Talk:Legality of cannabis/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Laws not yet in effect

Some US states on map have been changed to blue because of referendum results. However nothing in this map indicates that it includes law not yet in effect – it's supposed to show legality of cannabis now. I'm going to change those states back to illegal. Borysk5 (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Recreational map is missing cities that are legal or decriminalized

Wouldn't be complete without these local laws from the US states of Georgia and Wisconsin! Altanner1991 (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Off hand, I think Austin, St. Louis and Madison too. The problem is potentially a map.that looks like chicken pox and is unreadable. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

There would be a heck of a lot more than that too, just in the U.S. alone. Who knows what else around the world. it is hard enough finding information on and keeping track of the legality in specific countries; I couldn't imagine throwing individual cities in the mix.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree. The map would be a mess if you started showing the legal status of individual cities.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sentence regarding UN scheduling

Regarding this edit, I replaced "which is for medical use" in the first part of the sentence with "meaning it is considered to be addictive and present a serious risk of abuse". I did this because it is incorrect to say that Schedule I drugs are for medical use. Some are, some aren't... depending on whether or not they are also in Schedule IV. This is outlined in the EMCDDA citation.

Also, I changed "meaning that no uses were allowed" in the second part of the sentence with "meaning it was considered to have very limited medical value". I changed it because the New York Times citation says that rescheduling was basically a symbolic victory that carried no force of law and was instead merely guidance. This is consistent with the fact that some 40+ countries have legalized medical use while cannabis has remained in Schedule IV. It therefore seems incorrect to imply that Schedule IV bans medical use.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The sentence seems to imply that the recent UN move acts to further restrict cannabis, when in fact, it is now de-facto less restrictive. The move was widely reported as being for the purposes of medicine. Altanner1991 (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

How does it imply that? Can you explain more clearly? I do not like the edit that you made btw. "'Potentially' medical"? That does not seem like a very good description of Schedule I at all. What I wrote, "considered to be addictive and present a serious risk of abuse", came pretty much straight from the reference... so how is it better to say something vague and confusing like "'potentially' medical"? Also, what is with the quotation marks around "potentially"? Who/what are you quoting?

Also, in the second part of the sentence, why did you make it say "no medical value" instead of "very limited medical value"? There is not a huge difference between the two, but the reference supports what I wrote not what you wrote... so why change it? Please explain.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is the source:

https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/12/1079132]

Every journalism company is talking about how this is for medical cannabis, compared to the previous law that was there for 59 years as the typical "fully illegal" policy we have had for example in the United States (Controlled Substances Act 1970 and anything like it).

I would like to include Medical cannabis#Legal status (second paragraph) because it similarly wrongly implies that cannabis and cocaine/heroin/etc have the same scheduling: they do not, and that is because the latter are schedule I & IV drugs, which is the category for the very most dangerous.

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs#Schedules of drugs says "Schedule IV is the category of drugs, such as heroin, that are considered to have "particularly dangerous properties" in comparison to other drugs" whereas Schedule I:

• Limitation to medical and scientific purposes of all phases of narcotics trade (manufacture, domestic trade, both wholesale and retail, and international trade) in, and of the possession and use of, drugs;
• Requirement of governmental authorization (licensing or state ownership) of participation in any phase of the narcotics trade and of a specific authorization (import and export authorization) of each individual international transaction;
• Obligation of all participants in the narcotics trade to keep detailed records of their transactions in drugs;
• Requirement of a medical prescription for the supply or dispensation of drugs to individuals;
• A system of limiting the quantities of drugs available, by manufacture or import or both, in each country and territory, to those needed for medical and scientific purposes.

This means that Schedule I is the medical listing, for example medical cannabis, along with the somewhat less strict Schedule II. Schedule IV, again, is the most restrictive list, having no medical uses, for example heroin and cocaine. This difference needs to be reflected on Wikipedia. The system in the United States has the opposite numbering (Schedule I is without medical use whereas Schedule IV can be used for a variety of purposes) and so we need to make every effort to make sure that there is no remaining confusion for the readers.

