Talk:Legality of cannabis/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents

Pop Culture?

I wanted to add a section on the pop culture aspect of marijuana, i.e. High Times, recipies, etc, any suggestions/ideas?Sonyarahman (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a matter for the Legality PageThe-deejjj (talk) 07:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Making the article smaller

Shouldn't the sections of Canada, Switserland and the US be shrinked and the Swiss section getting his own article. The history under the US section for example does not look relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Marijuanas good(talkcontribs) 21:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Industrial hemp?

In the picture of the different types of cannabis on the bottom of the page, Cannabis Sativa is pictured as "the industrial hemp cannabis" and Cannabis Indica as "the THC-strong drug cannabis". This is not true, as a vast majority of todays pot come from strains that are a mix of the two. There are also many that smoke pure Sativa. Plus the difference between the two types aren't always that big as in the picture, even when looking at pure Sativa vs pure Indica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.73.102.225 (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement in Japan

It appears that a native Japanese-speaker may have contributed this section, as it was originally in grammatically-sketchy English. I cleaned up the grammar, but the content seems to be losing something in translation. It claims that 1st offense is usually punished by 5 years jail, with a 3-year suspended sentence, but the 2nd offense is a 1 year jailtime with no suspended sentence. I think the contributor meant either a suspension of driver's license, or maybe the word intended was "probation". Regardless, my Japanese is only rudimentary, so I can't do much as far as research, so could someone look into the Japanese laws on 420? Thanks. Mfrisk (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC) yessss helo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.87.134 (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"Suspended sentence" exists in many legal systems e.g. Serbia First time caught with cannabis posession, you get a quite high money fine regardless of the real cannabis value (e.g. couple hundred dollars for a dollar worth joint) and suspended sentence over two years, meaning that if you repeat the same "crime" in next two years you get one year in prison (so suspended sentence is lenght of the "probation, don`t do the same crime" and not the actual prison lenght). If you DO Not repeat the crime you get it deleted.

However, its mostly reserved for 1st time crimes, jouvenilles etc. and is mostly exchanged to community work service increasingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.26.208 (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Legality on Ontario

From my understanding, and as it is written in the article, the police force of Ontario still treats marijuana as a controlled substance. It is far from legal as the map shows, and this should be addressed. 67.71.46.182 21:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Legality in Canada

I am pro-legalization of marijuana, but I still feel that the Canada section was written as if it were a biased propaganda ad for the legalization of marijuana, such as "enforcing an unconstitutional law." 24.65.42.159 (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

that is a decision based on the law being constitutional or not, a courts decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-deejjj (talkcontribs) 07:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Saying the conservative party favours an american 'war on drugs' is useless conjecture that has no place on a wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.181.74.166 (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal status

Wouldn't it be nice with a map of the legal status of cannabis throughout the world? A map for the practical minded, using three color: No amounts ok, small amounts ok, completely legal. A world map with each country (or any other appropriate domain) colored for a quick and easy overview. In my opinion it should show the application of the law, rather than the law itself.

I was thinking that myself-it would be nice if someone would find or make a map showing that. In the line that says, "however, these shops must be supplied through illegal channels.", did you mean 'legal channels', or did you mean 'are most certainly supplied through illegal channels.' I'm slightly miffed-guess I don't know enough. Pax 08:49, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


I made a decriminalization section and wrote briefly about decrim in america. I got the dates from a great book called The War on Drugs II by J.A. Inciardi (ISBN 1559340169). --Howrealisreal 17:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good work! Rhobite 17:20, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

No reason to put (hemp) on the end of the article. Generally we like to keep 'em short. Rhobite 14:20, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)


Do you think links to the articles Prohibition_(drugs) and Arguments for and against drug prohibition would be appropriate for this article? I realize that this article is very topical, however much of the content of that discussion is appropriate. The risk is that the 'arguments' article is fairly subjective, as it is an active discussion. If there is a link added to this article to the Arguments article, it probably should be tagged with some sort of disclaimer (?) --Overand 17:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New articles

I created a few new articles, namely:

Any ideas on how best to tie it to the existing body of cannabis-related information here? Rad Racer 23:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Add a summary under the "..in the UK" heading, and we'll link to the main article from there. Similarly for the international article, although there's not a heading for it yet. Ojw 21:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

History of Criminalization in the US

I think there needs to historical context for the illegalization of cannabis in the US. Currently the article has one sentence "Some claim that the U.S. laws may have been in response to lobbying by makers of synthetic fibers that competed with hemp." The role of the dupont family, William Randolph Hearst, and agitprop films like reefer madness. I want to avoid an edit war. There was also a supreme court ruling that facilitated the tax (have to look that one up) There should also be a link to Harry J. Anslinger. It would also be interesting to cover the cover up with AMA legislation.

I added in a section about the history of marijuana in the U.S., although it only really talks about the past 100 years or so. I talked about Hearst and Anslinger, though I don't know how to cite my sources. If somone can direct me on how to do so, we can avoid having to delete the entire additon. I got most of this stuff from the webpage titled "Why is marijuana illegal?" You can find this page at "http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html" --Pyromancer102 13:34, 7 Feb 2005.

Death Penalty?

so am i write in interpreting: In 1996 in the United States, Newt Gingrich, who was the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives at the time, planned to introduce a mandatory death penalty for a second offense of smuggling 50 grams of marijuana into the United States, in the proposed law H.R. 4170. The proposal failed. Under the 1994 Crime Act, the threshold for sentencing a death penalty in relation to marijuana is the involvement with the cultivation or distribution of 60,000 marijuana plants (or seedlings) or 60,000 kilograms of marijuana. as meaning that in the united states, cultivating over 60,000 plants is a crime punishable by death? i've never heard this before. can it be cited? (and perhaps i'm misunderstanding the paragraph . . . ) what's going on here? --Heah 08:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=Local_News&subsection=Qatar+News&month=April2006&file=Local_News20060429104323.xml Two men were sentenced to death for hashish smuggling. Kevin143 04:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like 60,000kg of marijuana is the minimum amount that must be involved for the death penalty to be applied, but I've never heard of anyone being executed for any drug crime in the US. In fact, I'm inclined to doubt the accuracy of that quote.Emmett5 23:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It's accurate. The penalty isn't mandatory, though, so for obvious reasons, no judge has chosen to apply it yet, I believe - that seems like the kind of thing that would cause a scandal. (That is, if anyone's actually been caught with SIXTY THOUSAND KILOS since 1994, which I'm not sure of.) Twin Bird 06:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
How can it be accurate, given the next sentence? "The United States Supreme Court has held that no crimes other than murder can constitutionally carry a death sentence." Even if the law is on the books, it shouldn't be listed as "available" if it can't be enforced. -Athaler 15:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
For that reason, I changed it to "Available but probably unconstitutional" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcalabrese (talkcontribs) 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Supreme Court has never held anything of the sort. Case law only addresses whether death penalty can be imposed for rape [it can't]. 24.219.30.222 (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Evolution of international control of cannabis

