Template talk:Cannabis in the United States

States with active medical marijuana programs
When I started this template, I used NORML's Active State Medical Marijuana Programs list, which includes Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. However, I have NOT included Maryland, because the state itself does not have an active program that removes state-level criminal penalties on the use of marijuana by patients.

This is what NORML says about Maryland: "Maryland's legislature passed a medical marijuana affirmative defense law in 2003. This law requires the court to consider a defendant's use of medical marijuana to be a mitigating factor in marijuana-related state prosecution. If the patient, post-arrest, successfully makes the case at trial that his or her use of marijuana is one of medical necessity, then the maximum penalty allowed by law would be a $100 fine."

Again, since the state does not have an active program, it is not included in the template's medical cannabis section. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to remove CBD category
Now that Epidiolex has been approved for prescription use in the U.S., I believe some updates are needed to the U.S. legality map and also to this template (as explained at WikiProject Cannabis). Regarding changes to this template, here is what it would look like after removing the "CBD oil only" category. Alternatively, here is another version with the same change plus the top 4 categories differentiated by offsetting them to the right. I'm not sure yet which is better -- anyone have a preference? I probably slightly prefer the 2nd (indented) one.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: For discussion about whether map and template should be changed at all, see discussion at WikiProject Cannabis.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Marshall Islands
I saw that you have added Cannabis in the Marshall Islands to this template – however, I'm pretty sure it's not normally considered to be part of the United States. Rather, it is considered to be an associated state of the U.S. and its own separate country, the same as Palau and Federated States of Micronesia are. If we accept Marshall Islands as part of the U.S. that is going to require significant revisions to Legality of cannabis, Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction, and File:Map of US state cannabis laws.svg, but I believe these are all correct the way they are in not including these three countries not recognizing these countries as part of the U.S.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We have Cannabis on American Indian reservations in the related topics section. Arguably they are related to the U.S. Federal government in mnay of the same ways that associated states are. Especially see Tribal sovereignty in the United States, for instance the determination that "Indian tribes [are] separate from the federal government, the states, and foreign nations". ☆ Bri (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indian reservations seem much more pertaining to the affairs of the U.S. than the Marshall Islands, Palau, and the Federated States of Micronesia – even though yes Indian reservations are in some ways treated as separate countries. You think that Cannabis in the Marshall Islands, Cannabis in Palau, and Cannabis in the Federated States of Micronesia should be added to the template in the "Related topics" section?--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It could be done that way. Or a new section for associated states could be created. I'm just saying they are in an in-between status and not totally out of place like, say, [Independent State of] Samoa would be. ☆ Bri (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would agree that either a new section or an addition to the template in the "Related topics" section would be the best way of going forward. They are definitely related to the U.S. Federal government and are relevant to other cannabis articles involving the United States.CanadaOlympic989 (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * They are related, just like everything in the world is related to everything else in the world somehow. But they are barely related.  I could think of a lot of other pages that are more relevant to cannabis in the U.S. than three tiny independent nations halfway around the globe.  Why bloat the template and distract the reader with barely relevant topics, especially ones that are already properly covered at Legality of cannabis and Template:Cannabis by country?  The template is supposed to be only a concise / compact representation of cannabis in the U.S., not a catch-all for everything that can be tangentially related to the topic in some minor way.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on these three countries, but from my knowledge I don't see it as being an in-between thing. They are not part of the U.S.; we just have agreements with their governments to provide assistance in some ways.  Much different than Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa which are all part of the United States.  The Indian reservations are part of the U.S. too, even though they are independent in some ways I don't think many people would argue they are not part of the U.S., by physical location if nothing else (but other things such as how citizenship and borders are handled too).--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I oppose adding them. They are separate countries.Terrorist96 (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Bill introduced in multiple years
Regarding this edit by Bri, I was thinking that since several other bills in the "Laws and bills" section have been introduced in multiple years (SAFE Act, MORE Act, MFaO Act, STATES Act, EFMP Act), maybe it would be better to simplify things by listing only the first year that the bill was introduced instead of multiple years or a range. In the case of Rohrabacher–Farr though, I would probably keep that as 2014 since that is the year the bill was passed, even though it was first introduced in 2001. Thoughts?

Also, I'm thinking the "See also" section could probably be eliminated and the two pages that populate it could be moved under "Related". I don't really see the need for it and those two pages would fit fine under the other category.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)