Jump to content

Talk:Legality of cannabis/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Divide up article and redirect to Legality of cannabis by country

The equivalent title at most other-language Wikipedias is just the chart we have at Legality of cannabis by country. This current article is kind of a hodge-podge, is heavily US-centric, and largely just duplicates content already covered well at other articles. I suggest that we strip out any unique content from this article, remove anything redundant to say Legal history of cannabis in the United States or Cannabis in Switzerland, and then just make this a redirect with a History merge.

Does anyone have a strong objection? Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Going to go ahead and do the reverse merger (merge Legality of cannabis by country to this article). Λυδαcιτγ 07:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney: Saw your revert. Sorry, guess I was a bit over-bold in keeping this article and redirecting Legality of cannabis by country, rather than vice versa as you proposed. My thinking was that the introduction and history sections were valuable, but not suited to a list. What do you think? Λυδαcιτγ 02:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The way Audacity did it made more sense. Legality of cannabis by country is basically a subarticle to this one, so it should be included here. --Gbuvn (talk) 09:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello @Audacity:, sometimesyou gotta Be Bold, just in this case I disagree with it. @Gbuvn: for a little bit of context, this page used to be a sprawling one that was way redundant to other content, and almost entirely US-focused, so I've been whittling it down over time.
Bear with me, but I submit that the *chart* is the absolute key thing in the article, so while I'd be fine having Legality of cannabis be almost entirely the chart with a brief introduction (as Legality of cannabis by country is now), I'm worried that if we put too much content before the chart, the very popular chart loses impact. If you look at the other-language versions of Legality of cannabis by country the great majority of them are mostly the chart (and note those chart pages in other-languages used to point at Legality of cannabis but I changed the metadata to link chart-articles to chart-articles).
My overall intent was to basically whittle Legality of cannabis down to almost nothing because it's almost entirely duplicated elsewhere, then move Legality of cannabis by country to this title so that the simpler (and very popular despite the weak page) has the extremely popular chart. Legality of cannabis by country gets a ton of views despite the more cumbersome title, so I feel that basically removing most/all content on this page and transferring "...by country" to this space we can maximize value to the readership. I'm just really leery about burying a very popular chart below a lot of exposition. What do you think? Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Legality of cannabis has already been reduced now. The chart makes up like 90 % of the site. I feel like that's prominent enough. But my point is a different one. A page named "Legality of cannabis" is supposed to show the situation all over the world anyway. So it doesn't make sense to have a separate page named "Legality of cannabis by country". --Gbuvn (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Gbuvn: @Audacity: I submit everything *except* the chart should be removed on this page. The chart is really popular, got tons of pageviews for the page that was solely the chart. The current page buries the chart under a lot of content that is duplicated elsewhere.

An article about "legality of cannabis" without a by-country breakdown is pretty much pointless other than describing international treaties, since there are dozens upon dozens of different policies towards cannabis worldwide. The chart breaks down global differences in a clear and concise format, so honestly I would just get an admin to do a Move/Replace and move the whole Legality of cannabis by country to this title, rather than dump the chart at the bottom of an increasingly weak page. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The whole "History" section should be merged to History of cannabis (if there is any significant content that is not already duplicated there) and removed. Then we just need a good concise lede and we're set. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Repeating header