I would like to point out that the International Opium Convention did not end up prohibiting cannabis, as Legal issues of cannabis implies. India and other countries objected to the proposed prohibition on cannabis that was made at 1925 conference. Instead, the final treaty required parties "To prohibit the export of the resin obtained from Indian hemp and the ordinary preparations of which it forms the base (such as hashish, esrar, chiras, djamba) to countries which have prohibited their use"; thus, it was still legal to produce, trade, and use the drug, although international trade was subject to the usual import certificates, etc., and you could only export to a country that allowed the drug. The treaty did require the import certificate to state that the drug was for scientific or medical use. See [1] for an excellent history of international control of cannabis. It was the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs that first prohibited the drug. 24.54.208.177 19:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

State-by-state summary of cannabis laws

What happened to the state-by-state (UK, US, Netherlands, etc) summaries of cannabis laws? Why did we get rid of them? This article seems rather short now. 24.54.208.177 19:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Can we retrieve them, so that somebody can colour-in a blank map for it? Ojw 21:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I wonder what type of key we would use for it? There are many overlapping legal issues of cannabis, including mandatory minimums, conditional release, decriminalization, "possess a joint, lose your license," etc. For instance, possession is still criminalized in Virginia, but Virginia has lesser penalties for cultivation than California, which has decriminalized possession (in Virginia, if the cultivation is for personal use, it counts as simple possession). It almost defies mapping, unless you were to have a map for each issue. 24.54.208.177 21:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Hemp and relation to cannabis policy

Some claim that the U.S. laws may have been in response to lobbying by makers of synthetic fibers that competed with hemp. Is there a source for that? How did the early U.S. regulations control hemp cultivation (i.e. was there a distinction made cannabis grown for fiber and cannabis grown for drugs)? I know that the international treaties made a clear distinction between the two:

This Convention shall not apply to the cultivation of the cannabis plant exclusively for industrial purposes (fibre and seed) or horticultural purposes. - Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs

24.54.208.177 22:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Are Cannabis Prisoners Political prisoners?

Issues regarding the Constitutional guarantee of the right to Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness have at times been raised in the debate, arguing that those imprisoned for cannabis use are de facto political prisoners. [2]

LSD prisoners presumably would be, as that drug wasn't banned for any other reason than "people were using it recreationally and we'd prefer they didn't" as far as I recall... Is it a political opinion though? Ojw 23:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
You are quoting the declaration of independence, not the constitution. Constitution doesn't guarantee life. Rather it says, individuals cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. In other words, people *can* be deprived of life, liberty, and/or property, but they get a trial with certain procedural protections first. Whether they are political prisoners is a matter of opinion, but the constitutional issue you seek to raise is off point. 24.219.30.222 (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Imprisoning people for the personal use, cultivation of marijuana would to violate both the 8th and 9th Amendments, Not to mention the Free Exercise of Religion:: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.229.130 (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You would have to source that there is a serious stream of thought that thinks they are or should be political prisoners, SqueakBox 02:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Map

I uploaded a map. It's very incomplete, but you are welcome to update it and add any more color categories. Right now I have green = legal, blue = illegal, orange = legal for medical purposes, and gray = no information Revolución 23:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Since when is cannabis legal in Canada? I thought it was decriminalized for recreational use and only legal for medical purposes, but definitely not legal all-around. --Howrealisreal 14:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

--FYI cannabis remains illegal at this moment in Canada for recreational use (though theoretically legal for medicinal uses), the liberal gov't has promised to bring in a decriminilization bill but as of today (Sept 22 2005) they have not and it doesn't look to be on the radar screen at the moment, especially since it was former PM Jean Chretien's idea. dj

I've had this argument at Cannabis cultivation. Cannabis is not fully legal anywhere. In Holland the supply side is illegal, making it most definitely not legal, SqueakBox 16:00, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • Why remove the map? If something is wrong with it, why not change it? Revolución 00:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Not that I did remove it, but I wouldn't know how to change it. good idea, but most of the world should be under illegal, eg all ogf Latin America, UK, etc. How about red for illegal, and anything just unknown should be red by default and cancel the grey, SqueakBox 00:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Definitely not "decriminalized" in Argentina, I think orange would be a much more appropiate colour — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.19.233.59 (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Marc Emery and Decriminalization campaign in Canada

I'm dropping a link to Marc Emery here, both to draw attention to his situation to watchers of this page, as well as to suggest that someone add a section Decriminalization campaign in Canada to this article. What is happening in Canada is amazing, and could be a major turning point in decriminalization efforts globally. It merits significant weight in this article. After reading Marc's entry, see also my comment on the talk page. -SM 02:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

420 Statisticians

I'm not going to change it, but I just wanted to point something out that was probably intentially written and calls into question biases: Ten people are arrested for marijuana every 420 seconds. --Dylan .shmira snarf

-SM 15:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Haha, 420, the irony astounds me totally.

Canadian legalization efforts

Please see Talk:Cannabis legalization in Canada


"However, the use of cannabis by the general public is broadly tolerated in some areas, and a campaign to expose the fraud of criminalizing cannabis is underway nation-wide." I don't think calling criminalization a "fraud" is very NPOV, unless I've misunderstood the quote. Changing it to "... a campaign to decriminalize cannabis ..." Discotraxx 17:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Dropped Taiwan from death penalty against cannabis trade table

An anonymous editor put this in the table. The link is in Chinese, but I could see that cannabis was in class two, not one. I'd like a Chinese speaker to confirm this, but for now I'll trust it and so have removed Taiwan from the table of Really Really Unpleasant Places to do Cannabusiness.

Death penalty is possible for drug offences under Taiwanese law, but only for the creation, smuggling, and vending of "Class 1 Drugs," [3]. Cannabis is a "Class 2 Drug," the creation, smuggling, and vending of which can be punishable by life sentences or any sentence of more than 7 years, as well as a maximum fine of NT$70,000.

-SM 22:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Colombia, Switzwerland and Germany

In Germany, Switzerland and Colombia, the consumption of cannabis is legal, although it is illegal to possess, sell or distribute it.

I would like to see some good sources to support this. --Sampi 21:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have heard that possession of up to 10 grammes is legal in Colombia. I know consumption has never been illegal in the UK or a whole host of other countries, and to describe the situation as that consumption is illegal everywhere would be false, in need of rectification and lacking sources (inevitably, it not being true), SqueakBox 02:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the names of individual countries as allowing the consumption of cannabis. What was there was inaccurate as it implied this is a rare thing pertaining to these specific countries, which is not the case. As I say, consumption has never been illegal in the UK but this does not reflect a softly-softly approach. It does mean in the UK the police have to find you in possession to charge you, as anyone who knows the country well can confirm and nobody has ever been charged with consuming cannabis, SqueakBox 02:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

In Switzerland, possesion of cannabis is not legal unless you have a medical condition and you're on prescription.

