Jump to content

Talk:Cannabis in Oregon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCannabis in Oregon has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 11, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 22, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in 1973, Oregon became the first state to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana in the United States?

Oregon Cannabis Tax Act 2010

[edit]

Information about the 2010 Cannabis Tax Act can be found at the following link: http://www.cannabistaxact.org. Perhaps it deserves its own section, or at least a "future legislative proposals" section? This would certainly be a first for the US: "reform marijuana laws by regulating and taxing adult sales; licensing the cultivation of the drug for sale in state-run package stores and adults-only businesses; allowing adults to grow their own and farmers to grow industrial hemp without license; and letting doctors prescribe untaxed cannabis to patients suffering from a variety of illnesses and injuries." Another Believer (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for adding info on the OCTA, but I'm not super comfortable using that site as a reliable source. Did you say the Oregonian covered the issue? I think NORML can also be considered reliable, have they discussed it? I was hoping google news would have something, but they don't. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this one or this one? Another Believer (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those look good to me. Summarize away.
I changed the marijuanalibrary.org ref to point to the web archive of the portland NORML site. The pages are exactly the same, but mjlib.com has a disclaimer saying they aren't part of PDXNORML, so I think this is better. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think OCTA belongs in the Decriminalization section, or should a new section be created specifically for "Legalization history" or "Attempt at legalization", etc. Or even simply Oregon Cannabis Tax Act 2010? Another Believer (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis culture?

[edit]

After seeing this cannabis culture article and this subculture article, I wonder if we may want to add a section for cannabis culture in Oregon. Clearly, one exists, otherwise the state would not have been the first to decriminalize marijuana and institute a medical cannabis program. Apart from HempStalk in Portland (and Hempfest in Seattle--though this is in Washington, I assume many Oregonians participate), are there any other large public events relating to cannabis? I've read Eugene is very liberal and 420-friendly. Or, are you aware of any shops, products or cannabis-related industries that thrive in the region? Another Believer (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This says an Oregon company was at the forefront of hemp products. This mentions Eugene.
Here's a ref for future use. Another. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic! Let's see what others can come up with as well. While it doesn't give specifics about the business, this article mentions Loving Spoonful, a hemp food business in Eugene, and also talks about HempStalk. Another Believer (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some articles that mention HempStalk, but I don't know if they're reliable. Maybe the Marijuana Policy Project is reliable, I don't know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a description of Vortex I and how it relates to cannabis culture would be more appropriate than simply listing it with a "see also" reference. It is hard to make the connection until you read the entire Vortex article and see the single line, "and to turn a blind eye toward behavior that had been widespread at the Woodstock Festival, like nudity and use of marijuana." Perhaps residents in the PNW region are familiar with the connection, but to outsiders it is not obvious. Another Believer (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed -- sorry, I kind of meant that as a placeholder to get back to soon, and got distracted. I'll try to write something more prosaic soon...wonder what I was smokin'! -Pete (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! Certainly NOT a problem. I just figured my perspective may be similar to others living outside of Oregon. It's a shame there isn't an article for Portland's HempStalk already that we could borrow information/writing from. Thanks again! Another Believer (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1997/1998 referendum?

[edit]

The last paragraph of decriminalization says

In 1997, the Oregon Legislature passed three laws recriminalizing cannabis. Activists collected enough signatures to force a referendum on the issue, despite the Democratic governor and Republican legislature opposing decriminalization. Voters overturned the new sanctions for possessing small amounts of cannabis by a margin of 2–1.

While this paragraph is properly cited and sourced, I can't figure out which ballot measure it's talking about. There were only four ballot measure in 1997 (List of Oregon ballot measures#1997—an amazingly low number), but none of them have anything to do with it, and all were legislative referrals. 1998's Measure 57 was a referendum Makes Possession Of Limited Amount Of Marijuana Class C Misdemeanor which would seem to be the one, but it failed 2 to 1 (371967–736968, or 33.54). What gives? —EncMstr (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was a crappy ref to not elaborate (which I added). If you want you can remove it, or I'll look for more info tomorrow when I have time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the author, Eric Schlosser, didn't understand that it takes "yes" votes to make a measure pass? Though that's a strange fact to be overlooked.... —EncMstr (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. It does sound like the writer was confused about whether or not the referendum passed. However, EncMstr, it's pretty normal for a referendum to happen in the year following a legislative action, so that part makes sense. I'm sure the Oregonian covered this in 1997 and 1998 -- I'll check the archives. -Pete (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect Schlosser mixed up the referendum up with the initiative that passed the Medical Marijuana Act. They were on the same ballot. (Of course, Medical Marijuana passed by only 55%, so he must have also confused failure with success ont the actual referendum.) -Pete (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just called the Elections Division. A helpful lady named Nancy pointed out that the Online Voter Guide is online from that year -- I had forgotten they had them available from that far back. So, here is the measure: [1] -Pete (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, it looks like Schlosser and other media reports were correct, and I was off in left field. I find it interesting that the Voters' Guide did not explain that it was a referendum in any prominent way; there's no reference to the HB number, or anything like that. Mystifying that they would leave out significant background information like that. -Pete (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

