Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 January 8

= January 8 =

Why is marijuana illegal?
So many areas have such tight restrictions on this but I can't figure out why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.211.178 (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Where? Australia is not the only country in the world, you know.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  06:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Legality of cannabis by country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.211.178 (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In the US, it seemed to become illegal because of racism, since marijuana was primarily popular with Hispanics initially. If it had been widely used by the majority of Americans, it either wouldn't have been made illegal in the first place, or those laws would have been quickly repealed, as in the prohibition on alcohol.  Once it was illegal for several decades, you then get a type of circular logic: "Marijuana is illegal, therefore those who use it are criminals, and we certainly don't want to legalize it and let criminals go unpunished for their crimes". StuRat (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As opposed to Prohibition, which had potential to turn anyone into a criminal without regard to race, color, or previous condition of servitude. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * They're trying to build a prison. There are only so many beds they can fill using traditional criminals. Now that they own the world, how do they own disorder? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Religious objections to cannabis from Egypt and Turkey during a 1925 conference played a large part. This is quite a good summary for the UK. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Marijuana is illegal for the same reason heroin is illegal and LSD is illegal and cocaine is illegal. Because it is a drug. Akseli9 (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, it's not terribly good for you. Alansplodge (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Or terribly bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This may take the prize for least helpful answer ever. Under any non-arbitrary definition there are many legal chemical compounds and mixtures that can reasonably considered to be drugs. Caffeine and theobromine, for example, have all sorts of interesting pharmacological effects, but right now I'm sitting with here with a half-consumed cup of coffee and an empty chocolate wrapper, and I am not expecting to get into trouble for feeding my addictions. Tomorrow morning I may have to take an aspirin to deal with the hangover I shall incur drinking alcohol at a party I'm attending tonight. Not all drugs are illegal. RomanSpa (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a word in English for "illegal drugs that are not good for you as opposed to all other legal or medical drugs"? What is the English translation for the French "drogue"? Do I have to use the word "dope" in order not to win any prize for least helpful answer? Thanks in advance for your help. Akseli9 (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with your answer is that it is circular logic - you in effect said this substance is illegal because it is illegal, like LSD or cocaine. "Drug" in USA English is used for both illegal drugs and pharmaceutical drugs. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What word should we use, please, in order to get back on topic and have an answer to the original question, thanks-in-advance? Akseli9 (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, there is no single word in English. The best I can do would be "controlled substance" or "illegal drug". But note that these only refer to the legality, and not to the putative harmful nature of the substance. As RomanSpa points out, many substances are legal and harmful. I would also contend that many illegal substances are less harmful than certain legal substances. Indeed, LSD is very safe from a purely pharmacological perspective, though indeed someone could harm themselves while under the influence, much like with alcohol. Unlike alcohol, long term use of LSD is not highly damaging to the body (e.g. liver, heart, many other negative complications described here ) and unlike alcohol, LSD is not addictive, and has no withdrawal symptoms. Heck even tylenol can cause massive problems in the body with long term use, and we sell that to minors without any regulation or limit. So we really shouldn't conflate legality with safety or illegality with harm. The history of what's legal and what's not in the USA is not really about public health - it's usually more informed by corporate interests, racism, and fear of youth subculture. I can't speak much about other nations but perhaps it's worth pointing out that Portugal has decriminalized most drugs 10 years ago, and has experienced many positive benefits of that approach, see Drug_policy_of_Portugal and here .  SemanticMantis (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, the laws about cannabis in the USA are very different in history and rationale than those regarding LSD and cocaine. See Controlled_Substances_Act and the DEA page here for information on drug schedules. LSD didn't have the historical component of racial discrimination the way marijuana did, as Stu has mentioned. Here are a few links that support that claim  . Additionally, the cotton lobby in the USA was very concerned about protecting their market, and feared competition from hemp fiber.  LSD has no known lethal dose, it is one of the safest drugs known from a personal and public safety perspective. Cocaine is more of a mixed bag. There are indeed many public and personal safety risks, but the laws describing sentencing from crack cocaine compared to white powder are also quite racist in effect. I'll also note that the inclusion of LSD and marijuana as schedule 1 drugs is highly criticized by medical scientists - these categories were made by politicians, not doctors or public health officials. There are many known medical benefits of marijuana, and LSD does not have high potential for abuse/addiction. That's a bit off topic but I wanted to state clearly that your answer is wrong.  SemanticMantis (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * When America imposed Prohibition, which race were they discriminating against? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * More or less anyone who wasn't a white middle-class Protestant. Do a little research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of who was pushing for it. It was, to some extent, a battle between Protestant and Catholic. It also gained momentum on the theory that banning alcohol might reduce the amount of wife-beating in America. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A number of studies indicate that marijuana is less harmful to a person's health than alcohol or tobacco. Alcohol, however, is heavily consumed by much of the socioeconomic elite in the United States, and their control over the political process makes it hard to conceive of a ban today. Tobacco was heavily consumed by the elite until recent decades, since when there have been moves to limit its consumption in the United States, but the power of the tobacco industry lobby has prevented an outright ban so far.  Marijuana, on the other hand, has only made inroads into elite society recently.  While the people have been able to function reasonably well in the workplace while consuming tobacco or alcohol at moderate levels daily, I believe there is a general recognition that frequent consumption of cannabis damages productivity. The elite do not want their employees showing up for work stoned.  Marco polo (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Less harmful" than booze or tobacco is hardly a ringing endorsement. Ingesting smoke of any kind into your lungs just doesn't sound like a good idea. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well sure, people shouldn't show up for work stoned, but they shouldn't show up for work drunk either. As for the belief that frequent use of cannabis damages productivity (WP:OR) tell that to the many pot-smoking PhDs I know in math and biology, several of whom smoked all through their degree programs. You can see why I can't cite a ref for that claim, but on the topic of science and drugs, I'll take this opportunity to mention that, according to its creator, we wouldn't have PCR without LSD, as related in Kary_Mullis ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This article (don't know how reliable) gives several contemporary reasons. Supposedly DuPont and Standard Oil lobbied against it early on in the 1900's because its fiber and oil competed with their products.  I haven't found a source for that yet but I've heard it repeated quite often. μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * These claims mostly check out, here's an article that makes similar points . For the WP coverage: Andrew Mellon was a treasury secretary and good buddy to DuPont, and his nephew Anslinger became the first head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (after his big success with alcohol prohibition). Anslinger was one of the biggest liars about marijuana in history, as described in our page on him: Harry_J._Anslinger. Also described there are the accusations that he was a racist/that he leveraged racism to promote fear of the plant. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In Canada, little was known about marijuana though Emily Murphy's book, The Black Candle, tied it to opium and contained outrageous quotes from foreign experts stating that all weed users eventually either murder others or kill themselves. So when opium was banned so was marijuana. 76.68.49.155 (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's a TED talk that is titled 'Why is Marijuana Illegal?' I haven't listened to the whole thing yet but it seems fairly reliable and mentions several of the concepts discussed above . SemanticMantis (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * For anyone's amusement, here's a clip from International House, a film made before the Hays Office was in full control of movie content. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you're actually interested in an answer, and don't subscribe to the belief prevalent among people today that the only people against drug use are uptight conservative killjoys, then you might find the essay below more enlightening than the above empty-headed arguments that e.g. drugs are really okay simply because the arguers, who are evidently omniscient and have devoted their lives to the serious study of social phenomena, see no harmful effects from them. (I also found the "it's mainly because of racism and cause they don't like youth subculture" argument particularly laughable. No offense dude, but if you seriously believe that you're either an adolescent or you're high on something.)