In Germany consumption of every drug is legal. Possession on the other hand is illegal.

>Under German law the consumption of narcotic drugs is not as such defined as a criminal offence. http://eldd.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index5174EN.html?pluginMethod=eldd.countryprofiles&country=DE&language=en --78.49.129.151 (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

New Pro-cannabis userbox

Macro cannabis bud.jpg This user is pro-cannabis.

If you would like to have this on your userpage, just add {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/pro-cannabis}} to your userpage, and the box at right will appear on it. Also, if used in your user space, the page will be listed on Category:Pro-cannabis Wikipedians. If you would like to share it with someone else, type {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/pro-cannabis|stamp|right}}

Also, consider weighing in on the Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll.

Stand up and be counted while you still can,

StrangerInParadise 20:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Link Needs Correction

(moved to the bottom to conform to custom) The link to smokedot.org just goes to a forum page -- useless for reference

They were probably referring to the article originally brought to the web on my site at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm


Link Needs Correction

The link to The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Marihuana - A Signal of Misunderstanding. 1972 is to an incorrect site. I put that report on the net and it should be linked from its original source - http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm

Additional references that need to be included are:

The Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of Knowledge - the legal history of the marijuana laws at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/vlr/vlrtoc.htm

The short history of the marijuana laws, by the professor who wrote the legal history at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

Update to Link Correction

The link, above, to the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse doesn't even work. It goes to some other page entirely. I have corrected the link to the original source, where it should have been all along. Just FYI, my correction is to the same link used on the Wikipedia page about the commission.

The link has been there for as long as the page has been up, and I didn't put there originally. I am just correcting it so the link actually works, so certain editors who haven't caught up yet should not get their tender parts in a wringer because I am "spamming".

Wolfman97 19:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


Germany?

If I'm understanding it correctly, this section of the Hemp article from the Japanese Wikipedia says that personal possession is legal in Germany. Perhaps someone could find a source for that statement per WP:RS and add a section to this article? I was suprised that it would only be mentioned in the Japanese version. Heather 21:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's wrong. Somebody who speaks Japanese should edit it out. Possession is still illegal in Germany, but one doesn't get fined as long as a certain maximum amount is not exceeded (this max. amount varies greatly depending on which particular state you are in). So it's no fine for small amounts, but the cannabis will be taken away from the person caught, and one might loose one's driver's license (even if one wasn't in a car at the time) or be required to undergo certain tests in order to keep the drivers license. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.242.96 (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
"and one might loose one's driver's license (even if one wasn't in a car at the time)". Not anymore the BVG ruled that this is unconstitutional. http://www.jurathek.de/showdocument.php?session=2028938688&ID=4676 --78.49.129.151 (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Link error

I cannot find the history link here:

How Marijuana Became Illegal Smokedot.org's on the history of criminalisation.

KS


EDIT

Criminalization

---

The above paragraph makes a pretty serious claim without offering any evidence to support it. In the USA, what is described is clearly not the case (unless someone can offer evidence to the contrary) and is at odds with every official source, e.g. the Department of Justice and the Office on National Drug Control Policy.

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/whos_in_prison_for_marij/beyond_the_claims.pdf

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/marijuana_position.html#incarceration

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/amer%5Fknow%5Fmarij/myths.pdf

While incarceration for simple possession may be the case in some nations, it is clearly not the case in the USA, and the use of such a "broad brush" in this Wikipedia article makes this reader suspicious that the authors of such are biased.

Also, since this is the second time this reader has attempted to bring some accuracy and perspective to this particular Wikipedia article, it is becoming apparent that the editors of Wikipedia are perhaps sympathetic to said author's position. This is unfortunate, as it casts Wikipedia's role as an objective, open-source encyclopedia in a dim light, and may merit wider public scrutiny.

---

Update

Map-of-US-state-cannabis-laws.png

This map needs to be updated. According to the page, Massachusetts passed a law that decriminalized marijuana.

"On February 16, 2006, the Herald News Online reported that the Joint Mental Health and Substance Abuse Committee of the Massachusetts General Court voted 6-1 in favor of a bill that would decriminalize the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana. Rather than face criminal charges, offenders would face a civil fine of $250. [4]"

However, the state is not highlighted in the map. Jumping cheese Misc-tpvgames.gif Cont@ct 07:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Map is highly misleading, as it fails to take into account controlling federal law that applies in all states. At a minimum, the key needs to be changed to indicate that the decriminalization is only under state law, and federal criminal prohibition remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.219.30.222 (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention that Marijuana has been decriminalized in the state of MA as of late 2008. Reference is http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/11/question_2_setu.html 129.100.154.43 (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Colorado Amendment 44

Sadly Colorado's amendment 44 which proposed to decriminalize marijuana did not pass. This means the map need to be updated to show that in colorado medical use is legal, but recreational use is not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1950salvador (talkcontribs) 04:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Decriminalization campaign in Spain

1."Personal consumption and home cultivation of cannabis have been decriminalized"

2."Cannabis is still illegal to grow"

So is home-growing legal, or not? Those two sentences are condradictory. 17:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course home grown is legal once its off the plant and there is no evidence of any live plants, that is plain logic. Growing implies a living plant or strong evidence there was one, SqueakBox 18:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a civil offense. Twin Bird 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

High Times?

Why is this section on this page, I understand high times wants to decriminalize marijuana, but to my knowledge it is only sold in America and maybe a few other english speaking countries. Does it really belong on this page about the whole world? I think it should be taken off, what do others think? -ChristopherMannMcKay 05:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The Potential Effect of Legalization on the US Economy

This section is out of place. It does not cite sources and has some other problems. Again, it is on this page about the whole world--not the U.S. It shouldn't be on here; why not create a seperate article and do a 'see also'. Also some things like "the drug would most likely lose its hip, rebellious stigma and become more normalized and less dramatized" should be removed. I do not think that is a legal issue, but rather a change in culture that would result from a legal issue changing. -ChristopherMannMcKay 05:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

  • Agree. stub-article does offer some substantial sourced information, not enough to have its own article, but enough to keep.--Vox Rationis 01:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree, SqueakBox 01:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

(The following was recovered from talk page of History of US Cannabis Law by Vox Rationis 15:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

  • Agree. this article is not notable enough and is questionable in verifiability as it is. Wikipedia does not need this as a stand-alone. I say that we should merge it into Cannabis (drug), so that we can be rid of one more stub.--Vox Causa 01:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No opinion one way or the other but would have no problem with merging. The original author said he would expand the article and it's a notable topic and I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, but there's also the likelihood this will remain a stub or a soapbox. There is a lot of notable material that could be covered under this topic if expanded, provided it isn't already covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. No strong opinion here either way. Dragomiloff 01:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the tag as it should, if so, be merged with Legal issues of cannabis, SqueakBox 18:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Merger Performed!--Vox Rationis 15:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

(End recovered section)

OR

Two massive sections without sources and what reads to me entirelty like origin al research ahve bbeen removed. The first section title was The Potential Effect of Legalization on the US Economy, I mean how is that NPOV? SqueakBox 18:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Peterson's Guide

I don't know if this is appropriate for this page, the main page or for Wikipedia in general (i.e., if this violates the policy of neutrality Wikipedia ascribes to) and I don't have the specific page number (or the exact quote, so if somebody has this book, please help to confirm this), but I know that the Peterson's Field Guide to Medicinal Plants and Herbs (see Roger Tory Peterson) has a statement from the editors voicing their professional displeasure at the illegal classification of cannabis. Thought it should be confirmed, and at least discussed.