Anyone else thinks it looks weird to have the column header (Country/Territory, Recreational, Medical, Cultivation, Notes) repeat every time the list of countries starts a new first letter? For example, there are 3 countries that start with the letter "F". In that case the header is displayed immediately before the country Fiji, then there are 3 rows in the table for Fiji, Finland, and France, and then the header repeats again. For the letters O, Q, and Y there is only one country for each letter, which looks even more strange as the header is displayed immediately before and after Oman, Qatar, and Yemen. I'm thinking the header should either repeat after a set number of table rows (20 or 30 for example), or it should be completely eliminated except for the very top and bottom (as the table existed before 9/5/17). So I plan to make some kind of change.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you, I made a change some time ago to repeat the header every 5 or 10 on Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction but someone reverted it. I support the change. Redsparta (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I just noticed that the presence of the mid-table headers interferes with the sorting function of the columns. For example, if you click the up / down arrow at the top of the "Medical" column, only the countries that start with the letter "A" are sorted, with the rest of the table unaffected. The only way the sorting arrows will therefore work is if we completely eliminate the mid-table headers (unless there is some kind of technical work-around I don't know about). Of course, sorting on this table doesn't really work to begin with, since sorting is done alphanumerically and not by the color code of each square. To be able to sort properly (by color code), it would be necessary to insert invisible numbers in each box the same as was recently done on Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction. This could perhaps be done at a later time, if it is determined that the mid-table headers aren't necessary, and someone has the time / energy to carry out the task. But for right now I am thinking keep the mid-table headers, set them apart at a constant number of rows as discussed above, and eliminate the functionally useless sorting arrows.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Honestly the sorting function for the medical / recreational / cultivation / transport columns is kind of useless for this page and the U.S. jurisdictions since, as it is currently, it just sorts alphabetically which doesn’t especially sort it into any kind of useful arrangement. The color coded column on U.S. jurisdictions is the only one that has any kind of sense to its sorting.
I think the descriptive text for each entry on the list would need to be reworked and simplified to bring some standard uniformity and the invisible codes would be needed for it to actually be useful and useable but that is a lot of work and I’m not sure if having sortable columns warrants it but as it stands they aren’t serving much purpose. Redsparta (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I completely agree. And you bring up a good point about Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction which I hadn't realized. That article also has the same sortable columns that are useless for the purpose of sorting. I already went ahead and edited that article.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
As for Legality of cannabis, I’m wondering what your thoughts are for how to tackle that problem there. Since it uses color coding for multiple cells rather than a single cell with an identifiable metric, the way I see it there are two ways to go about it: either add one similar to U.S. jurisdictions and tie it to an invisible code or tie each of the medical, recreational and cultivation cells to an invisible code. Redsparta (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not really sure the best way to solve that problem. But as mentioned above it would first require the elimination of the mid-table headers... so might not even be worth it based on that alone. Maybe at a later time I might have some more thoughts, but for right now was just looking to proceed as previously outlined.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I know, I’m getting ahead of myself; I think the mid-table headers are kind of needed as it can be easy to forget which column is what so I don’t support removing them. Redsparta (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Well I went ahead and made the change to eliminate the sorting arrows and space the headers apart at 25 rows. I don't know if that is the optimal number but I think it looks pretty good and certainly much better than the random-like spacing that was used before. I wish there was a way that the header could stay at the top of the page when scrolling down the table, but I'm pretty sure an option like that is not available on wikipedia.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 08:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

In regards to the earlier conversation about sorting, I figured some things out and have a demo version of a sortable table to share. First of all, the thing that was causing the problem with only being able sort the letter "A" countries was the incorrect use of the |+ command before each repeating header. I took out all uses of the command, and when I made the table sortable again the sorting worked all the way down the Country/Territory column. However, the headers get sorted too, which causes a big block of 7 headers in the middle of the table. I was able to somewhat alleviate this problem by using class="sortbottom", which keeps all the sorted headers at the bottom of the table. Not ideal to have all those headers moved to the bottom when sorting, but if they get moved anywhere the bottom of the table would be best. Also, in order to make the sorting work for the the Recreational / Medical / Cultivation columns I used Template:Hs to tag all of the {{yes}} and {{partial}} blocks. End result of these changes is the table here which you can try out.

So, is this sortable version of the table worth implementing? I wouldn't say it's a drastic improvement, and it has the drawback of adding a bit of complication to the wikicode. People that edit the article in the future will need to add the {{Hs=1}} or {{Hs=2}} parameter whenever introducing the {{yes}} or {{partial}} parameter... and I'm sure some people will forget to do that. The block of 8 headers at the bottom of the table when sorting also looks a bit weird. But I'd say it's probably still worth implementing. Thoughts?--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 10:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Getting to this a bit late.. but I think that if we’re going to keep a sortable list, it is definitely an improvement over the way it is currently. At least until we get some floatable headers, but I have no control over that. redsparta ••• talk to me 08:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Floating headers would definitely be nice. I actually found this request for such a feature to be added to wikipedia, but it's been open since 2012 and doesn't look like there has been much action on it. Anways, the table is now sortable.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

HailBobSaget (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Quick question. Technically, cannabis is illegal in all 50 states and 7 territories. However, the state and municipal governments of the "legal" states don't enforce the statewide marijuana laws. So why are they regarded as "legal states", when technically, all territories and states ban the consumption of marijuana?