The EMCDDA link is helpful but we use the commentary from the original articles, which have somewhat different language. For example, EMCDDA does nothing to emphasize the ultimate intent of Schedule I as medical, as opposed to Schedule IV. We should take advantage of the further language when making the comparison between Schedule I and IV, otherwise we are not giving all of the information and so we are being misleading.

We need to clarify the full difference between UN Schedule I and UN Schedule IV. This was not shown in the EMCDDA document but there are official documents which do show a more clear picture. Altanner1991 (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with all that -- but I have an idea. Let's change the sentence to the following and be done with it:

Cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug under the Single Convention treaty, meaning that medical use is allowed but that it is considered to be an addictive drug and present a serious risk of abuse.

--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Its dangerous nature is still emphasized in the UN policy (because it is still a UN Schedule I drug and not a UN Schedule II drug), so it is fair to do it your way. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Antarctic territories

The information on the map is due for a correction because medical cannabis is legal in the countries' Antarctic territories, too. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source?....the last time this was brought forward the only source that was presented actually refuted the claim... this.--Moxy- 03:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

We never wait for a source to mention every single territory any time cannabis is legalized. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN.--Moxy- 04:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

How do we justify Antarctica needing special verification when other territories do not need their own verifiability? Altanner1991 (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

What? Legality of cannabis#References.Moxy- 10:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Thank you Altanner1991 (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I started Cannabis in Antarctica, it is an interesting legal situation. Signatories to the Antarctic Treaty only assert legal authority over their own nationals despite whatever land claim(s) they may have made. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Mexico should be made blue on the map

Mexico should be made blue on the map, especially because the article itself lists it as one of five countries where marijuana is legal (nationwide), and the chart lists marijuana as legal in Mexico. JoeSmoe2828 (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks like that change was made already. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Legal status for medical use

Steel pluto (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Medical use

In the map of legal status of cannabis for medical use,there's a legend showing for recreational purposes, request for corrected version Steel pluto (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You have a point. Should blue be "legal for any use" and green "legal for medical use"? ☆ Bri (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

He's only bringing it because I sort of took the opposite position in a previous edit, similar to how he inserted himself in a previous dispute that I was involved in. He's a troll who I would advise against feeding, but if you want to change it to "legal for any use" I wouldn't object to it (though I think "legal for recreational use" is a bit more clear).--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there's nothing wrong in being like that. Steel pluto (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not a troll,jamesy.I wouldn't have take it in that sense if I was at your position.I gave my view on it. Steel pluto (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Unnecessary unit conversions

Anyone else think it's overkill to convert every mention of grams in the article to ounces and vice-versa? I think should just use the unit of measurement that is specified for each law, so as to not create an eyesore in the article and take up unnecessary space. There really is no need to pamper the reader to such a high degree IMO.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Oddly enough, Americans can do metric when it comes to cannabis. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's unnecessary for a variety of reasons. I went ahead and changed it back except for the few mentions of ounces in the article I left in the conversions to grams.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2021

Saint Lucia has decriminalized cannabis up to 30 grams. Change Illegal to decriminalized to make this accurate 69.80.22.185 (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This revert by Jamesy0627144 re-introduced the following problems...