United States section

I want to merge the information under the section United States, because the section is way too long to not have it's own article and I think the information would fit well if it is merged into Legality of cannabis in the United States with a summarized version this article. Does anyone have any objections? -ChristopherMannMcKay 19:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly would advocate substantial pruning of the current section to bring it into line with those for other countries. Most of this material should be in the separate article --Peter cohen 17:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The new article exists, I'll prune right now, SqueakBox 17:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

United States Position on Medical Marijuana

Hello, I believe this line is out of date in the United States Section:

Recently, dozens of states, most notably California, have legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. However, federal agents choose to enforce federal laws in California, and many patients have been arrested and prosecuted for using medical marijuana (despite its legality under California law)

I propose to change it to this:

Recently, dozens of states, most notably California, have legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. In February 2009, the Obama Administration announced that the United States federal government had changed its position on medical marijuana and would now "allow states to make their own rules on medical marijuana without interference by the federal government." Hartman, Jaime L. (2009-03-02). "Obama administration to end raids on medical marijuana dispensaries". OhMyGov. Retrieved 2009-03-11.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

-Youreakitty (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

United States = Big Tobackgo

Due to the preeminent economic and military power of the US throughout the world (military intervention, economic sanctions, etc.), cannabis laws in many countries are imitative of those in the US. And due to the preeminent political power of the tobacco industry, with its tax remittances of over $US30 billion a year to the government, and its assistance to favored candidates, US Big Tobackgo is the key obstacle to legalizing cannabis everywhere. I think these facts require an expanded discussion in any ""US section"" on cannabis legality, including the strategic "headshop laws" aiming to head off the growth of an industry creating low-dosage, low-burning-temperature smoking utensils-- and, if you have the money, vaporizers-- which because they can be used both for cannabis and tobacco, represent a threat to the heavily-advertised "normalcy" of hot-burning-overdose cigarets, the mainstay of the tobacco industry profit margin.Tokerdesigner 21:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how you want to improve the article with this I suggest you remove it --Tomvasseur (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

United States propaganda

could someone please edit the United States section on the legal status of cannabis? It is clearly an advertisement for Ron Paul and it goes so far as to request that the viewer sign a petition of sorts. It contains no actual information on the legal status of cannabis, which is a very important bit of information.


Also, I would add concerning this section, the statement "Under federal law, it is illegal to possess, use, buy, sell, or cultivate marijuana, since the Controlled Substances Act of 1970..." is blatently uninformed and may in fact be prejudicially motivated. Nationally marijuana possession, sale, and cultivation has been illegal since 1934. The CSA of 1970 did little to change the federal marijuana prohibition 74.178.200.61 (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC).

Image:World-cannabis-laws.png

Image:World-cannabis-laws.png needs some sources. I seriously doubt that marijuana is legal in either Peru or Spain. --Descendall 03:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I live in Peru and I can assure cannabis is definitely not 'essentially legal' here, although its possession for 'personal use' is decriminalized. I do not know whether this article in Spanish <URL:http://derecho-normas-jurisprudencias.blogspot.com/2010/07/consumo-de-drogas-en-peru-codigo-penal.html> may be regarded as a reliable source or not, but it discusses general personal drug consumption according to the Peruvian Penal Code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.235.29.234 (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

In Peru, according to the Article 8 of the Constitution of Peru of 1993 (which is the Supreme Law of Peru and current constitution), the Peruvian State fights and penalizes illicit drug trafficking. Likewise, it regulates the use of social drugs.

According to the Article 299 of the Peruvian Penal Code (Codigo Penal Peruano), is it NOT penalized to posses drugs for PERSONAL and IMMEDIATE USE ONLY as long as it doesn't exceed 5 grams of Cocaine Paste, 2 grams of Cocaine, 8 grams of Marijuana or 2 grams of Marijuana by-products (Hashish, Kief, etc.), 1 gram of Opium latex or 200 milligrams of Opium derivatives (Heroin) or 250 milligrams of Ecstasy, containing MDMA, MDA (Tenamfetamine); Methamphetamines or analogous substances. --201.230.13.228 (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Russia

I noticed russia is blue on the map, however, according to: http://www.webehigh.com/city/detail.php?CITYID=Moscow

At least a part of russia isn't that weed friendly. Can anyone check the situation out ?

Jamaica

It would be cool if someone wrote about Jamaica. --212.247.27.193 22:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Exteremely illegal and severely punishable by law. But it prevails because of the crime cash, folk tradition and Rastafarians. Aint cool at all, aint cool ...

Gouverment burning the ganja fields, while people with a lot of money doing export to USA. Not a small mans game ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.26.208 (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge from Legal and medical status of cannabis

Largely duplicate info with a misleading title. Pairadox 07:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge per Pairadox. Articles have essentially the same subject. ~ Danelo 01:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If you merge the two together, then the unified article will become much too broad and disorganized. Keep it as it is. ~ Yasuna 09:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The both articles are huge. I don't think they must be merged. -- Magioladitis 12:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis is not a Narcotic

Every instance in the entire article where cannabis is referred to as a narcotic should be changed. Cannabis is not a narcotic: see the Wikipedia Entry "Narcotic". Ezstoltzfus 04:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Should be easy, put it inanother document format and use search and replace. Go for it, SqueakBox 04:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The law in many nations includes cannabis prohibition in a larger section devoted to opiates, in an effort to mislead the public and justify anti-cannabis laws passed in deference to Big Tobackgo.Tokerdesigner (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You need to learn how to spell tobacco dude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.214.129 (talk) 06:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Australian Laws

Under the section of legality of Marijuana use in Australia, it is missing citations and missing some states like Victoria. If anyone knows and has government proof of the actual laws that would be much more useful and encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.166.83 (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In the Australian section, I feel that the culture of cannabis needs to be discussed such as the leniency of police during the festivals in Nimbin.