 * http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_2_a1.html
 * But knowing most people today, I doubt you really are.
 * 70.185.254.48 (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You seemed to miss the point of most of the discussion above, that while marijuana does cause some harm, it's less than many legal drugs, like alcohol and tobacco, at least in terms of number of deaths. So, the question is an obvious one, why do we ban the less harmful drug, and not the more harmful ones ?  Then there could also be the Libertarian argument, that it's none of the government's business if people want to use drugs that harm themselves.  The counter-argument to that is that they also harm others.  But, again, drunk drivers and secondhand smoke seem to cause more harm than marijuana. StuRat (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you'd taken the time to actually read the essay I linked, you'd have seen that seen that the questions you and other people have raised are already addressed there, and therefore I'd have no need to repeat them. But since you insist that ten minutes of reading is too strenuous an exertion for your mind to handle, I'll go ahead and repeat a short version of the answers to the points you put up:


 * 1. There's a huge difference between banning a substance that has been in widespread and customary use for centuries (in the case of tobacco) or millennia (alchohol), and legalizing substances which were previously not legal and NOT in widespread use. (Supporters of legalization will likely argue that e.g marijuana is widely consumed, but that's not correct. Although its use among young people and adults is certainly becoming more widespread, its prevalence is nowhere near on the scale of the consumption of alcohol, which in Western countries is often drunk with meals, as well as on nearly every social occasion. This argument is merely another example of their sloppy, unrigorous reasoning.)


