] As I said, using actual evidence, Jack Herer was a glass pipe salesman who wrote a book called the Empror Wears no Clothes that pot heads have been using as if it is their bible since the mid 1970's. Now, if we could please get back to the actual topic at hand and try to deal with fact that would be most appreciated. (Audience, please note that Viriditas has an entire section dedicated to his attempt to force this conversation to his point of view). --Potguru (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
As you have been repeatedly informed, the information in question is cited to Booth, Gerber, and Whitebread & Bonnie, not Herer. All of these sources relied on public US government documents, not the opinion of Herer. Furthermore, your use of sources is still seriously flawed. Herer is not known for glass pipes. According to reliable sources (remember what I told you about the importance of currency), Herer is considered and known for his cannabis activism.[2] Again, Herer has nothing to do with the published research showing Anslinger used the word "marihuana" for racist and xenophobic reasons. This is widely cited in the literature by dozens of authors. The latest and newest book on the subject, Chasing the Scream, has been received positively by experts on drug policy and reviewers alike. I'm guessing you don't read books very much because you don't seem to know anything about this. Viriditas (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Please stop trying to fight with me, honestly as I've said for several days I'd preder you go away because you seem to add nothing to the conversation other than personal attacks against me (name calling) and an edit war (your started) without basing your decision to do so on actual facts. As other editors have told you, please go away. Now if you want to continue I'll need you to act like an adult. You said herer didn't sell pipes, now you say he "wasn't known" for pipe selling. Please stop trying to defend Jack Herer the glass pipe salesman who self published the Emporer Wears No Clothes, which seems to be your core reference. and please revert your edits below which are only designed to supress the useful conversation I am trying to have with the community --Potguru (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
That's strange, as I've never cited Emperor, I cited Johann Hari (Chasing the Scream), Martin Booth (Cannabis: A History), Rudolph J. Gerber (Legalizing Marijuana Drug Policy Reform and Prohibition Politics), and Whitebread & Bonnie (The Marijuana Conviction: A History of Marijuana Prohibition in the United States). In addition to those four books, there are numerous academic journal articles supporting the same claims about Anslinger. And as you've been repeatedly informed, Herer's source is exactly the same as all of those sources. Furthermore, your unreliable 1989 source about Herer is superseded by his 2010 obituary. Currency is a criterion for reliability. This has been explained to you many times now, but you're engaging in IDHT. Competency is required, it isn't optional. Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
This will be the seventh time in three days I have been forced to ask you to ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTE something to the conversation. You said in another conversation that Jack Herer was not a glass salesman, then you said he wasn't "known for being" a glass salesman. Then i pointed you to a reference and you came back and argued you never said any such thing to begin with. This may be fun for you, but your antics are tiring to me. I prefer to deal in facts, not some white guilt based fear you wish to share with us. Please stop attacking me and stick to the issues at hand by providing useful references, which you have yet to produce. --Potguru (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC
Correcting your errors is not an attack. No current reliable source describes Jack Herer as a glass pipe salesman or says that's what he's known for. You are cherry picking outdated sources and engaging in ad hominem arguments. You're basically engaging in red herrings to avoid acknowledging that the sources support the statements about Anslinger's penchant for racism and xenophobia as a motivation for using the term marihuana or marijuana. This is backed by solid research. What you think of Jack Herer is irrelevant. Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment: to Jamie - Off-Topic. With all due respect, you are falling into the same trap as others. This is not a debate about what to call the drug sold at these facilities this is a debate about what these facilities are called. USing scholarly evidence I demonstrate at the bottom that, contrary to your belief, the facts indicate that the facilities are named "marijuana dispensaries" and not some other name because one of the items they sell has a contentious name. --Potguru (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
      • You are going to be disappointed when you discover that your "scholarly evidence" is not what determines a consensus here. But then again, I see you already have a contingency plan in place for when that happens. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey, bud, rather than taking the time to tell me everything I've done wrong today starting with your (arguably) misguided warning why not try to contribute by providing useful links to scholarly articles in an attempt to actually resolve this contentious issue. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish other than to let us all know that you believe (without any evidence) that we should all prefer the word cannabis to marijuana. That still has NOTHING to do with the given names of these facilities as referenced in countless reliable sources. --Potguru (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
" cannabis is more broadly popular and technically correct" Completely unsubstantiated claim. --Potguru (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually [14] -- Moxy (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
