Talk:Legalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

This archive page covers approximately discussion between 2006 and 2008.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Federal marijuana cultivation

"The National Center for Natural Products Research in Oxford, Mississippi is the only facility in the United States that is federally licensed to cultivate cannabis for scientific research. The Center is part of the School of Pharmacy at the University of Mississippi."^{[citation needed]}

I took this out because it is not relevant.

ChristopherMannMcKay 21:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Article horribly written and organized

This article is so horribly written and organized that the effects of marijuana on your minds is clear. There should be a tag at the beginning of the article: "WARNING: THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN BY STONER HIPPIES. IT MAY BE DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND. READ AT YOUR OWN RISK OF FRUSTRATION AND HATRED OF STONERS." Good luck cleaning it up Mr. McKay. Try to lay off the doobies while you work on it.

KDR 03:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

How would you suggest that I re-organize it? FYI, I am not a "stoner hippie" and I believe you should keep your opinions off wikipedia.

ChristopherMannMcKay 07:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You said so yourself in a previous edit of your above comment that you reverted. "Yes I very much agree, this article is horribly written. I am very sorry and I will try to improve it. I understand there needs to be improvement to the grammar and there is a LOT of missing information..." And on 24 December 2006 you said, "I'm going to try to get this article all cleaned up, but it will take a little while." But for some reason you thought it necessary to remove those comments. So, obviously you're already aware that it needs to be completely revamped so I'm sure you have it figured out. For me, the must glaring, obvious, horrible organization was in the state by state breakdown but it looks like you cleaned that up quite a bit. And seriously, my frustration was not to be directed at you. I apologize for my direct language. As for opinions on Wikipedia, you and I both know this "encyclopedia" is packed with opinions, and I'm sorry, but a talk page is the perfect place for opinions.

KDR 16:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, perhaps your "frustration and hatred of stoners" is clouding your mind such that youre missing the vast number of scientific studies cited on this page. For the sake of fairness, just about every existing argument against the decriminalization of marijuana is given, along with the studies that disprove the claims of such arguments. No rebuttals, just scientific studies. It's science, buddy, not opinion. Science doesn't lie. Your opinions are welcome, but only on the talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.39.211.133 (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

In defense on KDR, when I wrote the article it was horrible written, but now I have largely improved it; however, I do agree his tone suggests he has some bias towards people who smoke marijuana and he does not follow the talk page guidelines. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 01:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

KDR - This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject, nor is this a forum for you to insert your opinion on the subject matter. Your comments in this section are insulting and degrading - to the author, to hippies, and to stoners. You may not believe in marijuana, and your opinion may be the popular one of the time, but such does not give you license to illustrate intolerance on this venue. Please rephrase your comments with this in mind. Thank you. Exists (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Its looking good now anyway. Our civility policies would indicate its a not a good idea to accuse other suers of being under the influence of marijuana, or of using it. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Linking

I have removed, for a second time, the excessive linking that plagues this article. This linking is inconsistent with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. See Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#What_generally_should_not_be_linked, which says:

In general, do not create links to:

Plain English words.
The same link multiple times, because redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder.

I have fixed this a second time by going through and removing dozens of repeated links to marijuana, gram and ounce, and links to plain English words in order to avoid removing information that was added after my first clean up was reverted. Next time, I will just revert and let editors re-add any information that is removed through my reversion. it is not reasonable to expect me to keep cleaning up this mess. Ground Zero | t 11:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Replace "marijuana" with "cannabis" throughout the article