House Bill 3247 - Bill proposing that OR grow, sell pot to medical users

[edit]

Not that every possible piece of legislation needs to be addressed (since nothing has gone into effect), but we should definitely keep an eye on this (House Bill 3247). It is in the news a lot lately. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. I'm not sure when a bill becomes significant, but I don't think it's happened yet, because it will be national news if it gets anywhere close to law. Is the bill actually going to be voted on, I wonder? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs)
Not sure. According to this article, "Likely, the proposal won't go anywhere, but it will get an airing in committee". For the record, this article calls the proposed legislation House Bill 3274, not 3247. We'll have to see if Obama's stance on medical marijuana raids will prompt Oregon's cannabis activists so seize this opportunity for advancement. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009 as "Medical Marijuana Awareness Month"

[edit]

Not sure if this should be included or not, but Sam Adams has declared May 2009 as Medical Marijuana Awareness Month. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's borderline on importance, but I say add it if you want. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial hemp

[edit]

According to this article, the Oregon Senate voted 27-2 to approve a bill that clears the way for hemp to be grown and processed "if and when the federal government gives growers a green light". Senate Bill 676 still must pass in the House, sponsor Floyd Prozanski is convinced it will pass. Should this pass, we should definitely include this in the article. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Oregon will become the 7th state to allow hemp. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That will be good info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More information. Also, according to the most recent episode of Cannabis Common Sense (filmed in Portland), Oregon NORML is filing two new initiatives: the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act 2010 and the Oregon Cannabis Tolerance Act. Both would legalize the sale of marijuana to adults through the Oregon Cannabis Commission (as opposed to the OLCC, as previously suggested), while one goes into further detail about regulating industrial hemp. Once ballot titles are issued, the group will conduct polls to determine which ballot measure they will pursue based on public approval. Not in the news yet, but definitely something to watch out for. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully we can beat Cali to the punch. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This source cites that Kulongoski signed the hemp bill on Tuesday, and will take effect on January 1. We'll have to wait and see how the OCTA campaign plays out. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usage statistics

[edit]

In case more up-to-date statistics are needed, this might help. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legality section expanded

[edit]

If anybody would care to go through the Legality section I just expanded and point out where citations are needed, I would be happy to put them in. I have plenty of sources for the info, I'm just not very keen on where or where not to cite. Sylvanmonk (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The details on the specific amounts might be a bit much given the only source is the legal code itself, and the medical paragraph definitely needs a reference or two. Maybe trim the specifics there a bit too. Nice additions, nonetheless. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that was...a shockingly fast response...how did you find, read, and respond to the changes in the article so quickly??? Well, nevermind that. If you're that fast take a look at some of these sources and see if you have an opinion about what to put in as references.

Also, if you're a Wikipedia pro, feel free to hack out any fluff from my update. I did feel sort of an urge to be specific on some things, since we are talking about a specific jurisdiction (Oregon), and there has been some discussion about the legal status being unclear (check under the section "We should put this up for Did You Know?"). I myself thought possession of small amounts of marijuana in this state was a criminal offense until just recently. Finding out otherwise prompted me to do some research about it. Learned so much I thought I'd share it with everyone. Peace Sylvanmonk (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/newbies - I'd say the strongest refs are the State Bar and the Tax Act ones. The others are state documents and could be considered primary sources (and not very layperson friendly, too boot). See WP:PRIMARY if you don't know what I mean by primary sources. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for expansion: Oregon has a federally-licensed and supplied user

[edit]

See http://www.katu.com/news/local/130709568.html —EncMstr (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that they are giving their patients Mj with only 3% thc. Im sure theres other stuff in it and it could be that old folks cant keep up with us young folk and our 15%+thc PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cannabis in Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cannabis in Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cannabis in Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

== Conflicting Dates: Which to use?"

"Prohibition

In the early 20th century, amidst a nationwide trend of cannabis prohibition, Oregon outlawed the drug in 1923.[28]"

Also

"Cannabis was completely legal in Oregon until 1935, when the state passed the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act. The legislative record contains no mention of those substances causing any problems, but they were simply included as part of the package.[1] "

Just thought I'd point that out... 2601:1C1:8002:CF5B:0:0:0:F560 (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

inconisitency

[edit]

This article state that Oregon made marijuana illegal in 1923 under the prohibition header but further up under the Legality header it states that marijuana was completely legal in Oregon until 1935. 68.181.156.169 (talk) 06:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has not been addressed, but I will. It appears that Oregon made marijuana illegal in 1923 and then passed the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act in 1935. Wilkyisdashiznit (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cannabis_in_Oregon&oldid=1206532048"