 * 2. Your "libertarian argument" was addressed at the very beginning of the essay, if you'd taken the time to actually read it. People are not islands, we live in a community, and whether we choose to accept it or not, our actions and choices affect others around us. That's why we have things called laws that govern how we act. Sometimes our laws limit our freedoms for the sake of the greater good. Wanting to legalize illicit drugs which cause widespread social problems merely because there are substances whose consumption causes widespread social problems but which happen to be legal, is NOT a rational argument.


 * Have a good one.70.185.254.48 (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Aside from the legal troubles, what widespread social problem did pot cause? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, "It impairs their ability to pursue more important human aims, such as raising a family and fulfilling civic obligations." That's some They Live shit right there. Luckily, the word "marijuana" is nowhere at all in that essay (and "pot" is only in "hypothetical" and "potential". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Drugs limit their consumer's consciousness. They restrict their level of activity, range of interests, and leave them mainly preoccupied with how to get more of the drug. They impair their taker's judgement and have significant negative effects on physical and psychological well-being, including cancers, memory loss, and impaired mental function. Marijuana isn't directly mentioned, but it's clearly implicitly considered as falling under "drugs which exhibit a tranquilizing effect". And yes, having a family and being an active member of society are important goals for people to have, shocking as it may seem to you.
 * I'm also not surprised you'd mention an adolescent movie like "They Live" which, through e.g. bank signs which secretly convey hidden messages like "Obey", express the view that all signs of rules and order are actually conformist, stifling, and totalitarian. Your own thinking is lazy, shortsighted, and adolescent, and it's clear you understood very little - if any - of the essay.
 * There's a spectrum of tranquility, and weed is nowhere near heroin or ketamine on it. Far more of a psychoactive drug than a tranquilizer, and these have long been associated with higher consciousness, not limited. I read enough of that essay to realize it wasn't about pot, and if you smoked, you would have, too. We just have different views of life, and barring a long and meaningful alley fight, there'll be no unconvincing either of us. We probably agree on a lot of other things, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your arguments are basically splitting hairs. Of course, I understand that drugs like marijuana give sensations that make a user say "wow", which someone could consider an "expanded consciousness" in a very superficial sense, but they limit a person's consciousness in a meaningful sense, for the reasons the essay mentions and which I repeated for your benefit above. I don't need to have smoked marijuana to understand that the essay talks about all drugs, including marijuana. Its effects might be mild enough as compared to other drugs for the author not to feel the need to give it direct mention, but I have enough confidence in my reading comprehension skills to be certain that he means all illegal drugs.
 * Also, contrary to what many postmodernists might say, there are other distinctions in the world besides "different". Your arguments are sloppy, ill-thought, and inexperienced, mine aren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.254.48 (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know I made an argument. I thought I made a correction, suggested you try weed and (maybe) get back to me when you understand the difference, then calmly (or lazily) backed away, offering a puppy. He's cute, right? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He's definitely cuter than your responses, but then again I can think of a lot of normally uncute things that would also qualify. Like blobfish.70.185.254.48 (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) That's basically an appeal to tradition, which could be used to argue no law should ever be changed, such as the former laws against mixed race marriages.