U.S. territories

I recently noticed that Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have entries in this table, but Guam and American Samoa do not. Since these are all U.S. territories, obviously some consistency is missing as to whether or not they belong in the table. I would say that no they do not belong and that they should be considered part of the United States instead. Because they really are part of the United States, no more important than any of the 50 (much more populated) states that do not have individual entries in the table. Also, all five of these territories already have entries on Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction -- so there really is no need to duplicate them here. So, I plan on removing the three territories mentioned.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I hadn’t noticed that, I’m removing the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands as they are not separate countries. Redsparta (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Regarding removal of Bermuda, Bermuda is not a US territory so this rule doesn't apply. If we want to remove all territories, then entries like Greenland, Hong Kong should all be removed. In addition, the UK page doesn't have a Bermuda entry. Zhouzichuan (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Scientific use

Is it necessary to specify anywhere in the table that cannabis is legal for scientific use? Seems pretty irrelevant and I can't imagine there is any country where research is banned -- so why even mention it? For consistency and simplicity's sake, I think the few mentions should be removed and will proceed with that shortly.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 07:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Laws not yet in effect

The map has recenty been updated to show cannabis as legal in Canada. I think it is irresponsible for us to depict something as legal that is currently illegal, even with the disclaimer that has been added. I propose reverting back to the previous version of the map until the laws come into force on October 17, 2018. There is no reason to get ahead of the actual current status of world laws.--Trystan (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Well it's the same convention used for both of the U.S. cannabis legality maps [1][2]. If the practice is changed for this map then it should be changed for the U.S. maps too, which is something that really should be vetted at WikiProject Cannabis first. I think it's fine as is, especially with the clarifying note added to the bottom of the legend. If people want to be lazy and take legal advice from a map on wikipedia without reading the note and doing any further investigation, then that is their problem which we are not responsible for. I say just keep it simple (and consistent) and change the map whenever laws are passed.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Using when laws are passed as the benchmark is not a simpler standard than when they come into effect, it's a much more problematic one. Not only does it mean we don't accurately portray the current state of the law, it creates the potential complication of what to do if a law is passed but never proclaimed in force.
The same standard should also be applied to the US-specific articles, but I don't see any states on the current US articles that reflect laws not yet in effect.--Trystan (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Map needs updating - in CZ Cannabis is essentially legal

You can possess up to 10 grams of weed in CZ and in addition to that have 5 live plants in your home, that is 5 per person. So if you're a couple you can have 10 plants. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything to indicate cannabis is effectively legal there. This source pretty much dispels that notion. Although it is decriminalized and also tolerated to some degree.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph about the Netherlands in the lead section

Devoting an entire paragraph in the lead section to the legal status in Netherlands is excessive. The lead section is only supposed to summarize the main points of the article and should not give any undue weight to any one particular topic. The material that was added would be appropriate for the Notes section, but definitely not for the intro.