What are you referring to in that article? --Potguru (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment: to SizeofINT - Thank you for your contribution. What about the fact that the bodies who license most of these facilities name them "marijuana dispensaries" does that have any bearing on your thought process? Also, could you be more specific when you say "According to prior debates" is there some debate we should look at where there was a conclusion or consensus? (I've not seen any). --Potguru (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I had not considered that. I don't think it changes my view but I will note it above. Sizeofint (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for reconsidering. If you would also please consider this: --Potguru (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment: to Richard - off-topic - Thank you for your contribution but this is not the place to argue the merits of callthing the drug one thing or another. THis is a place to discuss the accuracy of the combined term Marijuana dispensary or cannabis dispensary to determine which is the best name for the artcle. It is ok to agree with people or disagree, but please vote on the correct issue. --Potguru (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment: to Chris - ON TOPIC, THANK YOU! Your proposal doesn't solve the problem it actually creates a problem in that wikipedia policy forces the article body to echo the namespace... so the article would need to be re-written to cannabis dispensaries. While there are scholarly articles that support that name those are not written for the common man, which wikipedia aims to be. I still contend there is no legitimate evidence to support the name "cannabis dispensary" and I await a single legitimate source that really says that. Perhaps we would be well served to collect all the appropriate governing documents and compile them in one place BEFORE we start talk about how the rules should apply. It's really unfair for the reader to come through this list and see all these opinions and then we add various rules later. Can we compile all the related rules and then re-start this questionnaire? So many people are going off track because they are hard set to believe this is the best place to argue whether people should prefer one term over another for the name of the drug, this should only be focussed on these actual stores. Could someone start a discussion on the cannabis page to determine if we have consensus on that term? This is not the place for that discussion. This is NOT an article about cannabis. --Potguru (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Just need to understand the basics of the terms used and why - cannabis or marijuana? The agreed international term is 'cannabis', hence its use in global legal instruments such as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs ....Almost all countries around the world, with the exception of the US, use the term cannabis to refer to the range of products derived from the cannabis plant. There is no plant named ‘marijuana’, so from a botanical point of view, ‘cannabis’ is the correct term. -- Moxy (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment: to Moxy - Off Topic. This is why I started a discussion on another page. This page is about marijuana dispensaries, which exist and there are references to prive the same. Your notion that cannabis = marijuana is incorrect. If it were, then you could simply interchange the two but that discussion does not belong on this page. This page is about marijuana dispensaries, not about the "word" marijuana. (Hence my reason for wanting to end this request for comment until we can actually understand the groundwork we should be dealing with ... but another user decided to suppress my well considered conversation below). --Potguru (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Your view of my position is way off...its clear you have not been reading the sources i have provided. - last post here for me. -- Moxy (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment: to BlueRasberry - Off Topic. Again, this is NOT the place to discuss the term marijuana vs cannabis, this is a discussion about something completely different... a regulated marijuana dispensary (I wish someone would end this questionnaire that has no groundwork laid). --23:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment You can keep on declaring every comment you don't like as "off-topic," but it's clear to everyone else here that a consensus is emerging. You may want to read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which you same to have a chronic case of. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Comment without background or definition of what is being asked, I am attempting to keep the conversation civil. My preference was to move this entire conversation down below but Viridatas was allowed to suppress my comments (I'd again argue edit war) so that a user needs to click to open the panel to see the conversation. All we serve by this (meaningless) request is to have a debate about the word marijuana vs cannabis which is not and should not be the subject of the discussion. The discussion is about marijuana dispensaries, not some other type of facility that doesn't seem to exist. So while this silliness continues, I'm off trying to determine references and facts ... and to be frank ... since there is still no consensus on the term this is all pretty premature. We should define what we are trying to accomplish and then set off to accomplish it. We should not continue to debate the merits of the word marijuana vs cannabis here... on this page. Please see my comments below and if you agree we should define our community objective and considered positions before opening up voting to all community members, please revert the edits that suppress my intended conversation. The question posed in the RfC is INCOMPLETE at best. "I am proposing an RfC regarding the use of "Marijuana dispensary" vs "Cannabis dispensary"." Read what I present below as a set up for an RFQ by comparison, I think you'll see the context, the question and the process are much better thought out with no preconceived notion except to achieve the best article title. --Potguru (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Site Policy[edit]

