Talk:Medical cannabis in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 December 2018 and 20 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Trgeorge6.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Indiana legalized CBD oil, and needs to be updated
I would do it myself, but I'm currently traveling, and don't have access to a good editor.

Source: http://indianapublicmedia.org/news/governor-signs-indianas-medicinal-cannabis-bill-118949/ Ayjazz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

New Hampshire needs a subchapter
New Hampshire recently legalized medical cannabis (on 7/23/13). I'm having issues with the editor on the page. Government source is here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2013/HB0573.html --anon

So did Illinois on 8/1/13: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-quinn-to-sign-medical-marijuana-bill-thursday-20130731,0,6053984.story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.40.131 (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

PhD Removal
While I have the highest respect for Carl Sagan and Steven J Gould and all the other scientists, their degrees do not need flaunting. 68.197.174.59 (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there a source for Carl Sagan being pro medicinal marijuana? Just because he was reported to have used it doesn't mean he was it support of its use as a medication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.83.78 (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Map is dated
Who is responsible for updating the map? Texas has compassionate use (med mar). Happy to update if editors agree. According to this very article, several states are misidentified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.206.217 (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like Virginia should be added as well. Kaldari (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Mass needs to be dark green. I have no clue how to do it. so If anyone feels like it :) -Tracer9999 (talk) 03:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Ohio is incorrectly labeled, as of Feb 28th 2014
There is at least one error that NEEDS correcting on this page, it lists Ohio as being decriminalized and medical state, it is NOT. It is decriminalized for small possession ($250 fine), and has pending legislation for medicinal use, not a current medical state as of Feb 2014.

I don't know how to edit wikipedia but this needs fixed. Please correct or show me how

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.169.34 (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Washington DC
the DC section is very dated, at this point, dispensaries have been given their Certificates of Occupancy and retail operations are expected shortly. Grow facilities have been getting their Certs also

http://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/series/medical-marijuana/DC-Announces-Medical-Marijuana-Dispensary-Locations-158566545.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/medical-marijuana-dispensary-prepares-to-open-in-dc/2012/12/31/8829ff44-5111-11e2-8b49-64675006147f_story.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/25/first-marijuana-growers-in-dc-clear-regulatory-hur/

--75.75.5.202 (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There should also be inclusion of the fact that DC's medical marijuana bill was put forth by the City in the mid 90s but congress refused to vote on it until the 2011. Also it isn't that "The DC council has also reduced penalties for possession of 1 oz. of marijuana to a $25 civil fine without jail." in DC up to 2 ounces is completely legal for privet use, and one can give away up to an ounce to an individual without a sale. An individual can grow 6 plants indoors (3 flowering, 3 in vegetative stages) and the house itself can have a max of 12 (6 and 6 respectively). Sale is still completely illegal.

Vandalism
This article was apparently vandalized. Someone tried to revert to the most recent edit but ended up going back to a vandalized version. I restored the correct edit. That is all.Ctnelsen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Links to state government info sites and the like
Regarding my removal of such links : External links do not belong in the body of an article except as references. As this article is not about any individual state, none meet WP:ELOFFICIAL or WP:ELYES. I'm not easily finding any DMOZ listings or other appropriate external links to use as replacements. Maybe find ways to incorporate the ones that meet WP:RS as refs? --Ronz (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. The only reason I reverted is that because the links themselves are very useful and good quality.  I agree that the way they are presented is marginal.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  00:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd hope there's a nice list someone has already made that we can just link to. I don't have time to do look further at the moment... --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

in the news?
http://www.thestreet.com/story/12728299/1/congress-handcuffs-dea-on-legal-marijuana.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Ten (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Florida
Should we add Florida since Governor Scott legalized the Charlotte's Web strain today?

http://www.local10.com/news/gov-rick-scott-approves-2-bills-for-medical-marijuana/26513618

No, Florida should not be added as patients do not have regular access to medical marijuana. "Unfortunately, the Department of Health has run into many issues implementing the law, which also leaves many patients behind and may not help even those it’s meant to." (Marijuana Policy Project, http://www.mpp.org/states/florida/). Here is some literature outlining the specifics: http://www.mpp.org/states/florida/FL-CBD-bill-summary.pdf Qelmasri (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)qelmasri

"[Prescribing patients medicinal marijuana] would violate federal law. Because physicians need a federal DEA license to prescribe medicines, they are very unlikely to openly break federal law, meaning the law is almost surely unworkable. " (http://www.mpp.org/states/florida/FL-CBD-bill-summary.pdf) Qelmasri (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)qelmasri

On the grounds of the above two posts/edits, I would like Florida to be removed from the map. In addition to the above points, Florida is not later mentioned in the article as a medical state. Qelmasri (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)qelmasri

(Emigdioofmiami (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC))

New York
Can somebody please update the map and the template to include New York. --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Obama vs Obama administration and BLP concerns
In the section titled Notable anti-medical cannabis individuals, Obama has been added. This is a WP:BLP matter. This section is for individuals, not their associated agencies. The addition of Obama (the person), using two older sources regarding acts by his administration, is troubling and simply OR selective choice of sources. Obama is not a dictator and the DEA has always been an extremely powerful rogue agency. Politics is complicated. He should not be added, so I'm moving that content here for discussion:


 * current U.S. President Barack Obama,

Since this is a BLP issue, the content should not be restored without a clear consensus and much better sources regarding his personal and current position on the matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Pennsylvania
We're very confused. The map shows Pennsylvania as having medical-cannibis laws, but there's no section for Pennsylvania. http://norml.org/laws/pa has nothing about medical marijuana for Pennsylvania. We live in Philadelphia, and as my wife has Chronic Lyme Disease (she takes six doses of three antibiotics daily, and yes it does exist) we think we would have heard. I assume that the map is in error? 71.175.202.62 (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * map is updated at this time --Potguru (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Notable anti-medical cannabis individuals
I'm removing all of the following unreferenced individuals. Add them back in as references are found and cited.