Also, I think it's fair to lump the Netherlands in with countries that have effectively legalized. You can use it and buy it in coffeeshops licensed by the government. That puts the Netherlands a step above other countries that have decriminalized, and most people would agree that cannabis is effectively legal there. Yes, it is not technically legal there, but the sentence already made that clear.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not effectively legalized here. Possession of up to five gram for personal use is decriminalized in continental Netherlands and that's just about it. A coffeeshop owner can't just buy his merchandise for reselling and has to use several people who store it in different locations. Let's not spread myths. Policy in the Netherlands cannot be compared to countries that have effectively legalized cannabis. Besides, the Dutch overseas islands have zero tolerance. These islands are not territories, they are part of our country (not to be confused with the Kingdom of the Netherlands).
Dutch law being tolerant is a a myth. If you grow only one or two plants while using one growing lamp, some reflective material or tent and one carbon filter you will still get prosecuted and sentenced. By law you are considered a 'professional' grower when using more than two growing aids, no matter how many plants or in what stage they are (there is plenty of jurisprudence om this). Only one plant in your backyard can get you and your entire family evicted from a rental home. Mortgages have been canceled for backyard growing as well. They can do this cause it is illegal. It's just being tolerated by law enforcement, financial institutions and home renters are not obligated to tolerate anything. Police are still allowed to destroy the plants and confiscate any growing setup (cause it is illegal).
I can understand why people would think it is effectively legal. Reliable sources however proof the opposite (government information, laws, jurisprudence and victims of these vague policies). Having a closer look at the 'achterdeur beleid' and the proposed legislation might change your opinion. Is it regulated yet? 143.176.60.141 (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
What "effectively" legal means is a matter of subjective opinion to some degree, but you are interpreting the term in a manner that is much too narrow. Despite the problems with the law that you have pointed out, the end result is that consumers can purchase cannabis in coffeeshops licensed by the government. That makes cannabis effectively legal there and many reputable sources state the same thing. Yes, growing remains illegal and is often enforced, but the same applies in places like Washington state and Georgia where cannabis is widely considered to be legal. In fact, I would say cannabis is effectively more legal in the Netherlands than it is in Georgia, because there isn't any kind of open, licensed sale like there is in the Netherlands. There is no such sale in places that have legalized such as Vermont and the District of Columbia either.
To your point about the Caribbean Netherlands, it is a very tiny and sparsely populated (25,000 = 0.1% total population) area thousands of miles away from the mainland. I'm not sure how it changes anything in this conversation, other than this distinction could perhaps be clarified in the table. But it is such a minor detail that I don't think it is worth bothering the reader with at all in the lead section.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not a minor detail that you can't possess cannabis in every part of the Netherlands, you just can't. Coffeeshops are not allowed to sell cannabis to non-residents either. They will be closed and prosecuted if they do (since 2012).

We should not make it sound like anyone can legally buy or use cannabis anywhere in the Netherlands, cause that is just not true. Military personnel will be prosecuted even for possession of small amounts. Again zero tolerance, even if they are Dutch. Gedoogbeleid just does not translate as 'effectively legal'. Applying the term to Dutch law is indeed a matter of subjective opinion and I'm not sure if that's a Neutral point of view).

143.176.60.141 (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Map coloring: blue countries

There are two issues with the map lately that need to be discussed. I have been involved in a dispute at commons:File:Map-of-world-cannabis-laws.svg the past week over whether to mark Spain as blue on the map. Also, User:Alumnum has recently changed the description for blue to just "Legal", and changed the coloring for the Netherlands to orange instead of blue. My question is – how should Spain and the Netherlands be marked and what should the description for blue be?

I believe both Spain and the Netherlands should be marked blue on the map, since both these countries allow for the licensed commercial distribution of cannabis. Technically these are both decrim countries, although a case can be made that cannabis is actually legal in Spain since there are no penalties for use and cultivation in the privacy of one's home. But I believe the licensed commercial distribution of cannabis sets these countries apart from other decrim countries in a significant way. Even in some legal jurisdictions, such as Georgia, Vermont, and D.C., commercial distribution is not allowed. So in some ways the situation in Spain and the Netherlands is actually more permissive than legal jurisdictions; and I therefore believe these two countries need recognition on the map for this. Does anyone else agree this is a reasonable line of thought, and that these countries should be kept blue as they have existed for at least the past year?

The question also comes up what the description for blue should be. If Spain and the Netherlands are not marked blue, then the description should just simply be "Legal". If one or both of these countries are marked blue, then something else is needed. Until a few days ago, the description for blue was "Legal or essentially legal". I changed it to "Legal or highly tolerated" however, in order to appease User:Tximitx who took exception with coloring Spain blue as an "essentially legal" country. But Tximitx still disagreed that Spain should be marked blue under this new wording, and reverted the map back to his preferred version with Spain marked orange. Now Alumnum has changed the wording to just "Legal", and changed the Netherlands to orange.