... that had already been resolved:

1. Table not WP:ACCESSIBLE to screen readers (MOS:DTAB), previously provided by scope tags
2. Inconsistent sorting (e.g. Rwanda is ranked as most restrictive, when there Cannabis is legal for medical use, according to the article)
3. Several redlinks: Cannabis in Libya, Cannabis in Guinea-Bissau, Cannabis in Guinea, Cannabis in South Sudan, Cannabis in Niger, Cannabis in Nicaragua
4. Wrong column header case (MOS:HEADCAPS)

This is what the table looked like before it was reverted:

[Note: Table posted here was removed by Jamesy0627144 on 9/16/21 because it was dwarfing all the other wikicode on the talk page. See diff link that Guarapiranga posted above instead.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)]

— Guarapiranga ☎ 07:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Guarapiranga, I'm not sure what scope tags are and it wasn't clear from clicking the MOS:DTAB link. Can you please explain this issue with the page more clearly? Regarding Rwanda, I went ahead and fixed the problem. As far as redlinks, normally I do not like them but in this case I think they are good because there is a realistic possibility they could encourage someone to create a new article. Only six countries are left and then we would have "Cannabis in [...]" articles for every country. My main objection to the change that you made though was that I believe it is better to have the "Cannabis in [...]" articles more clearly visible in the Notes column as the table has existed for many years, and I believe the table looks nicer that way as well.

As far as coloring the Brazil medical column green, the convention that we have been using in this table is to color any country green that does allow whole plant cannabis to be used, even if is hard to obtain such as some European countries that have pretty restrictive laws. So the coloring of Brazil green is just consistent with how the rest of the table is colored. Of course it is not perfect though and not everyone will agree with how every country is colored.

As far as the coloring for Brazil recreational, I'll have to look more into that because I realize there is some gray area regarding the matter, but the reason I reverted the IP edit is because it was unexplained and from an editor that has a history of making disruptive edits to the page (see here, here, and here). For you to accuse me of disruptive editing and "owning the page" for reverting that edit is rather inappropriate.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding Brazil recreational, I restored with some alteration the material about treatment / community service that you removed without explanation. Regarding coloring, I'm OK to keep the coloring red because I'm not sure that it qualifies as decriminalization if you are foced to go to treatment and perform community service under threat of heavy penalty. I plan to update the map in the same way; currently Brazil is marked as decriminalized.

Also, I don't really want to edit your post Guarapiranga, but do you think you could just link the revision of the page instead of posting the entire source code which takes up a huge amount of space for people editing the talk page?--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

France

According to the "Cannabis in France" Wikipage, on September 1, 2020 France introduced a fine of 200 Euros for consuming and possessing cannabis, which to me seems like that would fit the criteria of "decriminalized", thoughts? I would think it should be changed from dark red to yellow now, or at least pink. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Here are two sources, neither of which says that it is decriminalised in France:

• Is France Moving Towards A Legalization Of Cannabis?. Forbes, published 19 January 2021.

• The 2021 guide to cannabis laws around the world. Chicago Tribune, published 15 July 2021.

You would need to find a source that explicitly states that France has decriminalised cannabis, which does not seem to be the case. It’s just that the punishment in France has been lessened, that's all. Helper201 (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• France has a rather different legal system than the U.S., Canada and the UK. There's much more weight given to codification than court rulings; see Common law#Common law legal systems as opposed to civil law legal systems. I'm not sure a strict comparison of what is forbidden by regulation (what we might call a civil infraction in the U.S.), vice forbidden by statute (what we would call illegal per se), makes as much sense there. Maybe someone with more legal knowledge can give an opinion. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2021

Saint Lucia has decriminalized cannabis 69.80.22.185 (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The case of Greece

Greece hasn't made medical usage of cannabis legal. But a law recently made cultivation of THC containing marijuana legal ONLY for medical usage exports to other countries. What should we do in this case?