"Politicians that oppose the medicinal use of cannabis include former Drug Czars Andrea Barthwell, William Bennett,, John P. Walters, former U.S. Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush,  Mark Souder. Former Attorneys General Michael Mukasey, Janet Reno, and Dan Lungren also prefer cannabis to be illegal, as well as former U.S. Prosecutors  Carol Lam, and Asa Hutchinson, former Solicitor General Paul Clement, International Narcotics Control Board president Hamid Ghodse, Republican Senior  and former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala. Conservative talk show hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh and Hal Lindsey, also oppose the use of medical cannabis." --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Georgia
Why does the US map show that Georgia has decriminalized laws? It does not. Qelmasri (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)qelmasri
 * You seem to be correct. Georgia has limited legal medical marijuana but not decriminalized recreational marijuana. I'm not sure you is in charge of that map or how to fix it, but somebody should.--WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Federal Medical Marijuana Ban Partially Lifted
The text of H.R. 2029 only lists 40 States where the ban is lifted:

SEC. 542. None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to any of the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, or with respect to the District of Columbia, Guam, or Puerto Rico, to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

The 10 States not listed, and presumably where the DOJ can act are: Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, West Virginia.

Map Update
Hey everyone! The map was last updated April 22nd. Other than Ohio, what changes need to be made? Houdinipeter (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Article needs some work, probably should be simplified
I've noticed this article is missing a few things, such as updates for the 2016 election (Florida, Arkansas, North Dakota, Montana results) and other stuff like Louisiana legalizing medical marijuana in 2015. I was probably going to fill in some of that material, but looking at the article I'm starting to wonder whether details of state medical marijuana laws should be included at all. Twenty-eight states have now legalized marijuana for medical purposes, with that number likely to grow in the coming years. Many states have also made changes to their medical marijuana programs since initial inception, and more will do so in the future. Isn't this becoming too much information to manage and cram into the article, to the detriment of both editors and readers? Especially now that there are stand-alone articles for cannabis policies in all 50 states (such as "Cannabis in Texas"), I think we should probably take advantage of that. I noticed such a simplification has already been implemented for the article "Cannabis in the United States", as outlined in the discussion "Do we need to do some consolidation of multiple overlapping US cannabis articles?" on the WikiProject Cannabis talk page. I'm wondering whether something similar should be done for this article, or perhaps there is already plans to do so.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Need subchapters for Guam and Puerto Rico!
There should be chapters created for these 2 territories and the timeline updated! Puerto Rico has five times as many people as North Dakota and it's listed in the timeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.60.226 (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I added those territories to the article. The timeline is graphic that I cannot change and the graphic is only covering states. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 24 May 2017

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. As noted below, this is a straight policy fight between WP:COMMONNAME + WP:TIES (suggesting the marijuana name), versus WP:CONSISTENCY (which favours cannbis). As such, with valid arguments on both sides, and a roughly even split of votes, this is clear no consensus territory, and the article stays where it is. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Medical cannabis in the United States → Medical marijuana in the United States – The current name is a contrivance. The word "cannabis" is uncommon in the United States. Medical marijuana is by far the most commonly-used phrase. In support:


 * ngram: medical marijuana vs. medical cannabis in American English 1980-2008


 * Google scholar search of American case law ("medical cannabis": 209; "medical marijuana": 3,230): "medical cannabis"; "medical marijuana"


 * Use in titles of statutes/ballot measures (includes proposed) Fox Rothchild National Survey:
 * "cannabis" (11 states): FL, IL, MD, MI, NH, NM, OR, TX, VT, WA, WV.
 * "marijuana" (22 states and DC): AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, FL, HI, LA, ME, MA, MT, NV, NJ, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, VT, WA
 * both words: FL, OR, VT, WA
 * "hemp": UT, WY
 * "marihuana": MA, MI
 * "THC-A Oil" and "Cannabidol Oil": VA
 * no word used: AL, GA, IN, IA, KY, MS, MO, NC, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, WI


 * It bears noting, that of the four states that use both words, cannabis only appears in the names of statutes and regulations. The name of programs created by the laws for the public use marijuana.


 * Google search for "medical cannabis in the United States" vs. "medical marijuana in the United States": 145,000 vs 1,060,000


 * Cannabis is the technical word for the plant, not the commonly used word for the substance (MOS:jargon)