So in summary, and to repeat the earlier question – How should Spain and the Netherlands be marked and what should the description for blue be? Let's get this straightened out here on the talk page because reverting back and forth as has been going on with the map is not the best way to conduct things.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

You made a good point in distinguishing Spain and the Netherlands because of their policies on commercial distributions. There is always the possibility of creating new colours if a good number of countries fit into a description, or even using a colour for a single country if its jurisdiciton is really unique. I think we could use a colour for jurisdictions where it is fully legalized with few to no restrictions, another one for where it is legalized but yet undergoes significant restrictions, another one for places where it is decriminalized/tolerated (and possibly a separate colour for distinguishable policies like Spain and the Netherlands) and another one for countries that punish marijuana users with the full force of the law.
Another point: I don't see a clear distinction between "decriminalized" and "often tolerated". Is one de jure and the other de facto? I think that should be clarified on the legend.
Finally, I'm terrible with SVG maps and I'm pretty sure I didn't coloured the Netherlands quite correctly. Whatever consensus we get to, I ask anyone who has some experience with such maps to please review my edition. - Alumnum (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jamesy0627144: In Spain, the distribution and sale of cannabis is illegal in all cases and is criminalized as drug trafficking. There are no authorized premises for the sale or distribution of cannabis. Cannabis Social Clubs are not authorized premises for the sale or distribution of cannabis, nor are they licensed to consume it. These clubs that were born in Spain and exists in almost all of Europe (not only in Spain) are based on the decriminalization that exists in many countries of the cultivation and consumption of cannabis when it is done privately (without trading with it), which in the in the case of Spain (also in Belgium) decriminalization extends to collective cultivation and consumption when it is done without doing business with it. However, decriminalized does not mean that it is legal or authorized. In case of any complaint, the police will intervene in the Cannabis Social Club (as in any private home), will seize all the merchandise and may close the club for promote the consumption of drugs, since there are no premises with authorization to consume cannabis. Even many clubs have been accused of drug trafficking for storing, distributing or selling cannabis, since the only thing that is decriminalized and allowed is the limited collective cultivation for self-consumption without storage or sale and without any profit motive. In Spain these clubs have proliferated more actively that in other countries by the spanish culture of collective fun (also to consume drugs) and greater social tolerance, but not by greater legal tolerance. More information about the Cannabis Social Clubs in Europe here.
Different is the case of the Netherlands, where coffeeshops are licensed and can sell cannabis, although the distribution of cannabis is illegal. Personally I would use the following legends (my english may not be correct):
  Legal cultivation, distribution and sale
(Colorado, Washington State, Alaska, Oregon, California, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada and Uruguay)
  Legal sale, but unauthorized distribution
(Netherlands)
  Collective cultivation in clubs decriminalized, but unauthorized distribution or sale
(Spain and Belgium)
  Illegal but decriminalized or tolerated
  Illegal but often tolerated
  Illegal
--Tximitx (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Sale in the Netherlands is not legal, it's only tolerated under strict conditions in certain areas. Coffeeshops are not allowed to sell anything to non-residents for example. Military personnel can't even posses small amounts, there is no tolerance for them. Nobody can posses anything in non-continental parts of the Netherlands, which is Dutch soil as well. The current version is fine, but might be confusing cause Dutch law clearly says it's actually pink (as do several rulings). If you take a good look at Dutch law you will notice it's still not decriminalized. Recent court rulings show that cannabis clubs are currently illegal in the Netherlands. Supplying a coffeeshop is not tolerated yet. Best to wait for the new legislation to pass...  ::::

Gedoogbeleid applies to criminal law only, you can still get sued under privaatrecht (people have been thrown out of their houses). Public smokers can get fined under local legislation (AVP) if that's what the local politicians want. It's really unfactual to say that it's legal in the Netherlands. 143.176.60.141 (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