 * No it isn't. The pro-legalization argument goes something like: "marijuana is illegal because it's bad, but alcohol is bad too, how come marijuana is illegal when alcohol is legal?". Simply because there's little hope of banning a particular harmful substance (because it's been in customary use for millennia), doesn't mean the logical solution is to legalize all substances that cause negative effects. Ideally, alcohol should be illegal, but since that's next to impossible to achieve the next best thing is to preserve the status quo. That's common sense, tradition or a "desire to never change any law, ever" has nothing to do with it. Neither do mixed-race marriages.70.185.254.48 (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 2) We could also argue that unhealthy food should be illegal, since it increases medical problems and hence medical insurance costs (in the US system). At some point personal freedom has to come into play.  Whether keeping marijuana illegal is for the greater good is rather questionable.  If you assume that making it illegal stops it's use, then perhaps you would be correct.  But instead it's usage continues, only now the money it generates is all criminalized, meaning growers and distributors have to use violence instead of the courts to settle disputes, police are bribed and corrupted, and many people end up in overcrowded jails at taxpayer expense.  The same thing happened during the prohibition on alcohol, but we had the sense to repeal that travesty of justice. StuRat (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The last time I checked, junk foods didn't have significant psychoactive effects, unlike marijuana, LSD, cocaine, and heroin. Your argument is invalid. In an ideal world, people would through education (and by education I don't mean classes on what to eat in elementary school, but rather in a general sense of becoming smarter, independent individuals) be able to make smart choices about what kind of foods they consume, but even with the way things are, their harmful effects aren't sufficient for the government to make laws restricting junk foods. That's not the case with drugs.
 * With regards to it illegality fostering criminality, this point was also addressed in the essay, which you haven't bothered to read. My own view (and one the author expresses in other essays) is that simply outlawing drugs is not sufficient to decrease their allure or levels of consumption, and on its own is not - and can never be - the final solution to the problem. You need to tackle the social conditions that lead people to find taking drugs attractive. In reality, and for reasons I'm not going to bother getting into here, the likelihood of this actually happening is very low.70.185.254.48 (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You do need a widespread consensus on something being illegal if you hope for the law to work. Trying to build a consensus after you've made something illegal isn't likely to work, either. StuRat (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Contrary to what you might believe, there was a consensus on their harmful effects when drugs were first made illegal. You're insinuating that drugs were totally accepted in Western society before western governments legislated against them, which is a disingenuous and stupid assertion. That the consensus on their illegality is undoubtedly diminished doesn't mean their physical, psychological, and social effects are any less negative. There are societies where cannibalism and having sex with young boys (see: ancient Greece, the cradle of modern civilization) were totally accepted, but even if those communities found them acceptable that doesn't make those acts any less wrong. In fact today, we see a significant and increasing number of people who get off to child pornography, helped by (no doubt useful) technologies like Tor. But if 40 years from now child pornography becomes more accepted and widespread through more people collecting and children becoming increasingly sexualized, that won't make it any less morally reprehensible than it is today. 70.185.254.48 (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Many drugs were widely accepted before they were made illegal, like cocaine, which was in Coca-Cola (originally sold as a medicine) and opium, which was sold mixed with alcohol as Laudanum. StuRat (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Cocaine wasn't widely accepted or consumed before it was made illegal. Simply because it was an ingredient in the manufacture of Coca Cola in its very first years doesn't prove it was widely consumed. As the page you linked mentions clearly and as you freely admit, Coca Cola was initially meant to be a medicine and not a beverage, nor was it the universally known or widely consumed brand that it is today. Likewise, laudanum was also a medicine that was used to deal with serious diseases like cholera, and its use was advised against except when necessary because it was known to be very addictive. Again, you're making assertions that are inaccurate and disingenuous.70.185.254.48 (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Coca-Cola addiction is still a thing. The odd addict dies rather directly from it. If only it wasn't so damn lucrative, refreshing and wholesome.
 * Fun Fact: John Pemberton died broke, of stomach cancer, hooked on morphine. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Now you're confusing substance addiction with behavioral addictions like being addicted to sex, gambling, etc. No offense dude, but you're totally clueless.70.185.254.48 (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, I appreciate the effort you're taking to engage with this IP 70...48 (after all it's me he accused of being very young or very high, and he's saying a lot of things that are not even wrong), but this person has only posted one 'reference' (to an un-sourced opinion piece), and doesn't seem interested in rational or fact-based discussion - he just wants to WP:SOAP. I really don't know why he feels the need to share his opinions about me as a person, but it's not very civil. I will keep my suspicions about the IP to myself, but let's just say after reading through his tired drivel I would use a lot of the words that were used in his original post here :) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your putdowns and attempts to portray yourself as having a superior intellect and point of view are about as subtle as a pink elephant trying to sneak into the royal palace of the emperor of Lilliput.70.185.254.48 (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't really read through this thread, but over the years, I've been collecting all the reasons people say/think/speculate as to why cannabis is predominantly illegal. Caveat emptor, as there is very little hard evidence to go on. If someone wants the names of the actual proponents of these theories, drop me a line on my talk page:


 * 1) Social control theory
 * Citizens who use cannabis tend to question authority more easily than those who use alcohol. Why this seems to be true isn't exactly known and is difficult to study. Proponents of this theory argue that cannabis users are less easily controlled, giving governments, corporations, and institutions a motive to limit the use and availability of the drug.  Paradoxically, people who use too much cannabis seem to lose this independence, so minimal use/dosage appears to play a role.  There are many other aspects of the social control theory, such as the so-called  Protestant (or Puritan) work ethic, which finds alcohol acceptable (to some extent, probably unwillingly) and cannabis culturally out of place. The social control theory leads directly into the repression of ethnic minorities, immigrants theory
 * 1) Repression of ethnic minorities theory
 * Historically, African Americans and Mexicans were for decades the primary victims of harsh cannabis legislation. Jazz musicians were often targeted because they used cannabis on and offstage to allow them to "feel" the space between the notes ("Music is the space between the notes", Claude Debussy). The effects of cannabis and time perception are well known to musicians, who take advantage of the "high" to find different ways of "hearing".  Some music scholars have found good evidence of a link between cannabis, Jazz, Rock and Roll, and other music genres of the 20th century, many of which originally began in immigrant communities who used cannabis.  The arrests of all of these people leads into the prison industrial complex theory
 * 1) Prison industrial complex theory
 * Criminalizing cannabis use led to huge profits for the prison industry, attorneys, and law enforcement.  To this day, the DEA has an enormous budget to go after cannabis with, even though its own judges, who they ignore, have recommended legalization.  Meanwhile, thousands of people have their property confiscated and their lives ruined, with no hope of ever landing a decent, respectable job due to their criminal record.   Since all of these "sick" people need culturally acceptable, Puritan approved drugs to get them off of their immigrant drugs, we need a pharmaceutical-chemical-industrial complex theory
 * 1) Pharmaceutical-chemical-industrial complex theory
 * Once widely prescribed by the medical industry, cannabis lost out to newer products which were more profitable. Industry magnates favored replacing cannabis textiles with synthetic versions. To keep other countries in line with this agenda, the United Nations recommends and enforces cannabis prohibition at the highest levels. Other theories claim that cannabis has health benefits which are being suppressed, but it's more likely that these health benefits, if they actually exist, are difficult to prove in a lab.  Which brings us to the question, who's in charge of this industry?
 * 1) Organized crime theory
 * History shows that organized crime syndicates control major drug distribution. There may be a connection between the rise of cannabis use in the west and the interest of drug traffickers. To protect their profits, drug traffickers favor criminalization.  Have you ever heard a drug dealer say they were in favor of legalization?  The financial sector depends on a large number of investments from drug traffickers to continue doing business.  Legalize drugs, and you're hitting banks the hardest.  Since the banking industry influences government legislation, it's unlikely that drug legalization will occur unless there is major banking reform.