If you look for the current title, you'll see it used often by non-US sources discussing medical marijuana in the US. American news outlets, media, etc simply do not use the current title, nor does the public. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 03:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are good points but I think the cannabis vs. marijuana debate is already settled on wikipedia, since pretty much every article on the subject uses the word cannabis in the title. If this one is changed then they should all be changed, which is probably at least a hundred articles.  I'm in favor of keeping it the way it is as long as all the other articles remain unchanged.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am neutral about renaming this article, but if this is renamed, then to maintain consistency, all cannabis-related articles (over 60) should have the same naming. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for contributing!
 * I would direct you first to MOS:TITLEVAR: "If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English". IOW, a topic that is US specific should use the US version of the topic.  It seems quite clear that in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, the commonly used term is "cannabis".  However, in the United States, it is "marijuana".
 * MOSJARGON: A search of the Pennsylvania Annotated Code reveals that "cannabis" is used in three sections: two are sections defining "noxious weeds" and one is the Medical Marijuana law. In all three, it is only mentioned as the botanical name of the plant.  The word Marijuana appears 91 times in the code.  Cannabis is the scientific word for Marijuana.
 * "Medical cannabis" is just not a thing in the US, and frankly not much of a thing elsewhere. JSTOR has a "Medical Marijuana" category of publications.  It does not have a "Medical Cannabis" category.
 * The good news, we don't have to change them all, nor is such a proposal being made. The limited question is whether or not the topic should remain as is, merely because the word cannabis is preferred over marijuana presently.MOS:CONSISTENCY doesn't require the same word be used. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, consistency shouldn't be favored over common sense. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:TITLEVAR and WP:COMMONNAME (in the US, it appears). makes some very convincing points above.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CONSISTENCY which in my opinion IS the common sense position. If we are not consistent then we will have to repeatedly address this issue on dozens or hundreds of cannabis related articles. This would simply be exhausting and a poor use of editor's time over what is essentially a matter of word choice. Also, I think cannabis is better under WP:PRECISION because Marijuana (word) has ambiguous meaning. Sizeofint (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe the last major discussion concerning this general topic was at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cannabis_dispensaries_in_the_United_States#RfC_for_.22Cannabis_dispensaries.22_or_.22Marijuana_dispensaries.22. There was also a large discussion a few years ago at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cannabis_(drug)/Archive_9#Requested_move_to_.22Marijuana.22. Sizeofint (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are really going to pursue this you should really make this discussion an RfC as another editor can/will revert a move based on WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and any decision has site-wide implications. Sizeofint (talk) 05:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks so much for the contribution! Is there something I missed in this process?  I thought this was the way to propose a controversial move.
 * Those discussion concern global changes or changes to pages for broader topics. The topic is not Cannabis or Cannabis (drug) or Medical cannabis.  It is Medical cannabis in the United States.  Many of the comments in the discussions you shared support the position that the word marijuana is used here.
 * MOS:COMMONALITY: "Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia." This topic is primarily about the poltical, social, and legal movement to advance medical marijuana in the United States.
 * MOS:STRONGNAT: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation." Using cannabis in titles for topics that refer to the drug, or even the medical research is more justified than using it here.  Because this is not about the drug, it is about the legislative and ballot efforts to legalize medical marijuana.
 * This proposed move need not affect any other pages. Ironically, the only page I can find with a title that starts with "Medical cannabis in..." is the one wherein the term would never be used.  There doesn't seem to be a Medical cannabis in the United Kingdom or Medical cannabis in Australia or Medical Cannabis in Ireland.  I would oppose any effort to retitle (or title) any of these or the above-mentioned pages from cannabis to marijuana.  Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "This proposed move need not affect any other pages" It will though, whether this is intended or not. Whatever is decided here will set some precedent that use of the term marijuana is justified under some circumstances and will open the flood gates for re-opening naming discussions on many other cannabis related pages. Any shift in the status quo on this matter will have repercussions. This is why I highly recommend making this an RfC. Sizeofint (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Leaning oppose. We have a conflict of naming conventions, WP:COMMONNAME+WP:TIES and WP:CONSISTENCY. It isn't a cut and dry issue, but I'd rather invoke WP:TITLECHANGES If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title. In my opinion, "being somewhat more common" does not cut it for "a good reason". "Cannabis" is a perfectly fine and universally recognized word in the U.S., as (tentatively) evidenced by the title of Cannabis in the United States. Per Sizeofint, this energy could be better spent on other issues. No such user (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose article topic is about cannabis and all its by products not just Marijuana. --Moxy (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * : Thanks for your contributions! I'd just remind you both that the topic is not about Cannabis.  I one-hundred-percent agree regarding "cannabis".  There is no request for a change of Cannabis, or Cannabis in the United States.  The topic of this article is the medical marijuana movement in the US.  I would liken it to the article on Women's suffrage or Temperance movement or Prohibition.  Women's suffrage is not the same thing as Feminism or women.  The Temperance movement and prohibition are not the same things as Alcohol.  There is no requirement that they have consistent names.
 * Also, please consider the following:
 * Detailed examination of sources: Taking a more detailed look at the sources for the article, it becomes even clearer that the title is unsupported:
 * Total reference in the article: 238
 * Citations in the article: 360 (includes multiple citations of the same reference)
 * Citations in the article that include "cannabis": 34
 * Citations in the article that include "marijuana": 209
 * MOS:CONSISTENCY is not a license to ignore reality. The policy reasonably applies to many related topics, but not "medical marijuana".  There is no support for the use of this title, other than keeping it consistent with the other articles, and that is not a good enough reason. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Addendum to detailed examination of sources:
 * Citations in the article that include "medical cannabis": 18
 * Citations in the article that include "medical marijuana": 152 Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Again not just about pot......USA finally using right terms even at the state level -  last thing we want is to use a slang  antiquated term. Louisiana - Therapeutic Use of Cannabis Act see page 2 they made a point.--Moxy (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This supports the argument in favor of the move MOS:JARGON. They amended the law to reflect the scientific name.  But please take a look at this Google news search for the Act, the media still overwhelmingly uses the term "medical marijuana".  I would be more impressed if you can find me a US local or national news outlet that put "medical cannabis" in a headline.  Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * News coverage over legal and scientific name? Why would we name a medical article based on media usage? Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story..... WP:MEDPOP. Moxy (talk) 04:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. I never hear or read the phrase "medical cannabis" in the news, and wasn't aware it was a common term in any context. It doesn't bother me that some articles might prefer "cannabis" or even "marihuana"; English is a language with a great deal of variety, and I see no reason why uniformity should trump familiarity.  I know that consistency is desirable, but there's a time and place for it, and when a topic is known almost exclusively by one title (at least by the general public), then it ought to be at that title unless there's a compelling reason for not doing so.  Consistency by itself just doesn't seem like a good enough reason.  Nobody will be harmed if some articles dealing with this subject use "cannabis" and some use "marijuana".  Links and piped links can be appropriately modified.  And individual editors are still able to use the term of their preference in body text, for sheer variety if nothing else, as long as the meaning is apparent.  But since the article can only have one title, it only makes sense to have the title where almost everyone will look for it.  P Aculeius (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Best to use medical terminology over news headlines --Moxy (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I already replied above but I would just like to formally state my position as "oppose" here in the format used by others, and expound a little bit. As far as the consistency argument, consistency may not be required, but it is still a good thing, and something that will help avoid future conflicts on this subject, which I am pretty sure will occur if the title is changed.  So I think as a practical matter changing the title is a bad idea, even though the OP does bring up a fair point.  I would also like to point out two additional things:


 * - Cannabis is not just the scientific name of the drug. For many years in the U.S., "cannabis" is the term that was popularly used, from when usage of the drug became widespread in the mid 1800's until the 1930's when Harry Anslinger promoted the term "marihuana" as part of a government propaganda campaign.  If wikipedia existed during that time period, the article would definitely use the term "cannabis".


 * - Marijuana may be the more popular term right now, but the clear trend is back toward the term that was used for the majority of this country's history. As an example of this, a bill was passed by the Hawaii legislature earlier this month mandating that the term "medical cannabis" be used in place of "medical marijuana" in all state documents.


 * ‘Medical cannabis’ measures await governor’s signature


 * Might as well stick with where the trend is headed (and was for many years), which also happens to be the scientifically correct terminology.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * . I concede that the HI rewording is evidence in support of your position.  However, its persuasiveness is limited.  The fact that they have to explain the reason for the change argues that "medical marijuana" is the most common phrase.
 * The fact that at one time the term cannabis was used more doesn't support your position. Nor does the idea that the use of cannabis is "where the trend is headed".  Once the trend arrives, we have a different situation.  But it hasn't.  So we don't :-)


 * , I think you perhaps do not understand MOS:JARGON. We don't use the chemical names for water, or alcohol, etc.  We do not use technical terms over the commonly used phrases.  News/media uses the common names of things for obvious reasons.  I would just point out that the most commonly used word even in the legislation and ballot measures is marijuana.  So, in fact, we are not using the media over the legal terms, because both use the term marijuana over cannabis.


 * The article's own sources overwhelming use the phrases "marijuana" and "medical marijuana". Therefore the title is unsupported by its own sources.  Less than 10% of the footnotes use the term "medical cannabis". Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your arguments are neglecting the topics of this article...... that are about cannabis and its medical by products that includes (as defined by federal law since 1995) marijuana, hash and oil....but at the state level may differ (as you have shown). Yes marijuana is sourced  the most because its by far the most common cannabis by product used and talked about....but the federal  laws are about 3 defined products.  They  have "marijuana" as one form of the drug, with other cannabis by-products such as hashish or hash oil being uniquely defined as cannabis by products. This is also how  studied for medical properties are done. The lead is clear that more then just marijuana is being covered and product differ.
 * --Moxy (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Your source for that claim about the federal code is either erroneous or out of date. Please see the definition section for the purposes of the Controlled Substances Act of the US Code on its homepage located at 21 USC 802: Definitions subsection (16):