No country allows sale or possession completely free of cannabis. For example, Uruguay does not allow sales to non-residents and limits the amount that each user can buy with a register. In the United States, the most permissive states limit the amount that each user can possess, and at the federal level it is a crime to possess it, so cannabis can not be taken from one state to another, although in both states it is legal. The term "legal" should be interpreted as permitted in a regulated manner, but not completely decriminalized. It would be partially equivalent to tobacco or alcohol, where trade is regulated but not completely allowed (restrictions depend on each country).
The problem in the Netherlands is that the sale is authorized in coffeeshops, but the cultivation, possession and even consumption of cannabis are illegal. Perhaps instead of a "legal sale" it would be more correct to say "tolerated sale in authorized premises, but commerce and distribution is illegal". --Tximitx (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Red could be something like "Illegal - zero tolerance" - Alumnum (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm thinking of something more or less like this:
  Legal cultivation, distribution and sale
(US states and Uruguay)
  Legal with restrictions or decriminalized with distinguishable policies, such as in coffeeshops or clubs
(Netherlands, Spain, Belgium...)
  Illegal but decriminalized (de jure and de facto tolerated)
  Illegal but often de facto tolerated
  Illegal (zero tolerance)
- Alumnum (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea to link Netherlands with Spain and other countries, as they are very different cases. In Netherlands there is a regulation for coffeeshops, where the sale is tolerated. Licenses are granted and there is a legal tolerance, although limited. However, in Spain and Belgium, there is no regulation that allows the use of cannabis (even for medicinal purposes) nor are there any premises authorized to consume cannabis. Much less to sell cannabis, since that would be drug trafficking. Cannabis is totally illegal, although its consumption is decriminalized, it is tolerated in a limited way. The fact that collective cultivation is also decriminalized and its consumption tolerated in private clubs (with restricted access), has nothing to do with having premises authorized to trade in cannabis. It can not be considered that tolerance of cannabis use in all these countries is equivalent, since there are huge differences. If Netherlands or Spain are particular cases (especially the first), they should be colored separately, but not all mixed together as if they were similar because they are not similar. --Tximitx (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input so far everyone. I've been thinking about this some more... and have come to conclude that perhaps the map in its current form is the best option available. Adding another color is something that could be possibly done, but for the purpose of covering only two countries I'm not sure it's worth it. And Tximitx seems to be of the opinion that two new colors would be needed to cover the Netherlands and Spain instead of just one. The map in its current form is at least accurate and something we can agree on as being perhaps not ideal but still acceptable. My preference is still to include the Netherlands and Spain under the umbrella of the blue countries, but doesn't look like anyone else shares that opinion. So for now am content to leave the map as is.

Alumnum, you mentioned some confusion about the meaning of decriminalized and often unenforced / tolerated. I had to look up what de jure means, but I think that would apply to decriminalized while de facto applies to often unenforced / tolerated. I would recommend against including these terms in the legend though because the meaning of decriminalized / often unenforced already seems pretty clear... while de jure / de facto are more obscure terms than many people do not understand (de jure especially). Also, regarding the change you recently made to add "or tolerated" after "Illegal but decriminalized" – I think I understand what you are trying to convey (cover the situations of the Netherlands and Spain), but it comes across in a way that is pretty confusing... since decriminalized and tolerated are mentioned on the same line and then tolerated is mentioned again on the line below. I'm going to revert the legend wording back to how it existed before September 1 and we can discuss further here if you wish.

Also Alumnum, I will be uploading a cleaned-up version of the SVG file shortly. You may have had trouble with it because Tximitx uploaded versions that appear to have been edited with SVG editing software (instead of manually editing as a text file), which messes up the formatting of the code. To edit the map or other SVG maps in the future, see the talk page which contains some basic instructions.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Prose tag