I think it would be most reasonable to not include Greece in the initial section and then put it as legal for medical on the table but with a sourced explanation on the sourced column. Perhaps ideally with an asterisk saying that consumption within the country isn't legalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnkgr (talk • contribs) 17:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are getting that medical cannabis isn't legal in Greece. According to Cannabis in Greece, sourced to this article, it was legalized in 2017.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

In theory the way was opened by the then government to legalize approved medicaments. I took a look into it and it looks like the local body does appear to have approved one medicament, namely Sativex, but as a new government was elected in 2019, there was no plan to distribute it by the new government and the medicaments likely expired before being distributed. Source (in Greek). I don't know if approving only Sativex counts as medical marijuana being legal though. Sativex contains some active substances and is based on marijuana but it's not marijuana nevertheless. Let alone the fact that the latest gov has been stalling distribution of cannabis-based approved drugs. So if there's no legal distribution maybe we should outright write that it's not approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnkgr (talk • contribs) 20:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

According to this site, thousands of patients have already received cannabis through prescription in Greece. It sounds like the cannabis is imported, which is the same situation that exists in a few other countries that have legalized medical cannabis.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the linked website can't be considered a reliable source given that they sell related products themselves. The article seems unsourced whereas the latest updates on local news was talks in parliament that the imported medicine expired (as the article I linked). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnkgr (talk • contribs) 12:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2021

Change "Costa Rica" legality to "legal" as of today! Msfjo (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2021

Remove United Kingdom from the medically legal as this is false 86.8.57.89 (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-47241787 ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Medical column color changes

Regarding the recent changes to United Kingdom, Brazil, Germany, and Sweden medical status, I am not really in agreement with these changes and have reverted back for now. I think it would be better not to get into subjective judgments over how strict a country's medical cannabis laws are, and instead continue with the current convention in the table which is that as long as long as some access allowed and it is not low-THC then it is marked as legal. It makes things a lot easier that way instead of having to make much tougher judgment calls on each country and debate back-and-forth. I wouldn't even really consider Germany or UK's medical programs to be partial / yellow anyways, for example, so that would be a discussion that would need to be had if go with a more subjective determination. Keep in mind that the map will need to be updated as well if changes are made.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Jamesy0627144, the problem is subjectivity is already being used by what is partial medical legalisation and what is full. Who says that the THC amount is the deciding factor in whether it qualifies as full or partial legality, and even if so what THC percentage would that be? In terms of these specific countries medical access is partial because it can't be easily accessed for pain relief, nor is it legal to medically use for a large range of aliments and has strict criteria for only being able to be used for a small number of extreme cases. It is not the patient/person, nor their regular/local physician, GP or doctor etc that can decide on what might help them but a very limited number of professionals deciding on behalf of the patient. Easy access to cannabis dispensaries, as was the case in Canada and California when they both legalised medical cannabis, is not available in these countries. In Germany a patient must be seriously ill and have absolutely no therapeutic alternative, in Brazil it is only for the terminally ill who have exhausted all other options, in Sweden only for limited circumstances for those that have a license and, in the UK, only cannabis-derivatives when prescribed by a specialist and all other options have been exhausted. To place such restrictive barriers on the limited circumstances of when medical use is legal and not allowing it to be used as a first option/choice or for a range of aliments shows its partial legality. Compare these situations to when medical use was legalised in Canada and patients could grow their own cannabis for personal use or in California when medical use was legalised under Proposition 215 which legalised the use, possession, and cultivation of cannabis by patients with a physician's recommendation, for treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or "any other illness for which marijuana provides relief" and allowed patient caregivers to cultivate cannabis, and urged lawmakers to facilitate the "safe and affordable distribution of marijuana". Essentially if someone could use cannabis for medical purposes and/or pain relief it would be legal, which I think is more in line with full medical legalisation rather than a very restrictive approach where only a limited amount of senior professionals can unilaterally decide what someone in pain can or can't legally use, which could be limited to them being terminally ill and go through dozens of other medications first. In regards to the map it wouldn’t need to be changed as there is currently no “partial” element on the medical use map. Helper201 (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You are right that there will always be some subjectivity in the determining which countries should be which color but I think it makes sense to eliminate subjectivity from the judgment as much as possible. If a country has some significant restrictions in the law then that is something that can be clarified in the table, but the green color in the table just signifies that they have legalized whole plant cannabis for some patients and that it is not low-THC. What exact percentage qualifies as low-THC I do not know, but it has never really become an issue before because all of the low-THC medical cannabis laws that countries have passed so far have been less than 1% and that seems like a pretty easy decision. Getting into more complicated criteria though I think is not a good idea and there will always be people that say their country's law is too restrictive and that they do not think that country should be considered to have legal medical cannabis. Based on some of the criteria that you have mentioned there are surely more countries for which a partial/yellow marking could be debated and I just think that is opening a can of worms that would be better off not opened in this rather large table of almost 200 countries.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