While we should always strive for neutrality in the creation and editing of articles there are noteable expections we must consider such as the Wikipedia Policy on how to deal with Non-Neutral but Common names.

When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. --Wikipedia

(Section added by --Potguru (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC))

WP:NCMED "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name) or a historical eponym that has been superseded" --Moxy (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that addition, let's also add this: " Writing for the wrong audience (See also: Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible and Wikipedia:Explain jargon) Wikipedia is written for the general reader. It is an encyclopedia, not a comprehensive medical or pharmaceutical resource, nor a first-aid (how-to) manual. Although healthcare professionals and patients may find much of interest, these two groups do not by themselves represent the target audience". -Wikipedia

Note Marijuana Dispensaries are NOT medical or first aid offices. They are regulated stores that sell products including marijuana, often times recreational. --Potguru (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

In any case I think most would agree it would be best to use the English "scientific" term over the Mexican "slang" term. -- Moxy (talk)
I am happy to agree if that is what the community concludes but until that time I will not make any assumptions. This is specifically why we need to be discussing context, instead of just voting on a prefered word. --Potguru (talk)01:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Above comments by Moxy are very salient and well sourced. much of the material sold in dispensaries is not marijuana, marijuana is only barely more of a commonname than cannabis [3] indicating that there really isnt a common name in this case and that we should therefore use the broader and more scientific/encyclopaedic term. I would advise Potguru to take a step back and have less of a battleground approach to the proceedings, repeating the same thing over and over is not going to change anyone's mind.  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere  02:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. fwiw I'm not trying to create a battleground, I'm trying to have a more meaningful conversation. I actually want to approach this in a scientific fashion as opposed to a popularity contest for the term "marijuana" vs "cannabis" which I contend is a different question than the one that should be posed. Please forgive me if I appear in any way hostile or confrontational because that is certainly not my intent. My preference would be, simply, to lay out the related facts and issues at hand before the rfq, and not after. This seems quite bassackwards. --Potguru (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)



  1. ^
  2. ^ Jeffrey Dach, M.D.,; Elaine A. Moore; Justin Kander (2015). Cannabis Extracts in Medicine: The Promise of Benefits in Seizure Disorders, Cancer and Other Conditions. McFarland. p. 69. ISBN 978-0-7864-9663-1.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ Roger Pertwee (2014). Handbook of Cannabis. OUP Oxford. p. 342. ISBN 978-0-19-163970-8.
  4. ^ Julie Holland, M.D. (23 September 2010). The Pot Book: A Complete Guide to Cannabis. Inner Traditions / Bear & Co. pp. 430–. ISBN 978-1-59477-898-8.
  5. ^ Uwe Blesching (1 December 2015). The Cannabis Health Index: Combining the Science of Medical Marijuana with Mindfulness Techniques To Heal 100 Chronic Symptoms and Diseases. North Atlantic Books. pp. 72–. ISBN 978-1-58394-963-4.
  6. ^ The Associated Press (30 March 2015). Marijuana Nation: The Legalization of Cannabis Across the USA. Mango Media Inc. pp. 114–. ISBN 978-1-63353-037-9.
  7. ^ Wayne Hall; Rosalie Liccardo Pacula (2003). Cannabis Use and Dependence: Public Health and Public Policy. Cambridge University Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-0-521-80024-2.
  8. ^ United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2009). Recommended Methods for the Identification and Analysis of Cannabis and Cannabis Products. United Nations Publications. p. 15. ISBN 978-92-1-148242-3.
  9. ^ Max M. Houck (2015). Forensic Chemistry. Elsevier Science. p. 131. ISBN 978-0-12-800624-5.
  10. ^ [ here]
  11. ^ Simon Wills (2005). Drugs of Abuse. Pharmaceutical Press. p. 69. ISBN 978-0-85369-582-0.
  12. ^ Jeffrey Dach, M.D.,; Elaine A. Moore; Justin Kander (2015). Cannabis Extracts in Medicine: The Promise of Benefits in Seizure Disorders, Cancer and Other Conditions. McFarland. p. 69. ISBN 978-0-7864-9663-1. Cannabis dispensaries contain several different types of products, each of which has advantages and disadvantages.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
  13. ^ "``Times change. It`s still out there, but the business is all underground now,`` said Jack Herer, president of the Ah Ha Pipe Co. of Van Nuys, Calif., a leading manufacturer of pipes and other restricted objects. Herer, who campaigns to legalize marijuana, started his business in 1973."
  14. ^ Maciej J. Bogusz (2011). Quality Assurance in the Pathology Laboratory: Forensic, Technical, and Ethical Aspects. CRC Press. p. 240. ISBN 978-1-4398-0235-9. More correct term should be “Cannabis-related compounds