The title uses the term cannabis and the proper name of the plant is cannabis. It's a large change so I propose it here for discussion. If no one objects relatively soon then I'll go ahead and change it. --anonymous coward 04:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely support that, SqueakBox 04:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll update it tonight and change it to cannabis if you want. I can just copy the whole wikipedia article into a program like Word, then use the find and replace feature one by one (not all at once because many of the links and REF tags have the word marijuana in them). ChristopherMannMcKay 19:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Manual of Style generally supports the use of common words over the use of technical/scientific terminology unless there is a need for specificity. I think that "marijuana" is the most commonly-used word for this. Certainly at the first instance the article should clarified that "marijuana" is being used to mean "cannabis". Ground Zero | t 21:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to source your claim that marijuana is the most common term, and why not check out the debate at Talk:Cannabis (drug), cannabis is the correct trwerm given we are an international and not an American encyclopedia, that's why Cannabis (drug) isnt called marijuana. Glad to see someone else making user of search and replace features, this is the mostly undiscovered side of the internet. To cklaim marijuana is the common term and cannabis the scientific term is crass rubbish, please get outside the US in your approach to this encyclopedia, Ground Zero, SqueakBox 21:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"To cklaim marijuana is the common term and cannabis the scientific term is crass rubbish, please get outside the US in your approach to this encyclopedia, Ground Zero," That was absolutely uncalled-for, SqueakBox. Please review "No personal attacks" and apologise. I contributed to the discussion in a civil way, and expect you to do the same even if you disagree with me. I will review the discussion you've cited, because maybe I'm wrong. there was no reason to call my view "crass rubbish" and tell me to "get outside the US". I am outside the US. I was unaware that the term is not used outside of North America, but know I have learned something. I ask that you learn some civility, or at least the Wikipedia policy on it. Ground Zero | t 22:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the question of whether to use "cannabis" or "marijuana", I have reviewed the discussion at Talk:Cannabis, and agree that "cannabis" is the more internationally recognized term, so the article should stay there. For this article, however, because it is an article about decriminalization in the United States, the national preference ("marijuana") should be used, again with a clarification at the beginning of the article. Changing it to "cannabis" would be tantamount to changing "decriminalization" to "decriminalisation", which Wikipedia:Manual of Style woulhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrightsd not support. For the record, I regularly edit UK, US and Canadian articles, and using the standard spelling that is used in each of those countries as appropriate. As for Australian, NZ or other English-speaking countries, not being as familiar with their spelling preferences, I leave the spelling alone. Ground Zero | t 23:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As the Manual says:

Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country. For example: American Civil War: American English usage and spelling; Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings: British English usage and spelling.

Ground Zero | t 23:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

When I created the article's name, I put it under cannabis because all other articles were labled cannabis. This is about the United States that wikipedia guideline say to use marijuana, so should I rename the article to Decriminalization of Marijuana in the United States?

ChristopherMannMcKay 00:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that. I encourage you, though, to wait for other editors to comment before renaming. Others may have reasons not to rename it. Let's give it a few days before doing anything more. Ground Zero | t 16:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In California we in the medical field and the medical cannabis community use and promote use of the word cannabis over marijuana. In the dispensaries and lounges the use of the word marijuana is basically taboo.mike (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Possession still criminal under federal law

State laws aside, possession of cannabis is still criminal under the federal Controlled Substances Act 21 USC §801 et seq (CSA). Just recently the Supreme Court upheld (in Ashcroft/Gonzales v. Raich) Congress' authority to prosecute even purely intrastate possession, under the CSA, which is derived from the commerce power of US Const Art I § 8. Matt2h 17:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matt2h (talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Ashcroft/Gonzales v. Raich and the Controlled Substances Act are referenced under Legal history of marijuana in the United States. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 20:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct. This entire article is pretty much totally inaccurate inasmuch as it refers to "decriminalization" when it really means "lifting of State-level criminal statutes."

Possessing marijuana is criminally illegal in the U.S. Federal enforcement is far from ubiquitous, but this does not change the status of the law. 24.219.30.222 (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Increased marijuana usage

I believe there are E.U. statistics showing that the Neatherlands has the second lowest rate of youth (under 18) cannabis usage in the E.U. (after Malta of all places). While this is not in the United States, it certianly seems relevant in assessing human nature, and the Neatherlands is basically the only place we can look at for the wide spread legalization of cannabis. Perhaps someone could add this, I'm sure the report is available online somewhere, perhaps the E.U. centre for drug policy. What do people think?

In the related studies section under 'Opposition: Increased marijuana use' there is a reference to a study that compared San Francisco and Amsterdam because they are similar in many ways. The study found in Amsterdam the rate of marijuana usage was lower than in San Francisco. I remember seeing another study that said marijuana usage rates in the Neatherlands declined after marijuana was made legal, but I did not bookmark the study and don't know where to find it again. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 19:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I just love the marijuana→cocaine→heroin railroad to hell described. Mitt Romney is right: all of this county's problems relate directly to marijuana in some form or fashion.mike (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs

I've added a 'citation needed' to this section for the claim 'however, this claim has been scientifically disproven.'. The whole section seems very self-contradictory...maybe vandalism? I'm not sure which bits are correct and which aren't, so I've left it as is for now. Maybe someone with more knowledge about this bit could have a poke through and see if it can be tidied up to be more internally-consistant. Stonejag 19:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed "however, this claim has been scientifically disproven" → "however, there is no evidence to support this claim" and removed the citation needed tag. —User:Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 20:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding line spaces after section titles on the editing page (no affect on general article)

In response to: "Christopher please explain why you oppose adding spaces between words" [1]

"Opponents argue decriminalization will lead to increased crime, increased marijuana usage, and subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs; however, multiple studies have contradicted these arguments" was changed to "Opponents argue decriminalization will lead to increased crime, increased marijuana usage, and subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs. Multiple studies have contradicted these arguments". This edit is improper grammar, as a semicolon is more appropriate than a new sentence because "these" in "Multiple studies have contradicted these arguments" is directly referring to the arguments of opponents to marijuana decriminalization from the previous sentence.