White text on yellow background illegible

In the table the white text on yellow background is illegible. (Android, dark mode) 85.228.174.188 (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Text stays black for me on my Android phone set to dark mode.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you are using a different browser than Chrome but in that case I would say just temporarily disable dark mode.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

UK legality of marijuanna

CBD products are often sold in stores 88.98.207.58 (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jerome1919.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SeanMs1997.

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HVD1998.

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

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2022

Cannabis is legal in North Korea 98.116.154.186 (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Legality of medicinal marijuana in India

Although a bit ambiguous and a bit controversial and unclear, medicinal usage of cannabis is supposedly legal in India, although not in the western world sense which have dispensaries that sell marijuana or joints. Usage of CBD oils, hemp cigarettes, and other cannabis infused medicines are purchasable, as long as the products come from the seeds or leaves of the plant: which is legal in India unlike the flower of the cannabis plant, and fulfills some other conditions.

References:

Decks cleared for cannabis farming for medical, industrial use in Himachal

Explained: What is CBD oil? What are the legalities of its use in India?

The Cannabis Renaissance

| No complete ban on cannabis, medical use allowed, Centre tells Delhi High Court

India’s First Medical Cannabis Clinic Is Finally Here

Ani34791 (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I updated the article to show that CBD is legal in India.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The use of CBD oil is not prohibited, doesn't mean that it is legal. Rangers765 (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Legality edit request, United States

As of 2022-05-25, the state of Rhode Island legalized recreational use, becoming the 19th state.

Therefore ″Legalized in 18 states, 2 territories, and the District of Columbia – but illegal at federal level. Decriminalized in another 13 states and 1 territory." is requested to be changed to Legalized in 19 states, 2 territories, and the District of Columbia – but illegal at federal level. Decriminalized in another 12 states and 1 territory." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.183.205 (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

References

 Done--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Now legal in Thailand, not just decriminalized

There's been a lot of confused/wrong reporting on this, but cannabis is now straight up legal in Thailand, with possibly the most liberal regime on the planet: there are basically no restrictions on possession, sale, etc of the plant or its parts (sources: [1], [2]). Limits only continue to apply to extracts of cannabis, including edibles, and to smoking in public places. Jpatokal (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. The first source that you provided links to this article which goes into more detail about whether the 0.2% THC limit applies to plants. It doesn't according to the article and also here is another one I found that says the same. I went ahead and made some changes to reflect that.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It's actually kinda in the gray area for Thailand. Recreation use is still technically not legal but also not criminalized. Confusion occurs not only in the news, but the current law itself is also very confusing! However, in my opinion, to obtain the fully legal status (green label) there should be no restriction on products with THC higher than 0.2%. Government's policy also does not support the recreational use. That's why I think the partial legal status (yellow label) should be more appropriate. But one can also argue that it is de facto legal. Noktonissian (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It's kind of a similar situation to South Africa, Mexico, and Georgia I would say, as far as a prohibition law being repealed but there is no highly regulated system to replace it like some of the other countries (Canada, Uruguay, some US states). Since South Africa, Mexico, and Georgia are all marked green / legal in the table I went ahead and did the same for Thailand. As far as the 0.2% THC limit, flower is the main way of consuming cannabis so I would consider Thailand to have legalized recreational just like a lot of countries that are considered to have legalized medical do not allow flower to be consumed but do allow oil / edibles.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Under 0.2% THC is actually less than the United States definition of hemp. Which has been legal since 2018. So we should be careful with maintaining consistency. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Australian Capital Territory should be orange for "illegal but decriminalized", not blue for "legal"