That's about it. Viriditas (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What happened in places like Colorado and Washington? Did the banks lose their influence there? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are pretty poor examples of "drug legalization". There are strict limits on the drug, in terms of usage and availability, and the federal government can come in and still make arrests.  You may want to do some research before commenting again.  If anything, these are state "experiments".  Try flying across state lines and buying cannabis and bringing it home.  Good luck with that. Viriditas (talk) 05:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course you can't take it home, because most states don't allow it in any form. But it is a good example of the start of a "movement". Some other states have legalized medicinal usage, and that aspect is slowly gaining broader acceptance. In the year 2000 could you have predicted that same-sex marriage would be so widespread by 2015? Don't belittle these "experiments". They are a foot in the door. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I predicted same-sex marriage would be widespread today, back in 1993, and frankly I find it entirely unsurprising. In any case, you're missing the point. 50 percent of federal prisoners are there because of drug laws. In 2005 alone, 800,000 Americans went to jail for cannabis-related offenses.  I know that you and others are happy to proclaim a new era for cannabis, but when you look at the facts, nothing much has changed.  People are still getting arrested, dispensaries are still being shutdown, and the raids continue.  Several states have made it easier to buy, but it's still a major crime in most of the world.  The United Nations continues to actively preach the benefits of cannabis criminalization at the highest diplomatic levels, most likely at the behest of the U.S.  Same shit, different day. Viriditas (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Then you were ahead of the curve, which is remarkable. The incarceration for illegal drugs seems race-based, but keep in mind that everyone dealing with illegal drugs runs that risk, and they know it. Same-sex relations are also a major crime in much of the world. That's not America's problem. And I don't agree that "nothing much has changed" in America. The fact is that some things have changed, and it's possible (though not guaranteed) that there will eventually be a snowballing effect, as there has been (so far) with the same-sex marriage issue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * However, marriage can be argued to be a human right, while cannabis consumption really can't. So this means each US state will be allowed to continue making it's own laws, resulting in life imprisonment in red states for things that aren't even crimes in blue states.  As for the Feds, I'd have to think they will eventually get the message and stop trying to enforce anti-cannabis laws in states where it's legal.  If not, perhaps a Supreme Court ruling is needed to stop them from ignoring the will of the states.  StuRat (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It might be. But there's also the libertarian question, namely where is the U.S. government constitutionally authorized to tell me what I can or cannot ingest? The answer is, it isn't, except for the since-repealed Prohibition amendment. Of course we're talking about intoxicants here. I think Drew Carey summarized it best: "I don't think the government has the right to limit the ways I can hurt myself." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In Drew Carey's America, "Ohio law imposes on them a basic duty of mutual respect, fidelity, and support. This means that each has the duty to care, support, and protect the other." There are rights, too, but again, granted by the state. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If something crosses a state or national border, then I can see where the Feds might have a Constitutional right to regulate it. Since most drugs must be imported, that would be their way in.  However, cannabis can be grown in most US states (probably all, in a greenhouse), so the Federal government's claim that they have the right to regulate it seems very weak. StuRat (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * StuRat, cannabis advocates have been arguing that cannabis use is inherently a matter of human rights for decades, so I'm going to strongly disagree with you. Look up the concept of cognitive liberty for further information. Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * StuRat's remark reminded me how much a definition of Social rights can be a frustrating notion. I checked Social rights and guess what, there find in it a See also link titled Social rights linking to not anything else, but to our Wikipedia article linked by with Social rights. --Askedonty (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The race theory was based on the notion of keeping black stuff away from white folks (same with rock-and-roll music). As more and more white folks either want it or lack strong opinions against it or see the incarceration as unjust, more Colorados and Washingtons may emerge. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There's new evidence from Health Canada that marijuana should be illegal because it lowers IQ. That evidence is widely contested by scientists, but made "generally uninformed" parents "react in alarm" during focus groups more than the other four claims, so it gets to be on TV. That's how real Canadian science works. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a semi-informed opinion on how dope affects one's brain. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice. Here's how legalized weed would affect the average American psychopathic tweaker's brain, according to another bane of civilization. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

How is the world's religious population changing?
Is it growing, shrinking, what religions are seeing the most change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.211.178 (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Growth of religion and Major religious groups are good starting points. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As are Islamophobia, Antisemitism and Antichrist. Anti-Hinduism doesn't have the same global appeal, but India's general population is exploding. Anti-Manichaeism hasn't been cool for a while. We don't have an article on it. More due to Manichaeism itself practically vanishing than an unusually persuasive argument from their pro side. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The medieval Christian church regarded Manichaeism as a pernicious heresy which had a way of establishing itself in widely-separated regions from southern France to Bulgaria (though I'm not sure what this has to do with the original question). We have an article Growth of religion... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The question was about shrinking as well as growing. Far more recently, Game of Thrones is doing a bit to reignite the flame in the West. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The population of some religious extremists is exploding, in more ways than one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * More ways than two, if you count the XXXtremists]. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * One way to think of the question is how the religion is growing, compared to world population growth. E.g. if a religion is growing but more slowly than the population (in world or region), then the religion is effectively shrinking in terms of its market share. See e.g. this table about the Mormon religion The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_membership_history. In the USA, Irreligion is very fast growing, see also here, which shows a small but steady decline of religion in the USA as a whole, meaning that the percentage of religious population of the USA is shrinking. Not sure how that would turn out for the whole world but at least it's a start. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Angel article understanding problem
Peeps, the Jewish angelic hierarchy and Hermetic Qabalah, from the Angel article, I’m guessing they are two different sects in Judaism. Am I right?

Also, please view the link (Angel), what/who are they talking about in the asterisk sentence. i.e. *These are the only two angels to be mentioned by name in the Hebrew Bible; the rest are from extra-biblical tradition.