 * There are too many references to "marihuana' and "marijuana" to lay them all out. However, it appears in the "definition" or "front matter" of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the US Forestry Service Conservation chapter, and the Tariff and Trade Act's subsection on uncooperative drug producing or transiting countries.  Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Outdated? We have precedents and amendments that show us legal trends to defining things better..... pls see review 'State v. Benavidez" or UNIFORM CONTROLLED DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES LAW
 * or State laws like
 * What is not being comprehended is that things have evolved over time as in wording used in law since 1970s. Cannabis Indica is just as illegal but not according to the old law.......but as a society grows the words and there usage has changed. This is clearly sourced by both sides of this debate. US still all meesed up as in using proper terms but at least the new laws are trying.   WP:PRECISION is also a good reason to use the term that covers all forms of the drug. As has been sourced not all states define MJ the same. -Moxy (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To the degree that WP:PRECISION is involved, it supports the move. WP:Precision is a limiting policy.  It says only as precise as need be. Assuming arguendo that the current title is more precise than the proposed title, it is unnecessarily so and therefore violates the policy.  As in the examples cited in the policy itself, using the more technical term, or as you say, more "proper" term "cannabis", doesn't advance the policy, because there is no other "Medical marijuana in the United States" with which this article might be confused. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To the degree that WP:PRECISION is involved, it supports the move. WP:Precision is a limiting policy.  It says only as precise as need be. Assuming arguendo that the current title is more precise than the proposed title, it is unnecessarily so and therefore violates the policy.  As in the examples cited in the policy itself, using the more technical term, or as you say, more "proper" term "cannabis", doesn't advance the policy, because there is no other "Medical marijuana in the United States" with which this article might be confused. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Better to keep things consistent. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your involvement in this discussion. No matter your position, this type of debate is WP at its best.  I would encourage you, however, to use primary sources when you are looking for support in statutory language.  Please see the Alaska Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office's website for the strongest support for either position in this debate.  And it support the rename :-)  Also, the case you cited in your last argument was decided in 1962.  After 55 years, I'm not even sure it's still good law.  Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * thanks so much for contributing to the discussion! Allow me to re-address WP:CONSISTENCY for you and the other's who have cited it, and I'll take a moment also to address 's WP:PRECISION argument, which I hadn't before.
 * WP:CONSISTENCY's support for this title is weak. This policy is a strong argument for the titles Cannabis & Cannabis (drug) because the topic is about the effort to legalize medical marijuana in the US.  Outside of WP, it appears that no one refers to the topic as the effort to legalize medical cannabis in the US.
 * For example: this passage: "Patients can possess "No more than two ounces of a usable form of marijuana" and not more than six cannabis plants, and they may neither take their medicine in public, nor even on their own property, if the public can see them taking it.
 * it cites the most commonly cited source in the article: NORML's state-by-state rundown. The problem is that it doesn't say "six cannabis plants", it says "six marijuana plants".  NORML's source is an archive of the Colorado Department of Health's FAQ page which also says "six marijuana plants".  But on the page, per WP:Consistency it is changed to cannabis.
 * The purpose of WP is not eliminate national varieties of English. Were the above to be found on the page Cannabis, I'd agree, change the word.  But it doesn't.  This is in an article that is specific to the US, and under MOS:COMMONALITY and MOS:STRONGNAT and I might add WP:IGNORE, keeping it under this name merely for consistency is not supported.
 * WP:PRECISION doesn't support keeping the article in its current location. "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." The examples they give are Mother Teresa or "Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta".  Certainly, Medical marijuana in the United States would not violate this policy.  I'm not sure that  the current title does either, if so, it is because changing marijuana to cannabis is "more precise" than needed to "define the topical scope of the article."  My position is that it's inapplicable to this discussion. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "keeping it under this name merely for consistency is not supported"... in your opinion. Evidently most editors here disagree and weigh consistency considerably higher than you do. WP:IGNORE could just as easily be used to justify keeping the current title. Sizeofint (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't think it weighs more than the other policies. I think Consistency argues more strongly in favor of the names Cannabis in California, Cannabis in Australia, Legal history of cannabis in Canada, etc.  But this article is about the medical marijuana movement in the US.  It is not about cannabis as such.  the articles above are about cannabis.  While the movement is concerned with cannabis, cannabis per se is not the topic.  The medical marijuana movement is the topic. Therefore the consistency argument is weaker here.  I would feel differently if the term "medical cannabis" were more common in the US, but it simply isn't.  The name is solely a product of WP:CONSISTENCY and the guidelines make it clear that consistency is not to be used to erase national varieties of English.  Common sense also argues that the title of an article should at a minimum reflect its own sources.  And clearly "medical marijuana" is, by an overwhelming margin, the most frequently used phrase among the sources cited in the article.  It's more commonly used in legislation.  It's more commonly used in ballot measures.  It's more commonly used in the news media.  It's not that I don't believe in WP:Consistency, it's just that it alone doesn't support the current title.  Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It should be cannabis. Marijuana is in common usage only in the USA due to the Drug Enforcement Administration adopting the Mexican name of the plant to suggest that only illegal Mexican aliens and black Jazz musicians used it and distance the fact that cannabis has  a very log history of medical use. Promoted too  by Radolff Hirst who had millions invested in forestry plantations to produce paper pulp (for his newspaper empire) but he was thrown on the back foot when it was found that cannabis – per ace- produced more cellulose fiber than  trees, so he attacked to endeavored to make the growing of any cannabis illegal in order to protect is investments in forestry. English WP is international. It should be cannabis. Marijuana is in common usage only in the USA due to the Drug Enforcement Administration adopting the Mexican name of the plant to suggest that only illegal Mexican aliens  and black Jazz musicians used it and distance the fact that cannabis has  a very log history of medical use. Promoted too  by Radoff Hirst who had millions invested in forestry plantations to produce paper pulp (for his newspaper empire) but he was thrown on the back foot when it was found that cannabis – per ace- produced more cellulose fibre than  trees, so he attacked to endearved to make the growing of any cannabis illegal in order to protect is investments in forestry. English WP is international. Gorge Washington (who farmed cannabis called it hemp), people of African descendantcy often call ganja, etc. Others using the local vernacular sometimes refer to it as bud, grass, weed,  pot etc. As an encyclopedia we should and must refer to it by its proper botanical names - cannabis  (who farmed cannabis called it hemp), people of African descendants often call ganja, etc. Others using the local vernacular sometimes refer to it as bud, grass, weed,  pot etc. As an encyclopedia we should and must refer to it by its proper botanical name - cannabis. Aspro (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks so much for participating! I would urge you to take a moment to read some of the arguments I've made above regarding WP:STRONGNAT and MOS:JARGON.  Regarding your specific point about how "marijuana" came into common use, I would argue that it doesn't matter.  It's not for WP to judge the history of a phrase and give it an up or down vote.  As you point out, the word is by far the phrase used most commonly today.  It's not called "medical cannabis", or "medical hemp", or "medical weed", or "medical pot".  This article is not about cannabis or marijuana, or medical cannabis or medical marijuana.  It's about the medical marijuana movement in the United States.  Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * By your STRONGNAT reasoning, it follows that many/most articles in and its subcategories will also need to be renamed. This discussion has ramifications that extend to all US Cannabis related pages. I really feel this question should be discussed in that wider scope and not narrowly focused on this article. So a better question is "should US related cannabis articles generally have 'marijuana' rather than 'cannabis' in the title?" I thus also oppose this move on the premise that it is asking the wrong question. Sizeofint (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I must disagree. First of all, why would any other pages need to be changed?  What are you suggesting?  Is it because of WP:CONSISTENCY?  It appears to me that this policy is intended to be applied in a limited manner.  This move is warranted because the other policies clearly outweigh WP:Consistency.  It may be that one could make an argument that some of the others should likewise be moved.  But that's a different discussion.  I would remind you that unlike Cannabis in California--which is a thing--the topic of this article is just a contrivance.  It would be as if consistency demanded that the article Fulton County Fair be entitled Fulton County Agricultural Show.  Look at the sources for the article.  the term appears in barely 10% of them.  The current article's title is a consistency-based misnomer, if I may be so bold.