https://www.act.gov.au/cannabis/home This says verbatim "Cannabis is not legal in the ACT, it has been decriminalised". You can possess up to 50g of dried cannabis or 150g of fresh cannabis. You can grow up to two cannabis plants in your home, providing you don't have more than 4 plants in one household. You can consume cannabis in your home. Any other acts (including for seeds) including selling or gifting are still illegal, and the law is still in place technically, quote "There will still be an offence in ACT legislation, but with an exception for persons 18 years of age and over." MarkiPoli (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Most reporting I have seen on the situation in ACT refers to cannabis being legal there, and that is consistent with how other countries such as South Africa and Georgia are colored on the map. I would stick with classifying it as "legal" because the word "decriminalized" as it is most commonly used refers to a policy where there is still a penalty for possession of small amounts.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-49820735

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/25/australias-capital-city-legalizes-marijuana.html

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/25/cannabis-set-to-be-legalised-in-australian-capital-territory-for-personal-use

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/world/australia/marijuana-cannabis-recreational-legal.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-cannabis/canberra-becomes-first-australian-city-to-legalize-marijuana-for-personal-use-idUSKBN1WA14X

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/asia/australia-cannabis-legal-intl-scli-hnk/index.html

https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/news/2019/australian-capital-territory-legalises-personal-cannabis-growing-and-consumption_en

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-25/act-first-jurisdiction-to-legalise-personal-cannabis-use/11530104

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australia-canberra-capital-cannabis-recreational-use-legal-marijuana-a9120126.html

Hungary is yellow

cbd is legal 2A00:1110:119:D9C3:0:2F:2896:2201 (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Updated it.-- Jamesy0627144 (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Recent court case does not legalize cannabis in Uganda

Some media headlines would suggest that a recent court ruling has legalized cannabis in the country, but this may be accurate.

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act, 2015, was overturned. However, under a preexisting law, the National Drug Policy and Authority Act 1993, the cultivation, sale, possession, and use of cannabis in Uganda are still illegal. The court ruling did not overturn this law or legalize cannabis under it.

https://nilepost.co.ug/2023/05/10/court-has-not-legalized-marijuana-says-judiciary/

https://observer.ug/news/headlines/77713-police-to-step-up-crackdown-on-marijuana-despite-court-ruling

Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

US State, Minnesota Legalized Recreation Use on 05/30/23

Map will need to be updated accordingly, the new law change goes into effect on August 1st, 2023

Source: https://www.startribune.com/walz-signs-bill-legalizing-marijuana-in-minnesota-cannabis-legal-weed-midwest-states/600278668/#:~:text=Minnesota%20became%20the%2023rd%20state,for%20people%2021%20and%20older. 99.11.250.209 (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Done.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Should the blue states in US on the map be pink instead?

In the United States, cannabis is illegal under federal law despite multiple states having legalized it, although the federal government often does not enforce the prohibition on cannabis. So shouldn't the US states that have legalized cannabis under state law despite the federal ban be considered "illegal but often unenforced" jurisdictions rather than "legalized" jurisdictions? Gavinbarton (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Blue seems like the best option to me. It wouldn't really make sense to mark a place such as Colorado as being "illegal". There's government-licensed stores all over the place.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That's kind of a weak argument since the same is true for the Netherlands. Gbuvn (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Removal of a research article