(Russell.mo (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC))


 * The asterisked sentence refers to Michael and Gabriel. You'll see each has an asterisk at the end of his description in the immediately preceding list. RomanSpa (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I noticed it now after you mentioned. Thanks. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC))
 * Qabalah isn't so much a separate "sect" as a philosophical school of thought. However, like a lot of other, similar, schools of thought, it had to create names for things. This includes creating some names from nothing, as well as using a lot of names or descriptions included in extracanonical literature. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So what do you suggest, should I define them as one just by mentioning "In Judaism"...? Will people understand it universally. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC))
 * First, I think if you have access to an "encyclopedia of angels," of which there are at least a few, and check more clearly what they say. Alternately, saying something like "Gabriel and Michael are the only two angels specifically named in the Jewish Bible, but noncanonical works and the Kabalah add several other names" would also work. I think the "several other names" include names for all the seven angels of the throne, although if I remember right there are actually more than 5 other names offered for those other 5 angels. John Carter (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC))
 * I'll keep them separate to avoid causing headache for even myself. Thanks regardless. I'm taking your word for it, since there is not much of a difference. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC))

How can you calculate if something has hit bottom?
Is there a min. price for oil, stock, gold, foreign currency that can be calculated and defined as "bottom"? Does economics work with such a definition?--Noopolo (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Classic microeconomics posits that supply and demand can drive pries down to zero (if no demand or infinate supply). Clearly there will not be a race to supply things for less than their production cost. And, indeed, previously valuable assets can become liabilities. One could imagine oil, in an oil-is-banned world, having a negative value (i.e. the cost of disposing of it). IINAE, etc. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tagishsimon here. In general, the minimum price that something costs is at least equal to the amount of gain, but such things as loss leader pricing, Depreciation (economics), and other similar related ideas, as well as the often day-to-day (if not minute-to-minute or second-to-second) changes in the relative valuation of various currencies on the Foreign exchange markets are such that there is probably pretty much nothing that can even be declared as a "bottom" for more than a few seconds. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * But what if the price of something never goes below x in a period of decades? Could we say this is "bottom"? At least, I am not expecting in getting a useful product for 0, so, there will always an x higher than 0. --Noopolo (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If demand for that product collapses, though, the price could even fall below 0, such that the owner would pay you to dispose of it. Marco polo (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Try selling asbestos insulation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You may be confused because in casual speech people say "buy at the bottom of the market" or "the market bottomed out" - this does not mean that the value is a true minimum that cannot be crossed, it is more a statement of the existence of a local minimum. So people who bought houses at the right time in the USA ~2009 might say they "bought at the bottom of the market", meaning that the house prices have only gone up since then. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In retrospect, it's possible to identify a point where a price reached a "bottom" before rising, but it is impossible to predict it in advance. Anyone who could do so would quickly become extremely rich.  Marco polo (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * what a bizarre two sentences, Marco, since your second sentence seems to justify the first, i.e. that it's 'impossible', because if someone could do so they would quickly become extremely rich. So it's like you're adding, "and obviously that has never happened".  but people DO become extremely rich, such as [Warren Buffett,] becoming the second-richest person on Earth on investment alone, going from a $12,000 salary to owning (being personally worth) $73.8 billion on investment in a few decades, i.e. at a rate well in excess of $1 billion per year.  (if that does not count as quickly becoming extremely rich, including his first million by the time he was 32, also on investment alone, then I don't know what does.) According to Investopedia (and normal reading), he likes to buy at the rock-bottom.  On a more everyday level, people become rich through their predictions all the time.  (Including normal analysts, who simply predict rock-bottoms that do not produce a billion dollars as they climb, but more mundane sums but which still make them rich.)  your argument is therefore kind of a weird way to prove that something is 'impossible'!  Maybe amend it to the fact that it is difficult (not impossible) to predict in advance, which is why relatively few people are able to do so and quickly become extremely rich as a result. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You cannot literally predict it, but you can make an educated guess based on experience and study. Guys like Buffett have spent their lives doing this, so their guesses are going to be better than yours or mine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @212.96.61.236: I think you've misread Marco polo's comments. His first sentence is (with certain special-case exceptions mostly caused by interventions by governmental or regulatory bodies) correct for all kinds of assets. All that he's saying is that asset prices are unpredictable, so that although you can look back and see the local minima in the price time series that have already happened, you can't tell for certain whether you're at a local minimum right now. Apart from a technical exception that is unimportant for this kind of discussion, Marco polo is right that if you could identify market minima at the time you would indeed make a lot of money in a relatively short time. However, note that Marco polo's point is of the form "If A then B". The direction of the reasoning is that presented by Marco polo. He hasn't added "and obviously that has never happened", and in fact says nothing about whether there are or are not extremely rich people.
 * However, you have also entirely failed to understand how Warren Buffett purports to have made his money. If you read our article on him, you will see that Buffett characterises himself as a practitioner of value investing. That is, he is explicitly not concerned with identifying market tops and bottoms, but buys on the basis of the intrinsic value of the investments in question. (There are various reasons to believe that Buffett is not a pure "value investor", but there is no suggestion that Buffett is attempting to identify market bottoms in the sense that you mean here.)
 * In fact, the research that has been done on the ability of particular investors to identify "bottoms" for asset prices fairly clearly shows that it can't be done. There is no evidence that even professional stock analysts can consistently identify market (local) minima and maxima. Sometimes a stock analyst will make a sequence of correct guesses, but this is just by chance, and is not evidence of a particular ability to predict future price movements. RomanSpa (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * you'd be a really good match for biblical scholarship. if you want a new career, I'd go for it. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm more interested in facts than fiction. RomanSpa (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Neglecting some special cases (such as those already mentioned, and some pathological cases involving non-physical assets) it is generally the case that the only definite minimum price for an asset is zero. However, from your question it seems that your particular interest is financial assets. Financial market economists almost always model the prices of assets such as equities, gold and oil as geometric Brownian motions. Such stochastic processes can get as close to zero as you like, but don't ever reach zero. (For more complex financial instruments other, more complicated, models may also be used.)