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 24 January 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: keep at Cannabis dispensaries in the United States Sizeofint (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Wbm1058 (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Cannabis dispensaries in the United StatesCannabis dispensary – Viriditas incorrectly moved the page during an open RfC which was created as an attempt to determine a consensus name for the page, please revert page to cannabis dispensary (singular) until consensus is reached. Potguru (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Nothing controversial about that move. The new target was simply a more focused title to reflect the bulk of the article's content, and the move had no outcome on the course of the AfD. As it was noted in the AfD, we already have an article for Coffeeshop (Netherlands). It may be worth considering moving it again to cover North American (which would include Vancouver), but we shouldn't pretend that this article is globally comprehensive when 99% of the content is about the US. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The original article talked about marijuana dispensaries in multiple countries. Then, when viridas started warring and (without consensus) changing the name to cannabis dispensaries in the unites states editors removed non-related content. So if Veriditas would just stop touching the page it might, one day, actually become a useful article like it was originally meant to be. --Potguru (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I've mentioned several times that coffee shops are not the same as marijuana dispensaries, they have little in common. --Potguru (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, current title does not allow for expansion of material from other countries/regions. it matters not that 99% of the content is about the USA, that just indicates that the article is not as complete as it could be. If the title is broader, the content will come to reflect that.  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere  02:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
That's a great idea, thanks for the input!--Potguru (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Suggestion How about keeping this named Cannabis dispensaries in the United States and stubbing Cannabis dispensary? Add a blurb about coffeeshops and "in the USA" with {{main}}s for both. New sections get added about dispensaries in Norway and of course Qatar etc. and it expands how it likes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The question is whether we want to have one article on cannabis dispensaries or to have multiple regional articles. It is not as if this article is overlong. I am of the opinion that it is far better to have one article with regional sections rather than separate articles. Move all the current USA focused content to a USA section, and allow for expansion of other regional sections (i.e. norway etc.)  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere  03:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
If this were named Cannabis dispensary right now, and new sections about Norway etc added, it would still be overwhelmingly about USA. It would take time for other sections to be big enough to bring balance. So, the USA section would have to immediately break off to bring balance to the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. And that is not really a bad thing. If the move request goes through, most of the content in the article should be sequestered into a section on 'in the USA' and other sections created to encourage other editors to expand.  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere  04:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
What I mean is that if this is renamed Cannabis dispensary now, the USA section would instantly break away to become a standalone article. The Cannabis dispensary article would have an "In the United States" section with a simple paragraph and a link to the Cannabis dispensaries in the United States article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
In fact, moving this article now would just complicate things. The most natural solution is to stub Cannabis dispensary and make links to both coffeeshop and this article. Boom. Problem solved. Cannabis dispensary develops. Everyone is happy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I think we misunderstand each other. Why would the USA content need to split off to another article? this article is not too long or anything. There is ample space here to include all the content from different regions in separate sections. Similar to how it is handled with the Liquor store article. EDIT: also see Convenience store.  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere  04:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
It is not a question of length, but rather balance. If there is a blurb about Norway and Qatar and ten paragraphs about USA, then that would be a problem, no? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Well maybe, but an article being incomplete is an issue that can be fixed (most non-GA/non-Featured articles are incomplete). Just slap some Template:Expand section message boxes on there and that should get it started. it definitely is not a reason to oppose a move to the more inclusive title.  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere  05:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Good points. Fair enough, my friend. I'm not married to it. It was just a suggestion. I'll be happy any way it goes. Let's see what the others think. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I do support a move back to simply 'Cannabis dispensary' conditionally, I believe we should add more well-sourced material that would fill out dispensaries in other countries first. If we need to do a move in the meantime, I would support Ohnoitsjamie's idea of moving it to have 'North America' in the title instead of US because the content as it stands now does support a move to that name. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thats not generally how moves are done. If we were to try things in the way you suggest, there would be a bunch of people removing content from the article as it was added because it 'wasn't from the USA' as has apparently been happening already since this article was moved to its current title. TL;DR It is much better to have an article be 'incomplete' rather than 'not matching the title'.  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere  04:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I support a move. Even two sections "North America" and "Elsewhere" would be sufficient to have an article with international scope. Don't see a reason to make such a small article so specific. Sizeofint (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
If you had bothered to answer my above arguments about why "issues with US-centric sources" cannot be addressed until it is moved back, i would not have to now ask you how you expect to get users to add material about non USA dispensaries to an article titled "Cannabis dispensaries in the United States". It is a chicken and egg situation. we have to change the article title before the non USA sections can be expanded or else people won't expand them as they won't see how that information fits in the article.  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere  12:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Keep the content where it's focused and split of the remainder to a separate article. It's largely focused on a single country, let's just accept that and work on two different articles on two different subjects. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Thats not the way the rest of similar articles are handled. See liquor store and convenience store for examples. Splitting the article into smaller regional articles decreases the likelihood that readers will find the article, the main argument for splitting would be if the article were particularly long, but it is not.  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere  12:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the better analogy is Coffeeshop (Netherlands) and Coffeehouse. The term as it's used here is pretty US-specific. Either that or move it again and I'd suggest spin-off the US stuff anyways. I think the worldwide won can be better worked on if they are separate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - content reflects only one country ...its very USA oriented at this point...would love info on Canada....but the laws are so different I dont see how this lead or all the content would ever fit in a generic article....that said yes a parent article would be a good idea...but not with this this time. -- Moxy (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Administrator note: the article was moved to its current title without consensus. I would have been willing to move it back per WP:BRD, if I received such a request. Now that the RM discussion is open it seems less disruptive to leave it open and hold off on any moves. But if the result is "no consensus" I would expect the closing admin to move it back to its original title to avoid first-mover advantage. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose a new general article should be created at the target, since cannabis dispensaries are not unique to the U.S. This article is highly focused on the U.S. and it makes no sense to convert it to something else with a U.S. bias. -- (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is an accurate reflection of the article's contents. Create a new article at the target if warranted. —  AjaxSmack  03:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