 * "why would any other pages need to be changed?" Because your logic for renaming this article can be applied identically to argue for renaming Cannabis in the United States and many other United States related cannabis articles. There is no reason we should stop at this article. "But that's a different discussion." No it is not. It would be a tremendous waste of effort to individually discuss the titles of Cannabis in Alaska, Cannabis in Alabama, Cannabis in Arizona.... At some point we have to make a general decision. Sizeofint (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. In the U.S., this subject is known as "medical marijuana" far more frequently than "medical cannabis". It is several times more common in every single search I can think of: Google Books ( vs. ), Google News ( vs. ), Google Scholar ( vs. ), JSTOR ( vs. ), and PubMed ( vs. ). In addition to the obvious WP:COMMONNAME point, WP:NATIONALTIES also supports this move, as do the WP:NATURAL and WP:RECOGNIZABLE elements of the article titles criteria. In fact, there's no reason for this article to be located at "medical cannabis" except to force consistency with other articles, a number of which have also been forced into consistency. There may be a point in time that "cannabis" outpaces "marijuana" in the U.S., but we're not even close yet, and Wikipedia article titles are expected to reflect current reality.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The plant is cannabis.  Marijuana is a commonly used slang name, but not the proper name. This keeps cropping up, but in the end, we use proper common names.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You may or may not have a point, but "marijuana" is most certainly a proper name and not a "slang name". Slang means it's non-standard English, and "marijuana" is used in the laws, medical literature, and the majority of reliable sources for this topic.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Marijuana (marihuana) is a commonly used name, but it is indeed slang, regardless of whether laws use it or not. Harry J. Anslinger was deliberate in introducing it into the English language specifically because it was a Mexican slang word.  Before than it was only known as cannabis.  "Ain't" is also in the dictionary and in common use, but it is still slang.  Marijuana isn't quite at that level, but the fact remains that cannabis is the proper name and sources use it, particularly high quality scientific sources, which is the type we prefer. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The definition of slang is speech that is non-standard and informal. "Pot" is slang, "marijuana" is not. Like many words, "marijuana" started as slang, but it is now a formal, conventional term used in all manner of contexts. Today, it's no more "slang" than apple tree is slang for Malus pumila - and in the context of medical marijuana in the U.S., it's many times more common in those high quality scientific sources that we prefer.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks so much for contributing! I totally agree regarding articles about cannabis/marijuana.  But if you look at the article, the topic is the social effort in the US to legalize marijuana/cannabis for medical purposes.  Plainly put, that cultural movement is called "the medical marijuana movement".  Take a moment to contrast this article with Medical cannabis.  You'll see that that article is about the broader topic of medical uses for the products of the cannabis plant.  This article is not.  It is about the legal, social and cultural aspects of the effort to legalize medical marijuana.  The appropriate title for an article about this topic is "Medical marijuana in the United States".  I must agree with, marijuana is not a slang word.  It is a proper word that appears in many sections of legal code, several of which I cite above.  It is routinely used in legal opinions to refer to cannabis, unlike "pot" or "weed".  There is no "Compassionate Use of Medical Weed Act" in existence.
 * You may be correct that "we" use proper common names, but Medical cannabis in the United States is neither proper nor common. It is an improper shoehorn of a phrase and it is in no way common.  At best it is uncommon.  I would call it rare-to-nonexistent.  Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My opinion still stands. I think policy on titles backs me on this, hence my logic here.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: If some think is about a 'movement', then how about a disambiguation page like Biker culture but called Medical marijuana movement in the United States. Which points out some of the differences. I.e. spiritual Entheogen medical treatment (which is also a growing  movement). The See also section could also in include Herbalism, Ayurveda, Ethnobotany, etc. That would both keep it encyclopedic and quickly help the enquirer to the article  about  the exact subject  that are searching for. English WP is international. It is only in the US that the word marijuana is used colloquially but not legally in the medical sense– so we stick to common medical usage. Botanically, marijuana refers to just one variety of a Mexican plant, so it is unscientific to label cannabis and all its many cultivars as marijuana on WP. Aspro (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks again for the input. Would you support a move to Medical marijuana movement in the United States?  Because that would be an improvement over the current title.  The reason a disambiguation page is inappropriate, is that there are no other subjects to which this title could be applied.  I must disagree with your claim that "the word marijuana is used colloquially but not legally in a medical sense..."  The article cites a source from a publication of The Lancet, the world's oldest medical journal which is entitled "Medical marijuana laws and adolescent marijuana use in the USA from 1991 to 2014: results from annual, repeated cross-sectional surveys".  Another citation is to the 2008 California Attorney General's Opinion on that state's medical marijuana law.  You may be right that the term is not "scientific", but it is clearly the term in use in the US.
 * So would you support a move to Medical marijuana movement in the United States? Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No! Aspro (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That move would even be worst.....because - again the article is not just about the pot movement. Please note the language and definitions.......  There are four possible sentencing classifications for a substance deriving from the cannabis sativa plant: marijuana; hashish; hashish oil; or tetrahydrocannabinol, organic and synthetic in ascending order of seriousness for guideline sentencing calculations. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 2D1.1, Drug Equivalency Tables, at 91, 93 (Nov. 1995). - --Moxy (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You said "the article is not just about the pot movement." But I don't see any content in the article that fits your description.  Please point me to something in the article that isn't about the medical marijuana movement.
 * I'm not quite sure how that case supports your argument, however, if you look at the 2016 USSG sentencing guidelines, you'll see that the word cannabis appears 4 times in the entire document, and is only used to define hashish and hash oil. Marihuana appears 178 times and is used as the yardstick against which the quantities of other drugs are to be measured.  For instance 1 gram of cocaine is the equivalent of 200 grams of marihuana.  Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I did..... ..perhaps we need to be more clear.  ---Moxy (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't about a movement, it is about the legal status, which is quite muddy in the US. The "movement" is a nebulous thing as there is no single voice, whereas the legal status is a matter of quoting sources and laws.  Claiming it is only about the "movement" is changing the scope to something beyond the intent of the article, something we don't do.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Can an admin now close this and remove the tag? We have gone round in circles long enough. Aspro (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking about closing. The move was proposed on May 24, it's been active for 8 days.  Is there a rule as to how long it should remain?  I had a sense, albeit a vague one, that two weeks was standard...?  It does seem like there have been new people joining the discussion as the days have gone by.
 * By my count, the responses have been thus:
 * Support: 4
 * Oppose: 5
 * Leaning Oppose: 1


