Talk:Rohrabacher–Farr amendment

Proposal to rename article to "Rohrabacher–Farr amendment"
I don't remember ever seeing the amendment referred to in the media as the "Rohrabacher–Farr medical marijuana amendment", always just "Rohrabacher–Farr amendment". A google search for the exact phrase "Rohrabacher Farr medical marijuana amendment" returns only 390 results, while "Rohrabacher Farr amendment" returns a much larger 6,660 results. Further, if you search wikipedia for the word "amendment", the following pages are among the results:

Stupak–Pitts Amendment, McGovern–Hatfield Amendment, Case–Church Amendment, Jackson–Vanik amendment, Cooper–Church Amendment, Kerry–Feingold Amendment, Brown–Kaufman amendment, Exon–Florio Amendment, Wagner–Hatfield amendment, Kyl–Bingaman Amendment, Solomon–Lautenberg amendment, Jones–Costigan amendment

I did not find any amendments of this nature with terms in the title besides the names of sponsoring legislators. For stand-alone bills a more descriptive title is commonly used, but for amendments that does not seem to be the convention. Considering all these points, I propose that this article be renamed accordingly. --Jamesy0627144 (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Concur, sounds good. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Done. --Jamesy0627144 (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits including new section on Sessions letter
A few points on recent edits to this article:


 * The paragraph added on the Jeff Sessions letter is unnecessary, I believe. The Sessions letter is noteworthy though, which is why I had previously added it to the article, in the last paragraph of the "Legislative history" section.  But I don't see the need for a whole new paragraph / section... in particular with the quote critiquing the Trump administration, it seems overdone.  I also think it's relevant to point out here that the Obama administration opposed inclusion of the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment in the last two budget proposals, and Obama's Attorney General effectively opposed it as well, by conjuring up a spurious interpretation of it to basically ignore it.  So this latest development isn't exactly unprecedented, to the point that a new section is needed at least.  Also, the use of the word "repeal" is probably not accurate, since what was really proposed is that the amendment simply not be renewed.  So I am proposing to just delete the whole section.


 * In regards to the change from:


 * "The passage of the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment in 2014 was noted for its rare bipartisan support, garnering the approval of 49 Republicans and 170 Democrats."


 * to:


 * "In 2014, the first year that the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment passed, the amendment was noted for its rare bipartisan support. In that year, it garnered the approval of 49 Republicans and 170 Democrats."


 * I think the original wording was better. It's largely a matter of opinion I guess, but as someone who has put a lot of work into this article that was barely touched for years – can a brother get the benefit of the doubt? :-)  I went ahead and reverted it back, but if there is something significantly wrong with it we can discuss.  I also did the same for the sentence added: "The Rohrabacher–Farr amendment has continued to maintain strong bipartisan support."  Seems unnecessary and was better before.


 * I agree the "Implementation" section needed some work, specifically the breaking up into two paragraphs. I made some additional revisions to further improve the section.

--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The Sessions letter is not really part of legislative history. (Sessions is not, after all, a legislator). That's why it makes sense to set it off into a separate section. This is also an important development -- I don't see the need to artificially limit our coverage to one sentence, rather than three well-sourced sentences. We can change "efforts to repeal" to "efforts against the amendment" if desired. Neutralitytalk 19:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure it's part of the legislative history. A letter was written trying to influence the amendment's passage.  The process of passing the amendment is its legislative history.  So it fits appropriately I'd say.


 * As far as the importance of the letter - yes it's significant, but it's also just one letter that was written, and the advice was not even acted upon. The Obama administration on the other hand took actions very impactful to undermine the amendment, by conducting a number of raids and prosecutions in defiance of the amendment, based on a far-fetched interpretation that the courts later strongly rebuked.  But there are no quotes in the wiki article criticizing Obama in that regard, even though plenty could be dug up.  Article is much better off without such diversions... sticking to the topic simply and concisely, with good organization and careful consideration of weight.  Like it is now. ;-)  Jamesy0627144 (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Content about the Obama administration response, like the Trump administration response, would of course be appropriate in this article, if it is directly related. (And, indeed, the Obama admin response is briefly mentioned, although it could be expanded.) For instance, this article almost certainly should mention the 2013 Cole Memorandum and its interplay with the R/F amendment. Neutralitytalk 17:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The Cole memo was not issued in response to R/F, it was issued over a year before. And it bears little relevance, as a non-binding set of guidelines issued for federal prosecutors, in contrast to R/F which actually is binding by law.  The main purpose and impact of the Cole memo pertains mostly to recreational legalization anyways.


 * And yes, the Obama administration response to R/F is discussed in this article, but there is no quoted text thrown in dissecting the hypocrisy of Obama, legacy of Obama, etc. Rather, the article sticks to the topic at hand, and doesn't get sidetracked on fluffy quotes / opinions about political figures.  It is pretty carefully crafted and maintained, unlike a lot of other articles on wikipedia that are in need of attention. --Jamesy0627144 (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)