Is it acceptable to use the information stated in this source in the article while using it as a citation? Helper201 (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the study should be left out although for a different reason than Zefr does perhaps. Adding it seems like an unnecessary detail that sidetracks from the purpose of the intro section which is to just summarize the contents of the table regarding the legality of cannabis around the world. A lot of different studies have been done regarding cannabis legalization but I don't think it would be good to add any of them to the article because then it becomes something different than was intended, which is basically just a large table and an intro section that summarizes what is in the table. I think there are other cannabis articles where the study could be added if in compliance with Wikipedia's policies.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. I think minimum ages regarding cannabis is a key component around and relating to its legality and legalisation. The article name, "Legality of cannabis", implies a very broad topic and there's nothing to say it should be restricted to simply a table of cannabis laws by country. If that's the intention of the article then the name of it should probably be changed. A broad range of links redirect here regarding cannabis law and there's nothing to say we should restrict it to one element. I'm happy to compromise and add this information to a subsection within the page rather than the lead if that's what people want instead. Helper201 (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It is an interesting article but seems outside the scope of this page for now. This page really is summarizing the legal status of cannabis in different jurisdictions. The article you are mentioning deals more with the policy choice about what the legal status should be and should be added somewhere else. Jorahm (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Jorahm that's why I mentioned if the page is going to enforce a limitation to simply a summary of the legal status of cannabis in different jurisdictions then it should undergo a rename. As far as I'm aware there is no page more appropriate/relevant to place this information than here. It clearly comes under the topic of the legality of cannabis and is highly relevant to the topic. I'm not sure what the benefit is to limiting such a broad topic to simply a summary of the legal status of cannabis in different jurisdictions and not allowing other information around the legality of cannabis that doesn't fit into this list.

I would appreciate if editors could help work towards a compromise or suggest some way forward here. Helper201 (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I follow this page as a stoner and longtime Wikipedian. I think discussions about the minimum age is fair, since that is indeed a requirement toward people’s ability to do so. A comparable article is Legal status of same-sex marriage - note the title emphasizing the status, and not just the overall legality. Now, the SSM article doesn’t mention age, but that’s because people in the countries where it’s legalized can enjoy that right once they reach the age of consent for marriage. Another article - Alcohol law - has a more basic title, and indeed it mentions the minimum drinking age, which has its own article at Legal drinking age. So there are a few approaches that this article could take. I do believe something is missing in this article. The age discussion already exists in the article for Minors and the legality of cannabis, akin to mentioning the minimum drinking age in the Alcohol law article. That should probably get a mention in this article. The laws by country perhaps could get split off, if this article was more reframed to something like Cannabis law. If it was, then, like alcohol, there should be a prohibition section (maybe as part of a broader history section?).

TL;DR possible article structure

• History and prohibition
• Laws by country
• Legal consumption age

Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to design a compromise other than the opening positions of this RFC which are include / don't include. I just believe that you are designing a completely different page than what this currently is. The page as it exists is already far beyond the WP:SIZE limit and deals with an overview of the legal status of cannabis in a variety of jurisdictions. You are proposing two additional sections that no one has actually researched or written. There is only a singular source about age and the best target would be Cannabis in Canada. But I would also accept an article just about the legal age of cannabis consumption similar to Legal drinking age which is separate from List of countries with alcohol prohibition. Jorahm (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Based on the above points, I think I would support a potential move of this page (back) to Legality of cannabis by country, as that seems to better reflect the content. Jdcooper (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Jdcooper if that were to be the case where could the information I've proposed and similar such information be added? Helper201 (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion and it is preferable to turning this page into a mishmash of ideas around cannabis policy. Jorahm (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Effects of cannabis would seem the most sensible. Jdcooper (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd strongly disagree. This really seems like an inappropriate place for such information regarding a minimum legal age. This page is far more relevant. Helper201 (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not really information about minimum legal ages in general, or across countries. It's one study assessing what the minimum legal age should be, based on data about the effects of cannabis. Jdcooper (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

"It's one study assessing what the minimum legal age should be", exactly. Minimum legal age is the main/key subject of the article and the specific info from it I'm trying to add. Helper201 (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hurricanehink mobile I'd be okay with that. Helper201 (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)