UK

please leave the UK section as it is and revert any changes to what I put as what is put down is the official UK law and is taken from an official site. Cannabis IS an arrestable offence for any amount —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.252.54 (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but police will not "always" take action as the article states, i got caught with it a few days ago and notign was done, didnt even get rid of it. Police will usually turn a blind eye.

Wikipedia does not use anecdotal evidence. What actions the police take on cannabis must be referenced to a reliable source rather than from personal experience. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not anecdotal if there are legal precedents, but these would need to be backed up by a court's findings. Unfortunately the situation in the UK is that the power of arrest is at the discretion of the officer, so any charges brought to court are unlikely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prescottspies (talkcontribs) 10:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of Canada section

This section sounds more like a rant than a balanced encyclopedic article to me. Soaringgoldeneagle (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

hiuyuyuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuHAHAHAHA HAHAHA

zero dead linked to marijuana intake???

Ok, it is probably very hard to die from acute intoxication but fatal accidents from a more risky behavior, traffic accidents, mix with potent other drugs with unpredictable synergy effects etc is also relevant. So zero is absolutely no true. And it is not relevant to compare intake of cannabis on once in your life with normal social use of alcohol. There is an article Cannabis(drug) and things like withdrawal symptoms etc have a place there etc. The text does not inform that the original list had more drugs on the list (twenty) and the drugs in the text is only the top of that list. The text presents one project that compares cannabis with alcohol as the absolute truth and that is unWiki. Dala11a (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is not a single death ever recorded that has been directly linked to cannabis. --Bigfootisreal (talk) 06:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Do your research....not one coroner has ever put down pot,mary-jane or whatever you want to call it as a primary cause of death. The statement above is 100% on point. Read The Emperor Wears No Clothes or check out http://www.jackherer.com/ then make comments on pot. If you do not know something do your research before condemning something you do not understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bevanda (talkcontribs) 22:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

uk

why does someone keep changing it to say that since 2001 small amounts are allowed? this is totally untrue. i dont see the point of saying you are allowed when you are not, please someone explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.207.43 (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Lack of authoritative references

I don't think the use of VeryImportantPotheads for references is appropriate given the website name and its level of authority. If nothing else it makes a bit of a joke of the source material for the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

<chuckle> I'm guessing you're not a VIP. Loosen up, maaaan. Seriously, though, I agree but it is a good source for starting research – although I'm not sure this page is the place for that. VeryImportantPotheads link kept for posterity ... II | (t - c) 09:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Denver" :
    • {{cite web|url=http://www.veryimportantpotheads.com/site/denverj.htm|title=VeryImportantPotheads}}
    • {{cite news|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-03-pot_x.htm|title=Denver votes to legalize marijuana possession|author=Patrick O'Driscoll|publisher=USA Today|date=[[2005-11-03]]|accessdate=2006-03-11}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

I have deleted the line saying cannabis remains class C in Scotland. Although different penalties are in place for N. Ireland and Scotland cannabis was classified upwards to Class B throughout the UK (as shown by the BBC reference given and other wikipedia entries on the legal status of the drug. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Boots and Superdrug?

I seriously question whether cannabis is available in any Boots or Superdrug outlet. Mainly because both chains have very few stores outside of the UK. I'd be very interested to know about any other retailer selling it though, so please correct the article if you know of any. Otherwise, I propose that the sentence is removed. Tomythius (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Boots and superdrug obviously don't sell marijuana as it is currently illegal. Don't ask stupid questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.207.22 (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Australian Law

I have added a link to a factsheet that outlines the law in Australia re cannabis. --bessmorris 09:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC) I have also updated information regarding the legality/ civil conviction for possession of cannabis in each state of Australia. --bessmorris 08:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


Just a thought

organizing these by continent / region might be more useful to show the relative differences between nations. NiceGuyEduardo —Preceding unsigned comment added by NiceGuyEduardo (talkcontribs) 11:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sweden - Is there tolerance or not?

What kind of practical proof do you need to change this ludicrous text?

As a statement of fact there no longer exists any tolerance in Sweden or else in Scandinavia for prosecuting, harassing or in any way act intolerant or inhumane towards any citizen or visitor that uses cannabis for what ever reason.

This discussion concerns a nation who produces weapons, automobiles, cell phones that all affect and harm the population of the globes without their consent. It also concerns a nation where many individual citizens, some artists, craftsmen, businessmen of high office, government officials and royals enjoy the benefits of marijuana.

If any of their officials wish to ban me, Cannabis Sativa, Indica, Rudbeckia, a simple and gentle plant, they'd better take their time to discuss it with me personally and stop referring to paper down the sewer years ago.

Sincerely, basta with this text Ord Word Låt Stå!

And, please remember, call me if you doubt it! I’ll smoke pot at your house anywhere, any day to prove anything you'd need to see for your self. Perhaps after the time when you’re to hurt by someone elses weaponry, automobiling or choose of electronics over flesh and blood. Wouldn’t that’d be sad though?

/CS


Csjoholm had written a new lead on the Sweden-section where it is alleged that customs and police "are not known to enforce the law only concerning possessions of cannabis" and this without any source to verify that and the following claims. Today he did a blanket revert on my revert on his edits, and on Dala11a and mine subsequent edits to that section. What his edit brought to the section was contradicted by all other sources who deals with the subject I have come across, and all used in that section. It violated "verifiability, not truth" and "no original research". So now I have now reverted it once again.

Csjoholm, if you produce reliable sources to back your claims up, I will be happy to help you reedit the section. But not before then. Steinberger (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is more statistics about the number of people convicted for different type of drug crimes[5] in Sweden with text in both Swedish and English. The statistic do not support the edit by Csjoholm.Dala11a (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The source you propose does support my claims. "Drygt 22 procent av dem som lagfördes för narkotikabrott år 2006 meddelades åtalsunderlåtelser, vilket är en ökning från år 2005 då andelen var knappt 19 procent." 22% of the cases are go free of prosecution and the reoport notes that this is rising 2006 and should be well over a third of the cases today. 74% of the cases 2006 are labeled as minor thus resulting only in fines. In the forward of these statistics one note that they cannot in any way be proposed to show the whole narcotics scene but only clearly defined proven criminalcases. As such they are the tip of the iceberg - in more ways than one. Say a third of the cases reaches prosecution and courts and are ruled to go free of prosecution, one can only imagine how many cases that doesn't even reach prosecution eye but are dismissed already by the police autority themselfes. And how many that never reaches even the eye of law-enforcement by chance or neigborly protection. I see no other clearer proof or source to present than the one from BRAA that you present.

The article as it stands with your edits explains a strict interpretation of the law wheras the statistic from BRAA gives at hand that of the relativly few cases a good portion results in no persecution and that fines are the results of almost all the remaining. I propose, also with support in this study, that there is a far greater number that are dismissed or neglected by law enforcement even before they could make a mark in these statistics. The statistic also point to the fact that young people are overrepresented in the number of sentences. There could be diffrent reasons for this but it also supports my claim that up-standing, adult and otherwise law abiding citizens with a drug addiction most often go free of prosecution.