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

international references[edit]

Please help start collecting non-US sources so that if we drop the US centricity from the page we will be ready to go.

  • Australia

Here's an article about Tony Bower who claims to be the first dispensary operator in Australia, his dispensary is a van.

The article is currently the US one so these would be irrelevant here. It's either going to be moved and then this matter or these belong on a separate article anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Ricky.  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere  12:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Canada
Talk given by a criminal defence lawyer: Medical cannabis dispensaries and Canada’s new drug laws, February 2013. Some news items from the last year: Medical marijuana dispensary upsets Vancouver condo neighbours, Canada's health minister says dispensaries normalize marijuana use, B.C. Chief Medical Officer challenges Rona Ambrose's reasons against dispensaries, CBC, April 2015; Marijuana dispensary regulations approved in Vancouver, CBC, June 2015; Licensed pot producers want feds to stop dispensaries, Hazy rules around medical marijuana dispensaries, Toronto Sun, January 2016. National trade association: Canadian Association of Medical Cannabis Dispensaries.—Odysseus1479 21:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

So what will become of these? This list will not grow fast enough to sway the RfC. So what then? Another RfC to to move the article to cannibis dispensary and these get included? Seriously, shouldn't someone just boldly stub cannibis dispensary and we can save a ton of editor time? Please see objections to this suggestion above in my RfC entry titled "Suggestion". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the onlyobjection is User:Insertcleverphrasehere's and that was when there might be hope of the page move. That doesn't look like it will happen now and we have this list of international stuff accumulating above. Reconsider? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The way forward[edit]

So, it looks like this article will not be moved to Cannabis dispensary. So, now what? Where will the new international content about these dispensaries go? Two choices I see:

1. Into an "Elsewhere" section in this article

2. Into a new stub called Cannabis dispensary.

Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, dispensaries outside the United States are not in the scope of this article so the best course if to stub "Cannabis dispensaries" IMO. Sizeofint (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
A broader term like cannabis shop might be better: they‘re called “dispensaries” in jurisdictions where non-medical use is prohibited, but if the article is to include Dutch coffee-shops and other such establishments worldwide, the pharmaceutical connotations of “dispensary” would seem rather incongruous.—Odysseus1479 08:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
That is a good point, Odysseus. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Are there any strong objections to stubbing "Cannabis dispensary" right now and then moving to a more non-medical name later if needed? Anna F remote (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd stub Cannabis shop instead. It seems like more general terminology. Sizeofint (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good. We can make a bunch of redirects and add lots of aka terms in the lead. Anna F remote (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Boldly done: Cannabis shop

Now, can we see it expand to include interesting info from all over the world? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

external references[edit]

As I've contend all along the correct name for this article is marijuana dispensaries and so, not wanting to start another fight, I'll encourage someone else to deal with the fact that all the current "External References" link to things called marijuana dispensaries... not these fictitious "cannabis" dispensaries. Anyone want to deal with the External Links??

--Potguru (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

links reflect the wording used by the sites. Should write California medical cannabis dispensary Harborside Health Center let them know they got it right...even the menu uses the right marijuana used...model vendor.--Moxy (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Moxy, will you do me a favor and take a look at this?
note to self - harborside pretends to promote "health" yet they are not doctors? Likely gonna get railroaded by the FDA with that in their name... all the colorado marijuana dispensaries with organic in their name are getting hammered as I write this. --Potguru (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Cannabis shop[edit]

Can't we link this in the lead somewhere? And shouldn't we be expanding Cannabis shop to talk about the shops around the world, their legality, etc? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)