I put spaces after the sections because that makes it easier for Wikipedia editors to read. Wikipedia is designed to allow this and having an extra space between lines does not affect the article's formatting or spacing when you are not editing. Removing these spaces has no affect on the article's formatting or spacing when reading the article (not editing), but rather just makes it harder for editors who are editing an article to find section headers because they closly blended in with the general text too much. Why is it necessary to delete these spaces?

I removed Template:United States topics, which was reinserted, because Decriminalization of marijuana in the United States used to be linked on this template, but it was decided Decriminalization of marijuana in the United States it is not a major topic and was removed from the template. I don't think the template entitled "Major topics of the United States" should be on an article that is not a major topic about the United States. Are there any guidelines on when to use or not use temples?

—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 21:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed spaces where removed between the equal signs of section titles; for example, "==History==" was changed to "==History==" and so on throughout the article. The point of having the extra spaces is so editors can read the section titles better because it isn't next to an equals sign. Wikipedia is designed for this and if you press the button at on the toolbox at the top left part of this editing box to insert a 'headline' is puts "==Headline text==" into the body of the text becauues this is the acceptable format. Why is removing this to make it to make it harder to read necessary? —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 21:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You removed spaces between years and the dates for those years as in changing May 7 2002 to May 7 2002. I disagree on that the spaces between section headings make it easier to read but Wikipedia has no policy one way or the other (or does it?) so wont complain about that. Perspicacite 00:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I shouldn't have removed the spaces, but it really doesn't matter, as it displays the same to the reader. In one of your edits you removed the link to the year; so I added it back in and I frogot to put a space in, not a big deal. But why revert all my other edits? Your changes to the line spacing just make it harder to read, it is pointless. Also, your edit to the intro is not in good grammer, as explained above. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 01:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Your statement is simply untrue. American dating style has commas after specific dates, as in "March 18, 2002" not "March 18 2002." Perspicacite 01:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My statement is not untrue. Do you not understand that [[January 1]] [[2007]] produces January 1 2007? There are commas after specific dates... I have no clue what point you are trying to make with your strange comments... —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 06:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Perspicacite

Dear Perspicacite,

Please stop putting images of Richard Nixon and Jon Gettman on this article. Note, according to WP:IMAGE: "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in." Simply inserting a picture of Nixon beacuse he commissioned a study on marijuana use and inserting Gettman's picture beacuse he published "Marijuana Production in the United States" is not relevant and does not illustrate any constructive information related to decriminalizing marijuana.

Please stop removing line spaces after and before titles. There is no point to this because it does not change the output of the article, but rather just makes it harder for editors to find sections when editing the article. As stated before, Wikipedia is designed to allow this for a reason and Wikipedia defaults to this style on the tool bar.

Please stop chaning "and since multiple places decriminalized marijuana (also referred to as cannabis) for non-medical purposes" to "as Americans' views towards general cannabis use, and more recently for medical purposes, liberalized" Your statement is OR and can be removed according to policy. If you believe the statement is true, then back it up with a reference, so it will not be removed. Also, this article is not about medical marijuana, but rather non-medical marijuana, so your reference to medical purposes is not necessary.

Please stop deleting "however, multiple studies have contradicted these arguments" from "Opponents argue decriminalization will lead to increased crime, increased marijuana usage, and subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs; however, multiple studies have contradicted these arguments," because all of these arguments have been contradicted, as seen below the text in the article. The sentence you removed is an accurate statement and should not be removed.

Please stop commas after dates; for example you changed "In 1997," to "In 1997" (without comma) and so forth throughout the entire article on every date. Please note your edits are not following the MOS, which states "Dates are normally followed by a comma: 'In 2001, Bob got married.'"