It is very hard for me to support some of my claims since law-enforcement naturally officially and politically as well as courts must be and officially are following the "zero-tolerance" policy on drugs, and since a form of "scare" tactics is part of the strategy of prevention. I propose that the article be altered to reflect reality. The version that lies today claims "If police suspect someone has consumed cannabis they are likely to be ordered to take a drug test, which is seen as a way to prove consumption"! I'll remove it now, if you claim something like that to be likely, please first prove that it has ever happened to any adult in [Sweden]. NB. The first article on this subject was by my hand and was subsequently altered to reflect the official represive model.

Csjoholm (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The far-reaching interpretation of BRÅ's report you are proposing in your edits above are WP:OR and that is forbidden by policy. It is also forbidden to distort the contents of a source as you have done in your recent edits (eg, Jenny Johansson). I will revert your cut-down and urge you to find WP:Reliable sources to any claim you make. Steinberger (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The BRÅ report also show an increase of the number of minor drug crimes that is not related to any comparable increase in the total use of illegal drugs. Minor drug crimes is mostly use or possession of very small quantities of cannabis.(page 13) The total number of citizens convicted for minor drug crimes have increased from about 3 thousand in 1985 to 13 thousand per year in 2005. The police detect and report more minor drug crimes because they are trained to do that. Dala11a (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You might not agree with my reading of the tre years old report from BRÅ. But tell me where you find 18 year penelties? There are no such sentences in Sweden. Not for murder and certainly not for cannabis possesion. Where do you find anything that say that you are likely to be drugtested by police? It is not "likely" to be stopped by police, nor is it "likely" for them to test you for drugs if they do. If you want to claim this prevalence you have to be able to name one case.

I Åklagarmyndighetens rekomendationer i RättsPM 2009:1 finns följande tabell om rekomenderade påföljder för innehav av cannabis såväl marijuana som hasch.

Cannabis Dagsböter högst 1 gram 30 därutöver t.o.m. 3 gram 40 därutöver t.o.m. 5 gram 50 därutöver t.o.m. 10 gram 60 därutöver t.o.m. 15 gram 70 därutöver t.o.m. 20 gram 80 därutöver t.o.m. 25 gram 90 därutöver t.o.m. 30 gram 100 därutöver t.o.m. 35 gram 110 därutöver t.o.m. 40 gram 120 därutöver t.o.m. 45 gram 130 därutöver till 50 gram 140 - 150


CS 17:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Not in that source or any sourced used. However, the facts come from Brottsbalken chapter 26 and Narkotikastrafflagen. Steinberger (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


There are no 18 year penelties issued in Sweden and has not been for a very long time. You name speciall cruelty as a reason for this severe sentence, explain how that relate to crimes dealing with cannabis possession and consumption?

Acording to BRÅ "Just over 22 per cent of the persons convicted of drug related offences in 2006 were issued waivers of prosecution, an increase in comparison with 2005, when the percentage was slightly less than 19 per cent" From the same page 13 that you qoute. You claim it is not possible for law enforcement to issue waivers yet an growing 22% of the cases that came to prosecution level were waived. Let it be known that 22% was waived at the prosecution/court level and let anyone judge how many are waived before that.

Explain how it can be considered "likely" to be drugtested by police. Do you argue that police in Sweden persue suspicion of crime where the possible punishment is a fine? --CS 18:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

1) How can the present laws be irrelevant to this article? 2) As far as I know, juveniles and series-offenders often have their charges dropped or "consumed" respectively. If that is the case, then the fact that 22% are given waivers does not prove anything. 3) It is likely that you where to be arrested for a drug offense if you gave the police a probable cause, this as the nominal maximum penalty for minor drug offenses in fact are prison. That the actual penalties for minor drug offenses always are fines is a other and separate thing. Steinberger (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It is irrellevant since the "18 years" sentence you talk about given in combination with considered cruelty must be is for another crime.

Even if the maximumsentence for minor drugoffenses is six months imprisonment only a fine is recomended for possesion of up to 50 grams of cannabis by the Swedish Prosecution Authority. Crimes like that doesn not qualify for public prosecusion and are thus not persued by the police. "Propable cause" is not a term used by swedsih law enforcement, but let's say if they caught you red-handed I grant there is a possiblilty that they'd report you or even apprehend you, you would not however be "arrested".

The maximum punishment for sever cases of narcotic related crimes is 10 years in prison. To be honest we've now left the legality of cannabis section and discusses a whole diffrent range of deadly narcotics that would have to have been sold and abetted in great amount, or of a specially dangerous our callous sort.

"Är brott som avses i 1 § första stycket att anse som grovt, skall för grovt narkotikabrott dömas till fängelse, lägst två år och högst tio år.

Vid bedömande huruvida brottet är grovt skall särskilt beaktas, om det har utgjort ett led i en verksamhet som har bedrivits i större omfattning eller yrkesmässigt, avsett särskilt stor mängd narkotika eller eljest varit av särskilt farlig eller hänsynslös art. Bedömningen skall grundas på en sammanvägning av omständigheterna i det särskilda fallet. Lag (2000:1228)."

Steinbergers comment on dropping of charges or "consumption" of them shows a knowledge of that convictions aren't added together to produce longer sentences in Sweden as is suggested by the article today.

--CS 18:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSjoholm (talkcontribs)

18 years is the maximum theoretical penalty for a cannabis drug criminal. That is totally clear. If you find a RS that say that it in practice is different, and that the sentences never are so long you are welcome. The police can ignore minor offenses, yes. However, BRÅ reports that in practice, they don't. Not only the penal value (straffvärde) effect police activity, for example directives from the government also do. Steinberger (talk)