 * Is that a consensus? Are there other considerations beyond the votes? Sorry, I'm not trying to be clever, this is my first proposed move, at least my first controversial one.  I want to make sure that I've followed the correct procedures.  Anyone, please give me feedback.  I'd deeply appreciate it. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not related to the vote count. It isn't a vote.  Weighing consensus is about considering the arguments and comparing them to actual policy, which itself is the consensus.  Regularly, an RFC or RM will close against the vote.  Just as google hit counts are meaningless.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Answer: Seven whole long days: Requested moves/Closing instructions. Ditto, not a vote. Yet, make it six explicitly opposing not five and the majority of comments by other editors are not supporting such a renaming. So that is a consensus.Aspro (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

 Support Comment The article should be moved in order to be consistent with medical marijuana/medical cannabis. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


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

Change to standardized US cannabis map?
I realize the "main" map has some debate over the color scheme and layout, but I opine that it duplicates effort to have more than one go-to map without very specific contextual reasons. Anyone object to removing the map shown here, and instead using the map shown at Cannabis in the United States, for here and for any other US articles with a basic US map? Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the question, because both articles use the same map – the "Legality of cannabis by US state" template.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Medical cannabis in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121112185030/http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019621894_elexmarijuana07m.html to http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019621894_elexmarijuana07m.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130131233254/http://hightimes.com/magazine/ht_admin/7881 to http://hightimes.com/magazine/ht_admin/7881

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph on Chuck Rosenberg
The paragraph recently added on Chuck Rosenberg – copied from the Drug Enforcement Administration page – seems much overkill and I have reverted the edit. It is debatable whether Chuck Rosenberg is even worth mentioning at all, as I'm not sure he is any more an opponent to medical cannabis than previous DEA administrators. If so, a simple mention of the name is enough, consistent with the other names listed in the section. I did previously expound on Bob Barr in that section, but that is because he is a special case that flip-flopped his views and joined up with the other side, which was quite extraordinary and requires explanation. Anyways, I reverted the edit so that Chuck Rosenberg's name is still mentioned in the first sentence of the section, but the paragraph was removed. I think that is reasonable. --Jamesy0627144 (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Trimming article to remove unnecessary state details
As previously mentioned on this talk page a few months ago, I think this article would be significantly improved by cutting out the detailed state info in the bottom half of the article. Although there weren't any objections when I first proposed the idea, I decided to hold off until the main part of the article was filled out more, so it wouldn't look too empty at the time. Now that the article has a lot more meat too it, I think the time is right. I'll also expound a little bit on why this is a good idea:


 * Some of the state info goes into too much detail, while other states are one sentence long or are completely missing. The Colorado section is 9 paragraphs long for example, and includes detailed info on recreational legalization in the state.  Minnesota and New Hampshire are only one sentence on the other hand, and other states are similarly given short shrift.  And then some states are completely missing, such as Louisiana and North Dakota, as well as a bunch of states that have passed low-THC / high-CBD laws.


 * There should be a total of 29 + 17 = 46 states listed, plus Guam, Puerto Rico, and Washington D.C., for a total of 49 sections. Currently there is only 35 sections.  So if the "Details of state medical cannabis laws" is kept, it should be a lot longer.  But isn't it already plenty long enough?  And as more states pass laws to legalize or expand their programs, it is only going to keep getting longer.  That is way too much and unnecessary.


 * We have a "Cannabis in xxxxx" article for every state now, so let's take advantage of that, instead of having the information needlessly duplicated here. The same thing was done on the Cannabis in the United States page recently, and it has much improved the article.  See before and after (current).


 * The long Table of Contents box at the top of the page is an unsightly distraction to have to scroll past every time viewing the article. And it should actually be even longer, considering that 14 states are missing that need to be added.  Getting rid of the "Details of state medical cannabis laws" section would solve this problem.  It would also significantly reduce the scrolling that needs to be done to access the References / External Links / See Also sections.