I have reverted your edits many times, as they are unconstructive; however, you continue to change the article, which is inconsistent with WP:MOS, WP:OR, and WP:IMAGE. Please stop this. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 04:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC) —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 04:43, 8 June 2007

Christopher, please stop:

Removing images that are clearly relevant to the topic at hand.
Inserting spaces before and after titles. There is no consensus for this.
Removing spaces between separate words as in: "Thenext."
Citing WP:OR when it is completely irrelevant. You have not attributed anything in the introduction to your version of the article.
Adding commas in inappropriate places as in "December 6 2004,", "In California,", etc.
Adding needless, endless subsections.
Adding semicolons throughout the article for what should be separate sentences.
'Refuting' arguments opposing decriminalization without citing sources.
Adding multiple reference styles.
Adding redirects when links already redirect.
Perspicacite 05:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Perspicacite, a response to your comments:

"Removing images that are clearly relevant to the topic at hand." — The images are not "clearly relevant," but just losely related to the topic.

"Inserting spaces before and after titles. There is no consensus for this." — Of course there is no consensus for this, there does not need to be. Your changes to the spaces do nothing but make it harder to find section titles when editing because the titles are closer to text and blend in more.

"Removing spaces between separate words as in: 'Thenext.'" — Can you be more specific? There was no "Thenext." in in version I last edited.

"Citing WP:OR when it is completely irrelevant. You have not attributed anything in the introduction to your version of the article." — Everything in the introduction is cited throughout the article, when your claim that people's views have liberized regarding marijuana is not referenced anywhere in the article. Therefore, your claim is OR and the introduction is not. You should read WP:CITE and WP:OR because I think you are confused.

"Adding commas in inappropriate places as in 'December 6, 2004,', 'In California,', etc." — My edits regarding commas are consistent with WP:MOS and Chicago MOS and your removal of commas is not. Your grammer use regarding commas is incorrect, why do you not understand this? What grammer reference are you using that says to not put commas there?

"Adding needless, endless subsections" — I agree with your removal of 'Places that have decriminalized marijuana in the United States' into 'History;' I will not remove this again, sorry I did it by mistake when I reverted your edit.

"Adding semicolons throughout the article for what should be separate sentences." — please provide an example of this, as I don't believe my use of semicolons is against any grammer guidelines.

"Refuting' arguments opposing decriminalization without citing sources," — stating a fact is not refuting. If something is unfactual it should be noted. Having that text is not a violation of WP:NPOV.

"Adding multiple reference styles ... Adding redirects when links already redirect" — What do you mean? Can you be more specific?

—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 06:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please address my comments on this talk page before you continue to revert this article back to your version without any explanation.

Please quit removing Template:Cite web tags.

You reverted my edit when I merged 'Places that have attempted to decriminalize marijuana' into 'History.' If 'Places that have decriminalized marijuana in the United States' is under history (you moved it there), then 'Places that have attempted to decriminalize marijuana' should also be under 'History' for consistency.

—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 19:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No sources to back up your own argument

This article is pretty well written, but there is one major flaw in it, besides it being way too biased. Every time you put some sort of reference to an article or book that opposes marijuana decriminalization, you try and condridict these claims by saying things similar to: "However, multiple studies have found no evidence of a correlation between marijuana use and the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs."

This does not prove anything. Putting however multiple studies have found no evidence, or just "multiple studies" without citing is just your opinion and is not fact. If there are really that many studies, you should easily be able to cite at least one. Please do not use Wikipedia for your own agendas. This is an "encyclopedia". How would you feel if you opened up the World Book and read about polar bears and the writer put, "I believe polar bears are the greatest bears on the planet!" No one cares about your opinions on the subject, just about the facts.
Jmarc90 20:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason "However, multiple studies have found no evidence of a correlation between marijuana use and the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs." is referenced is because if you read below that statement there are multiple studies that find no evidence of a correlation between marijuana use and the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs, which are properly cited with plenty of sources.—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 18:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

But why is it so biased? Why do you offer counter arguments to the "Arguments in Opposition" section but none to the "Arguments in Favor" section? Wikipedia seems to have a general problem with this. I can provide you with sources that will reduce the bias in this piece if you simple tell me where to send them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.186.155 (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Bias

This article is heavily biased in favor of marijuana decriminalization. Look at the arguments in opposition - all of them end in something like "this has not been proven." There are no "response studies" posted in the arguments in favor section.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.123.20.104 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 28 July 2007.