If you want to raise the maximum penalty in Sweden, you should do so politically. There is no statue for 18 years neither in the Swedish drug code, "narkotikastrafflagen" nor anywhere else in the criminal code. There are persons sentenced to life that's been in prison for this long, they are all convicted for murder. I don't feel obliged to prove that this is not the case since you fail to show one single case or quote to support an 18 years sentence in this or any Swedish law. I'd put it this way - Swedish police can and have the possibility to pursue minor drug offenses since there in fact the possibility of jail time as a maximum punishment and will probably do so if this is the possible way to get a conviction to a multiple offender. For a person staying clear of the law with no other violation prosecution becomes rather unlikely since it does not fall under the principle of public prosecution granted that the most possible Since you now have reached the conclusion that in fact police can ignore minor offenses, can we mention this praxis in the article? I'd like to quote the Swedish national radio series about narcotics, "Knarket" and make a proportional claim on how many offenses are prosecuted and how many of those lead to convictions and what theses punishments in fact are. (700000 used drugs last year/20000 punished 2006/convicted 2006 15000 comes to circa 2% convictions per offense.) Can we present these truths in the article or will you delete them? I'd like to explain in the article how the legal limit for a minor offense has been raised and fixed to 50 grams this year from an arbitrary praxis of a nominal 25 grams. How do you suggest if I prove this to you when the published text by the National Attorney only seems to prove its illegality to you? In the comparative measure of cannabis legality I'd think this development be shown without disturbing your approved scare tactics? I'd also like to do some analogies in interpreting how the legal system actually works in Sweden by explaining the dispenses that exists for systematical law bending in other areas that affect far greater portions of the Swedish population than the 1-2% cannabis users of whom 2% are fined for it annually. This could be considered of topic but would whitewash the pink article to some extent explaining how a strict and clear law means very little in reality. I regularly hear of trailer loads of brown hash of poor or diffusing quality being pulled over and ceased by customs. I never once heard of a trailer of top quality medical marijuana being pulled over. Is that because it doesn’t exists or because law enforcement in Scandinavia is actually so advanced that it targets its resources to stop hash of poor and harmful quality while ignoring citizens provision of life sustaining portions of mild and relatively “safe” cannabis? Maybe this is ”wishful thinking” and its nothing I can prove. Reading the article the way you insist on keeping it however clearly infer that Swedish law enforcement is so fucking dumb that they read the Swedish law by the letter. Why? The law itself is represented in a biased fashion, disregarding recent development and even untruthful.

--CS 08:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Read the the criminal code again, it is there. 2) That a person "staying clear of the law" remains unpunished is a condition of Sweden being a "Rechtsstaat", not that the police are showing tolerance. We have certain rights in Sweden that the police not can not violate without a good and articulable reason. As it stated in the article, mere intuition is not enough. 3) That statistics have been used in a program in RS-media outlet does not mean that you could take that statistics, rework it and draw conclusions from it. That is a special case of original research called original synthesis and forbidden according to Wikipedia policy. Moreover, you probably have to get the wax out of you ears. 700000 is the number of Swedes who have taken drugs sometime in their lifetime, not in the year 2006. If I remember correctly, we are approx 7 million in Sweden aged 16-64, if 1-2% of them are smoking cannabis sometime annually, that would be somewhere 70k-140k. I recall that Björn Fries have said that approx 100k are smoking cannabis annually in Sweden - and that is as a good guess as mine and neatly between the statistical extremes. Dala11a's BRÅ report state that 36% of 26k convicted drug offenders where in it for cannabis, or approximately 9.5k. That is 9.5% of all whom smoked in 2006 if we where to trust my numbers, and I personally think that is quite high as the police have to find the offenders for themselves with hard police work. The percentage is anyway to high to acknowledge any widespread "tolerance" from the police such as in the Netherlands or even Denmark. 4) The threshold for minor offences was lowered from 60 grammes to 50 recently, where the heck have you got 25 gramme from? 5) It is a WP:OR/WP:SYN violation to combine statistics in new fashions and make interpretations not covered in the sources used. 6) You are driveling. Find sources that say that the police are "smart" about drugs or lenient when it comes to cannabis or whatever you claim them to be. Steinberger (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm driveling? There are no possiblities to convict people to 18 years in prison in Sweden. ("Grovt narkotikabrott - Om narkotikabrottet har utgjort ett led i en verksamhet som har bedrivits i större omfattning eller yrkesmässigt eller avsett särskilt stor mängd narkotika eller annars varit av särskilt farlig eller hänsynslös art bedöms det som grovt brott med påföljd av fängelse, lägst två år och högst tio år.[10]" That the police since 1993 have the right to in some instances take urine and blood samples from suspects does not make it "likely" for them to do so. You can see the historic limitation of 25 grams of hash here http://www.tullverket.se/download/18.4ab1598c11632f3ba9280007586/4f03_2.pdf. The new directions from NA 2009 have doubled this ammount and also sets a stature for treating all cannabisproducts according to the same scale. I won't make much effort to understand your numbers, there has been no statistics supporting 95000 convicts in a year if that is what you are saying, nor you claims of greater tolerance in other countries. Still you claim that police work hard to persue people of crimes where the punishment is a fine. I know that they don't, it is not a crime that falls under public prosecution so they'd have to stumble onto it, have it reported to them etc for them at all to take interest. You claim otherwise but cannot show a single case to support your claims. Why do you persist in publishing lies about our country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSjoholm (talkcontribs)

As you might have heard, one of the reasons the parliament adjusted the maximum duration of time-limited sentence for murder earlier this year was partly because the fact that it actually is quite common for sentences longer then 10 years for drug offenders - regularly producing longer sentences for crimes where the lethality is purely theoretical in opposite to a actual murders. Cannabis is not the most involved drug when it comes to such cases of overlength aggregate sentences, but it could be the drug involved. And it have been involved, a reference in the article reports of two cases, one 12 year sentence and one 14 year sentence for a attempted smuggling from the Netherlands to Norway.
When it comes to what you are saying on the likelihood of urine tests, you are right that the law itself does not imply that it would be likely. But government gives directives how to prioritize among crimes and drug crimes is be highly prioritized. And minor crimes is prioritized higher then gross crimes. The police are also increasingly successful due to new training. So it is likely that you would be tested if the police can produce a reasonable cause ([skälig grund) to take you in. This internal police document does for example have a step-by-step list on what to do when "reasonable suspicion" arises - and it does not leave room for any tolerant interpretation of the law.
The Tullverket-report does does not explicitly state that the threshold for minor offences is 25 - the list could be cropped. More significantly, the report list the penal value to weight for "minor drug smuggling". And no, the attorney general has changed the threshold from 60 g to 50 g when it comes to possession and other crimes under the normal "drug penal act" - see the same PM as in the article but from 2005.
And just to satisfy you, I have checked up on my statistics. CAN reports that in 2007 ten percent of those aged 16-84 had tested cannabis sometime, or the equivalent to 750000 in that age bracket (obviously 7,5 million are aged between 16 and 84). One percent of all females and two percent of all males had smoked cannabis sometime in the last twelve months (or approximately 37 500 females and approximately 75 000 males, circa 100 000 persons in all). CAN also reports that 7488 where convicted or accepted a fine for a cannabis related offence in 2006 (that whould be approximately 7.5 percent of all whom smoked sometime during the same twelve month period.) BRÅ sets the same number at 9402 the year 2006 (or 9.4 percent) but I have not figured out what the difference comes from.
I have now produced sources. And for your information, I am not inexperienced when it comes to cannabis and I got a lot of stoner friends, neither myself or anyone else I know about have ever witnessed some lenience from the police. My sister is a police student and one of my stoner friends have two police parents. So if there where lenience I should know about it. I have also read criminology at the university and being a democracy, Sweden is among the hardest on drugs. The article contains no lies... Sweden is hard on drugs and show no tolerance. If you want to prove me wrong, get a WP:RS where it is alleged that Sweden is tolerant on cannabis. Steinberger (talk) 02:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There are no convictions of 18 years in Sweden. That someone has been convicted to 14 years for murder isnt relevant nor does it prove your point. You cannot show that it is likely to be hauled down to be tested by the police like you insist on. The Swedish police handbook does anything but prove this; to me it's obvious that procedures like the prescribed rarly are followed. The handbook also notes that there is need for more than a suspicion to follow these procedures. Any way you read that it doesn't support the claim of random drugtests being likely. In time when you've lost interest I will edit the article to reflect reality. --CS 17:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The article have never said that there are random drug tests in Sweden. Steinberger (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

SUGGEST IMMEDIATE CHANGE

The medical argument for/against marijuana usage really has no place on this page, though obviously it makes sense to link to it somewhere. Please consider removing this section and replacing it with a link to a more thorough analysis page?