I'd also like to propose the idea of eliminating the "Qualifying conditions" table. Maybe if it was being maintained, then perhaps there would be more value in keeping it. But this doesn't appear to be the case as it is missing several states (Arkansas, Florida, North Dakota, Ohio, West Virginia), plus Guam and and Puerto Rico, and perhaps Louisiana depending on whether that is considered to be a medical cannabis state. Also, the table contains Tennessee and Texas, which are not medical cannabis states but have passed low-THC / high-CBD laws. If we are going to include CBD states in the table then 15 more should be added. My preference would be do just eliminate the whole thing, as it goes into a level of detail that I don't think is necessary for this article. And I wonder how accurate the info is, especially as states are constantly passing laws to add medical conditions. --Jamesy0627144 (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * How do you think that cutting out the 'detail' improves an encyclopedic article? Wikipedia is 'work in progress' and just because parts of this article may not be up to July 20l7 legalization in all states etc., this is no reason to delete any of it. You say “Currently there is only 35 sections” well you add some more if you want to improve the article... Yes, you seem more than able to want to burden us with your idlings and that leave me to ask... what did your last slave die of ? Aspro (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You are high strung man. I'm not burdening anyone with idlings, just using the talk page for what it is supposed to be used for.  Do you prefer people to make major edits to the article without first explaining themselves fully and discussing on the talk page? --Jamesy0627144 (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Re-reading your post, I think you missed the main point I was trying to make. The main reason I want to get rid of all those sections is because 35 is already WAY too many, and 49 would be even worse.  There is no need for dozens of sprawling sections of state info details, especially when separate articles have already been created specifically for the spelling out of cannabis policy in each state.  The fact that some sections are missing or underdeveloped is secondary to the main point I was trying to make.


 * I'd also like to re-emphasize that what I'm proposing here is pretty much the same thing that was done to Cannabis in the United States, which was unanimously agreed upon. So this is not an unreasonable proposal at all as your post suggests. --Jamesy0627144 (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I did some work on the qualifying conditions table mentioned earlier. There are still some issues with it but at least it's in better shape now.

Regarding the "Details of state medical cannabis laws" section, I plan to remove that in the next few days. Just giving everyone a final heads-up here. --Jamesy0627144 (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

qualifying conditions
Pennsylvania lists autism as a qualifying condition.. this should be added--74.103.142.20 (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not responding to this earlier. I went ahead and added an entire autism column to the table, though I'm not sure it deserves inclusion any more than some of the other medical conditions that are not listed in the table.  In my opinion the whole table should be deleted for a variety of reasons, but that's a discussion for another time.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Gary Johnson
Regarding the recent edits by 2604:2000:e016:a700:78ae:df26:4d2a:3a7b copying material from the Gary Johnson wiki page – I do not believe this is justified. This article is about medical cannabis in the United States. Although Johnson does support the medical use of cannabis, he focuses almost all his efforts on promoting the recreational legalization of cannabis. He has not been particularly active in supporting medical cannabis policy reform to my knowledge, and I don't see anything in the four supporting references to support the notion that he has. One of the references is a dead link (?), one is behind a paywall, and the other two do not even mention medical cannabis. A much better place to add the Johnson material would be to the article Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States, which covers recreational legalization and does not currently mention Johnson's name. But this article is not a good fit, especially with that much weight / detail given to the subject, talking about stuff that is not even relevant to this article (business appointments / company info, support for recreational legalization).--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Weird misrepresentation (the material is not copied from Johnson's wiki page). And even odder -- characterizing the fact that this 2-time US presidential candidate (and New Mexico governor) was the "CEO with a major medical marijuana corporation" as him being a person who does not focus efforts on medical marijuana. Seriously? Note him saying as to medical marijuana "Of course I think it should be allowed." Note The Atlantic reporting: "Johnson has long been a supporter of medical marijuana." Note Johnson saying "Marijuana products, from a medicinal standpoint, directly compete with legal prescription drugs that kill 100,000 people a year. There has not been one documented death due to marijuana. So [it's] a whole lot safer and arguably as effective." Note his support of two medical marijuana patients faced with a federal prison sentence. Note his admitted personal use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Couldn't disagree with Jamesy more .. and find his position quite peculiar. Seriously. A US Presidential candidate heads a medical cannabis company, and makes these statements as to medical cannabis, and uses it himself medicinally -- and while we reflect support from much lower level politicians, for some reason Jamesy want to delete this one? Odd. 2604:2000:E016:A700:DC24:984E:F6BE:CDC5 (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I still disagree. Moreover, you are a banned / blocked user of many accounts, and are not supposed to be editing wikipedia.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Northern Mariana Islands?
In the bottom menu it says cannabis is illegal in the Northern Mariana Islands, isn't it legal now, or is it still being processed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.16.175.140 (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There has been a lot of legislative movement there lately, but it is still illegal. If you have further comments about the bottom menu, here is the proper place to discuss.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Veteran suicide and PTSD
Regarding the paragraph recently added on veteran suicide and PTSD -- this type of material about the medical benefits of cannabis is much better suited for the article Medical cannabis. Otherwise, if this article were to delve into the medical benefits of cannabis and various research that has been conducted it would be a huge mess and would duplicate much of the material in the Medical cannabis article. There are a few other problems with the paragraph as it reads like an editorial and cites only one reference for its claims. So it needs some work and this article really is not the proper place for it.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

There’s an RfC about CBD and Epilepsy
Located [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cannabidiol#RfC:_Should_this_epilepsy_research_be_added_to_the_Cannabidiol_article? here].  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   17:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing in Biology
— Assignment last updated by Cpatty1 (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)