It is a fact that most of the arguments against decriminalizing marijuana have been proven false by multiple studies and this deserves mention, as it would be misinforming readers if arguments opposing decriminalization of marriage where phrased in a way that readers believed they may be true, when they are false, as according to multiple studies conducted. I looked for some responsive studies to reference under the arguments in favor of decriminalizing marijuana sections; however, I could not find any. If you know of some, please feel free to add them to the article. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 18:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Heavily Biased?? Isn't there a general bias against legalization of marijuana? This article is supposed to lean toward the decriminalization, hence, the title. --24.7.84.207 23:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, its supposed to present the arguments of both sides without showing bias. If you wanted the article to lean towards decriminalization, then you title it "Why Marijuana should be decriminalized." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.64.224 (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the article is meant to describe the issues and the opposiong viewpoints in a neutral manner without takling sides, see WP:NPOV, SqueakBox 23:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is biased. In the arguments "for", several points are made. In the arguments "against" each point made is then refuted. These points should be moved to the "for" section. FusionDude 02:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this article seems heavily biased towards the legilazation of marijuana. Bro2baseball 22:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is not biased. It states facts and studies and sourced arguments in a neutral way. The reasons there is a 'negating studies' subsection after the arguments opposed to decriminalization is b/c all of the claims of people and organizations opposed to marijuana decriminalization have been proven false by multiple studies because the arguments are lies used as propaganda by government and other figures who seek to prevent people from having true freedom. It would be wrong to present these arguments without stating that multiple studies have proven them wrong because that may give the false impression that these arguments actually have merit. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this article is pretty unbalanced, fella. I'm against most laws, and am for the decriminalization of largely everything, but yours is a dubious grasp of rhetoric at best. The cognitive biases just pop off the page. [And just something to dwell upon: Anyone who really understands science is *absolutely loath* to use words like 'proven' and 'fact' unless there's a gun to their head. Furthermore, if there are absolute proofs or truths, they are physical, chemical, and mathematical. It is almost inconceivable that they will be medical or sociological.] This article should be gutted and maintained by a different editor or removed outright. EinZweiDrei^talk 12:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.0.79 (talk)

You may claim all the facts and neutrality you want, however your editing, and choice of facts is indeed biased. By leaving claims FOR legalizing MJ unchallenged, and then challenging every argument against you are creating an article in favor of a percieved view point. Studies are biased in general alot of times, I'm certain that there are studies that "prove" the arguments on the side of keeping MJ criminalized. Your facts and studies may be accurate, but the article is still biased through presentation. Take Michael Moore's latest documentary, sicko. It is factual, but the facts are presented in a way to lead the watcher to a certain viewpoint. This article is presented the same way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.153.200 (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This article should be removed or cleaned. The bias in the layout alone (refuting studies only for one side) is unworthy of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.131.28 (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We need to get some more eyes on this. I have tagged it as disputed NPOV. Ursasapien (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Regardless my personal feelings on the subject, writing an article about arguments for or against something MUST be balanced, especially on Wikipedia. Either both sides must include counterpoints, or all counterarguments must be removed. Only refuting one side (or similarly compromising the point by writing about the point in an argumentative manner, etc) is simply unacceptable. What is needed is someone who does not support the legalization of marijuana to help with writing the section against legalization. Agharo (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding a POV banner because the article, at least this section, whether biased or not, is disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.238.120.152 (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no current dispute. It was disputed. Not is disputed. Objections? Please make them specific. That's a complex section. And on the face of it is NPOV, at least in general. Absent specific objection, I removed the POV tag. (It's going to be tough to present a section that is, on the face, "neutral," i.e., doesn't provide more weight to one side, because there has long been a general scientific consensus against treating marijuana usage as a criminal offense. So on one side there is mostly scientific research, including the reports of many panels which have been assembled to study the question, and, on the other side, political argument. I agree that there is a problem with the organization of this section, it presents an appearance of bias. However, the solution would be to ensure that notable dissenting views are presented on all sides. --Abd (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I changed the section heads to remove "Negating" and to make each section specific, which helps with links to sections. So ... got any studies that are "confirming" of arguments against decriminalization? Please put them in. We should also find general reviews of the literature, i.e., metastudies. (I haven't checked, there might already be some in the article.) Likewise commission reports, various commissions have studied these questions over the last century. --Abd (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the article is biased against decriminalization. It 'features' measures that failed. Alaska is mentioned as defeating two bills, yet Alaska is the only state where recreational use is completely unrestricted. Is this selective blindness or deliberate skew? Clean it up and bring it up to date or throw it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratracker (talk • contribs) 05:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Simply perusing Wikipedia's other articles relating to cannabis will give several relevant examples of harmful effects of smoking cannabis. On the page "cannabis," there are several health related issues. I would think that there should be a POV heading on the article, as there's no doubt when I read through it that the main author's point of view is that it should be legalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.50.151.9 (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is pretty objective. I see where you are coming from because every argument against its legalization has a counterpoint and there are more arguments for its legalization. You must understand that Marijuana was first outlawed on completely different principles than what we accept today. The US's drug policy is slowly shifting towards legalization and this article reflects that. If you do know of some studies(no robert heath studies) that have found weed to be detrimental then feel free to add them and cite them.--67.86.119.65 (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys, it's important to note that neutral point of view does not necessarily mean presenting both sides equally; it means presenting each side in proportion to the amount of scientific or historical evidence supporting that side. For example, the article on global warming does not present the arguments of the skeptics as much as the mainstream scientific opinion; in fact, it hardly presents the sceptic argument at all, because the skeptical evidence has almost completely been refuted by further studies. As such, in trying to by unbiased by presenting both side, this argument is actually biased against legality, if anything, because there has not yet been any evidence (that I know of) supporting illegality. That said, if you find some studies, put them in. Fact is, most of the studies show that cannabis is much less unhealthy than tobacco or alcohol.Gregcaletta (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Arguments Against Decriminalization