There may be a major POV violation here, too: The "Columbia University study" that found a 39% decrease in white blood cells... appears to have never taken place. Dr. James Dobson, (PhD in the first place, not MD) a child psychologist, wrote an article for the Washington Times in 1999 where he merely claimed this study took place. Subsequent research has not turned up actual evidence of the study, as shown in this copy of the Drug Policy Education Group's rebuttal to the DEA (page 8): http://www.dpeg.org/DEArebuttal02.pdf Obviously, the Drug Policy education Group has their own agenda, but they're not lying; there is no evidence.

Last time I deleted a false citation, but I don't want to go through the hassle of the back and forth with the person that insists on having it. Will the editor please change your wording and citation to reflect the truth? Or, would everyone else be okay with simply removing this as an incorrect source?

--Rob Shepard (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks.

I'm unable to access the link you supplied, I get a blank page. If the source is that weak it should be removed. --→James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 04:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of U.S. from "Use of capital punishment against the cannabis trade" section

What are other editors thoughts regarding removing the U.S. from the "Use of capital punishment" section.[6] The Supreme court has severely limited its use to murders, or those whose captors died in their custody, those above age 17, with an IQ of 70+, etc. The Supreme court stated a child rapist can not be executed. Having the U.S. listed alongside countries which do, in fact and procedure, execute those found possessing and/or distributing cannabis I believe leads readers to come to the incorrect conclusion that capital punishment has ever or would ever be used for any non-violent drug related offense.

Is this simply a list of countries which have laws on their books allowing the death penalty, but may not ever actually carry it out? Or those who execute drug-related offenders with death on a regular basis? I noticed some countries missing on this list, including Iraq, Iran, China, etc.

Case Ref.: [7] [8] [9] --→James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 04:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You make a good distinction insofar as use of the death penalty in relation to marijuana in the United States is purely theoretical and a highly unlikely possibility. I don't know if it's entirely appropriate to remove all of the material, but perhaps greater clarification is needed. One solution may be to add a couple of sentences into the main U.S. section of the article detailing the possibility, and remove the relevant material from the capital punishment section. --Xaliqen (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved from article

This is not my text. I only moved it from the article. It seems out of context, poorly written (I made tiny corrections), and does not make much sense. At least to me. Perhaps someone sees something that I could not see. Hence I have put it here. gidonb (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the middle of the twentieth century, very few countries have taken on the issue of recreational legalization of Cannabis. Some counries have taken a longtime, well known stance of little to no enforcement of small amounts of marijuana possession as in the Netherlands,or taken the road of true decriminalization as Portugal has.[1] Portugal is only the only country where it is the law that small amounts of marijuana possession are decriminalized.[2]

Seems pretty self explanatory.....not sure why you cannot comprehend it and I vote that this information be moved back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bevanda (talkcontribs) 22:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Suspended sentence

Re. section "by country" there is:

"Possession of any amount of cannabis is illegal in Poland and can result in 3-year prison sentence (though in case of possessing a low amount one usually gets fined). "

I don't think it's really accurate. Usually for possesion of low amount we have suspended sentences for 0.5, 1 or 2 years of prison - this is real problem in Poland as young people/students are registered as criminals - this is the main practice in our country. I suggest changing the text, so that it would stick to the reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.167.78.239 (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom

I have added an NPV tag to the united kingdom as it needs cleaning up as it is written as if it supports legalising cannabis C. 22468 (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain which parts in particular break the NPOV policy? --J05HYYY (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Map Update

When someone gets a chance, can they change the map to now include Connecticut under decriminalized, as the law decriminalizing up to half an ounce came into effect this week. TheMadcapSyd (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

score 131.247.244.164 (talk) 05:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


Map Update 2

Washington state is decriminalized. Hempfest, cited as the "largest marijuana festival in the world" occurs there each summer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.245.235 (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Iran

Any sources for the decriminalisation of Cannabis in Iran? Pretty interesting stuff Jamesbenton (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sativex (Nabiximols): is it cannabis in UK law?


A general impression has been created that G W Pharms's 'Sativex' nabiximols is somehow not cannabis, but if it is cannabis then it is class B in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and schedule 1 in the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001

Schedule 1 drugs are usually said, however, to be drugs which are not used medicinally

The latest edition of the British National Formulary, published September 2011, says this about schedule 1 drugs - but includes a monograph about Sativex as a medicinal product

G W Pharma appear to have set new standards in production and packaging of tincture of cannabis, but tincture of cannabis is not legally distinct from cannabis

If it were legally distinct, then earlier forms of tincture, available until circa 1971 (date of the Misuse of Drugs Act), would still be on the market as licensed medicinal products

Laurel Bush (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

See also Which ‘Controlled Drug’ is Sativex? freedom of information request to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/which_controlled_drug_is_sativex and Is Sativex cannabis? freedom of information request to the Home Office at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/is_sativex_cannabis

Laurel Bush (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


See also my Sativex: a new tincture of cannabis article at http://www.spanglefish.com/laurelbush/index.asp?pageid=375588
Laurel Bush (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


michigan

In Michigan, USA cannabis is legal with a doctors prescription. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.134.75 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Map, Connecticut and the US

On the map, Connecticut is incorrectly placed as red. However, pot has been decriminalized there. Furthermore, it seems for all of the US it would be better to put the states in orange as opposed to red, as cannabis laws are rarely enforced except against distributors.

http://blog.norml.org/2011/06/07/connecticut-lawmakers-vote-to-decriminalize-adult-marijuana-possession/
http://the420times.com/2011/06/ct-senate-passes-bill-to-decriminalize-small-amounts-of-marijuana/
http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2011/06/after-marijuana-decriminalizat.html
Thanks.LedRush (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Location of map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-cannabis-laws.png

If possible, I think it should be re-added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RitaTibbet (talkcontribs) 20:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)