 * Discussion of market "tops" and "bottoms" is particularly common among afficionados of technical analysis. Specialists in this kind of market analysis spend a lot of time identifying market bottoms, which they believe represent "buying opportunities" (with "tops" representing "selling opportunities"). Such analysts believe that successive market bottoms take values that are in some kind of mathematical relationship (almost always a straightforward arithmetic progression). I have not seen any adequate papers in support of these claims, though (nor do I expect to). RomanSpa (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding "there will not be a race to supply things for less than their production cost", that's inherently true, but a company taking a page from the John D. Rockefeller business plan might temporarily drop the price below cost in order to stifle competition. That's the game OPEC appears to be playing at present. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's correct that many, if any OPEC members, have yet allowed prices to drop below production cost for themselves. Remember, most OPEC members have oil that's relatively easy to access. Prices may have dropped below production cost of other more difficult to access sources, but of course these generally aren't from OPEC producers (although their state oil companies may have involvement). And even then, there's often a key distinction between production cost, and amount needed to service expensive loans etc, the production cost tends to be a lot lower than people expect. OPEC members my have allowed the price to drop below what they need to balance their budgets, but again that's distinct from production cost. Social services and other things (and oil revenue being a big part of their revenue) are mostly what's contributing to their budget deficiets, not the cost of producing oil. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Tim Cole
Tim Cole is my brother. I was wondering if someone could post a photo of the Statue of my brother that was just dedicated on September 17, 2014 in Lubbock, Tx. I don't know how to do it. There are several images of the bronze statue online but none on the wiki page. There is a photo of the Historical marker on the wiki page but our family would really like to see a photo of the statue as well. The statue is the first of its kind to recognize a wrongful convictions in the United States. Please help if you can.

Thank you, The Tim Cole Family — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.196.202.193 (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Pictures of recently-created statues and other artworks are not allowed on Wikipedia due to the lack of something called "Freedom of panorama" under U.S. law. I suspect that if the sculptor himself were to photograph his statue and give up his copyright on it, it might be possible. However, there would be a process to go through first. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * For "give up his copyright", read "allow use of the image to be licensed under one of the licenses relevant to Wikipedia content". Roughly this would mean allowing unlimited use of the image without cost so long as proper credit given, but for details the artist should certainly consult the actual policies and licenses. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * For sure. Just fair warning that unless the OP has their fair use ducks in a row, a deletionist will eventually target it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * For those interested: the page is Tim Cole. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As the "first of its kind" the statue is clearly notable, and a picture would certainly be appropriate for the article on Tim Cole, so if an appropriate image can be provided as suggested above I think we should certainly include it in the article. RomanSpa (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * God bless your brother. May he rest in peace.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I suggest you get written permission from the artist to use the likeness of his work in Wikipedia.  Most likely he will agree, since it's more publicity for him, and neither you nor Wikipedia stand to profit at his expense.  (If somebody wanted to use pics of the statue to sell corn flakes, he might very well refuse.)  StuRat (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)