Mr. McKay,

I'm wondering, how extensive was your research of arguments against decriminalization? I was struck by the unbalanced amounts of evidence on either side of the argument, mostly because I am very interested in learning more about the justification of marijuana's placement under Schedule 1 (even though really I was hoping to learn that there isn't any). If your research was long and exhausting, fine and well done, but if not, please let me know. Thanks. Ajurfhas (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Under arguements opposed, it is filled with "a study found that there is no link between use and crime" or "a study shows that it isn't a gateway drug when legal." Wouldn't that stuff belong under arguments FOR?129.139.1.68 (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Paul Armentano, policy analyst for NORML, claimed because the rats were given THC at the young age of 28 days, it is impossible to extrapolate the results of this study to humans.[63]" ^ The above has no place in the Arguments in Opposition section. Paul Armentano doesn't represent a viable counter-argument to the mentioned Swedish study, and even if he did, he would not belong in the Opposition section. I'm going to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.186.155 (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Irrelavant point in opening?

"Opponents argue that cannabis on street level today has a much higher percent of THC with a stronger drug effect"

Is this even an argument against decriminalization? I know it is a point that is often made in response to people who think marijuana is harmless, but I don't view it as an argument against decriminalization at all. Perhaps it should be replaced with something more relevant to the actual topic of the article? The decriminalization movement does not(so far as I know) claim that marijuana has not increased in potency nor does it make any claims that are based on the THC content of marijuana. The issue of its relative strength compared to some unspecified past period of time doesn't really seem important.

This article is about the effects of different legal systems on marijuana usage, not about marijuana effects on people. Arguments about the strength of marijuana or its effect on health are relevant only if a claim is being made that a specific legal approach would have an effect on them.

Something like: "Opponents argue that decriminalization would lead to the development of more potent marijuana."

but I do not know if such claims are actually being made. --JDanberg (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Separation of medical and non-medical policies

This article, in a few instances (Michigan, for example) discusses policies regarding medical use. Unless I am misunderstanding the purpose of this article, shouldn't only policies regarding non-medical use be mentioned? Perhaps it is appropriate to use medical use policies as background information, but it can be confusing (and there are certainly big differences in medical use and decriminalization of non-medical cannabis). Whataworld06 (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The Michigan medical marijuana information has since been removed. I think this is very interesting information, but it simply looked out of place in this article (it belongs in the medical cannabis article). Thanks so much! Whataworld06 (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Zimmer and Morgan

There is a reference "The Activist Guide by John Morgan and Lynn Zimmer entitled "Marijuana's Gateway Myth". Problem: neither the book nor either of the named "authorities" have made it into Wikipedia. Surely there must be somebody with more notability that has said the same thing. People who are WP:NN really shouldn't be named in the article (could be spokespersons for an organization for example). No fallback here, must be replaced due to lack of authority. Student7 (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

need map updated

doesn't reflect change in Massachusetts policy 72.19.59.161 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to upload an image to wikipedia - I guess I don't have permission?

Anyway, here is the VERY simple way to modify this image. It is a vector image, which means it is defined in text. Download it, then open it in notepad or emacs or whatever. Find this bit of text:

  <path id="MA"

At the end of this tag, you will see

  style="fill:#cccccc" />

Replace that with

  style="fill:#008000" />

Then save the file and upload it. That will make Massachusetts green. 199.107.45.222 (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)