Talk:Smart Approaches to Marijuana

Funding?
The sole source for the Funding section are self-serving statements made by the CEO. I propose that the section be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B197:8700:611C:1E0C:4847:1EF5 (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Neither of the sources I listed are associated with SAM. I simply wrote what I found. If something additional can be provided, I am all for addition. In light of the recent news regarding the Cole Memo, I am going to be working on all marijuana policy group pages. Pro and Con. If you have something substantive to add, add it. Norris.michaelj (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Why did you remove the criticism section without discussing it or mentioning it in the edit summary? The article now reads like SAM's own website rather than NPOV. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The campaign finance violation is listed in the article. I placed it under "financing", with some changes to make it factually accurate and NPOV. The campaign finance violation was accrued by SAM Action, which is a PAC, not SAM, which is a 501 (c) (3). This is an important distinction in politics. I also updated the source, as the previous source was a website maintained by the "Christian Science" organization. This source would not be allowed for any academic or scholarly publication. New source is RS. If you have any suggestions on how to improve, I am open! As the Cole Memo was just rescinded, marijuana policy will be front and center the next few years.Norris.michaelj (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Civic Technology
— Assignment last updated by Adinjoshi1 (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Article Peer- Review
In the introductory paragraph, the phrasing goes "describes itself as", and "the media has called SAM the", I feel like these are biased and don't fit in well to an introduction to a topic. Both of these sentences have unreliable sources according to the wiki guidelines.

The "issues" section of the article is very sparse and could be expanded more upon. The word "issues" in iteself is very vast and it should be narrowed down to represent something more niche. Moreover, the subsection "Medicinal marijuana products" is not an issue and doesnt belong in that particular sub-section.

The "Media and activism" subsection has only one sentence which is not coherent and there is no citation for that sentence.

I appreciate the links provided in the "State and local chapters" section but there are a lot of links missing and(or) broken as well.

Overall, I feel that the tone was a bit leading and the sources cited were either insufficient or unreliable. Civictech (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)