Recently the prose tag was added to this article with the reason "accessibility nightmare ....most important info hidden". @Moxy: could you please explain a little more the reasoning for this? I'm a bit confused because the prose tag applies when an article needs to be converted from lists to paragraphs – but I don't see any lists in the article. Also, what are some countries where the most important info is hidden? Thank you.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The notes are hidden MOS:DONTHIDE and huge space taken up by boxes in a list over prose text.......meaning giant amount of scrolling for no reason.--Moxy (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, so the notes need to be unhidden; I'm fine with that after viewing the link. I'm still not sure what lists there are in the article, but the notes could at least use some trimming for a few countries that are particularly lengthy (such as Spain). This will alleviate some of the scrolling problem that you mentioned. I can take care of that sometime soon.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, the chart presents the information in a much more effective manner than prose could. If prose is required to provide accessibility for visually impaired persons or for web-crawlers, spiders and 'bots, the prose should be an alternative. I would not want to lose the useful presentation of the information in chart format.Tetsuo (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The chart format is staying. What Moxy is referring to is the hidden notes which MOS:DONTHIDE prohibits, and which don't even show up as hidden when viewing in mobile mode. I'm not exactly sure why Moxy chose to apply the prose tag for this purpose, but doesn't matter because I already removed it after making the changes he suggested.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
It would be good to add a warning telling editors to avoid too long descriptions. - Alumnum (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Brevity is certainly something to strive for in a table like this when dealing with a limited amount of space. If you want to add a hidden comment to the wikicode to remind editors of this, that is something that could be done. I will also be making a post on this talk page shortly about how to further address the crowding in the table that has now become an issue.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Hidden comments will be hardly noticed. I think that an editnotice will be more efficient. - Alumnum (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with editnotices but looks like something you need to get an administrator to do. Go ahead and give it a shot I guess... no problem here. I'll also be looking at the table in the future to see if there is any material that can be trimmed out, such as I did here. Probably similar material can be found that is of limited noteworthiness.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Done. I requested the creation of an editnotice and an admin approved it. - Alumnum (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks good.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Small parentheses

Regarding the use of parentheses in the article surrounded by the <small> tag -- I think it would be best to do away with this convention. It looks rather odd to have the text size change in the middle of a sentence, which is a style of formatting I have never seen anywhere else. Some of the small parenthesis are also preceded by a line break in the middle of a sentence (see Croatia and Cyprus notes for example), which I do not understand. I would like to just get rid of all uses of the small tag in the table, but wanted to give a heads up here first. I think this is best, also considering that the small formatting doesn't even display for mobile users which accounts for over half the visitors to this article.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

South Africa

Recently got decriminalised in SA - well, legal for private consumption. Law still needs to go into details regarding possession etc. Would that make South Africa green or yellow on the legality map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald911 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


Someone also added up to 3KG's possession is allowed... I would love to know the source of that. I can't find it anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald911 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Legal countries are colored blue on the map; I have already made the change. As far as the 3 kg limit, I too cannot find any confirmation of this so I removed the unsourced claim from the article.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Map is incorrect regarding South Asia

A quick Google would show that cannabis is still actively chased by the police in India - ditto in Sri Lanka but the latter focuses on major shipments and only goes after small-time sellers if they sell to minors, and note that all captured cannabis is resold to the medical market through the Ministry of Health. Hindianu (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

It's tolerated in at least some parts of India though, so the coloring is correct. And Sri Lanka I'm not exactly sure what color you are saying it should be.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
It's tolerated in that you can buy cannabis-based products for casual and celebratory use as long as the mixture/product was a traditional product of Sri Lanka (i.e. used historically in Sri Lanka before colonialism). The Ministry of Health actively sells cannabis to Ayurvedic shops too. Hindianu (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
OK – so you think Sri Lanka should be pink instead of red then. Where are you getting that cannabis is tolerated for recreational use though? The reference you provided (2005 UNODC report) states that cannabis products are only allowed for medical use. Is a prescription required to purchase these medicines or no? If no prescription is required, then perhaps that could be considered to be tolerated for recreational use, since people are obviously going to purchase these medicines who are not sick, in order to get high.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
The Ministry of Health sells the product from stockpiles of illegal cannabis that was siezed by the police, though recently the Ministry has been trying to produce its own cannabis for quality control. The cannabis is used in the Hindu community during celebrations and festivals - almost like how wine is used in Christianity. For the Buddhists, it's mostly used in traditional medicine. The important part about the medicinal side is that you can buy 'medicine' for relaxation and happiness - almost like a herbal tea. The process of purchasing such products is like going into a chemist and saying that you have trouble sleeping. In both cases, the products are manufactured by the Ayurveidic shops, from cannabis that is sold to them by the Ministry of Health. It's possible for anyone to buy them, but I am aware that most 'small' illegal cannabis seizures happen because the person selling the drug was close to a school or selling to childreen, so maybe minors cannot buy cannabis-based products. Hindianu (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Do you have any references that explain this which could be added to the table? If not, I suppose the 2005 UNODC report could be used which supports at least some of what you are saying – but I don't know if this would be fully compliant with Wikipedia policy. Currently the material that has been added for Sri Lanka is unsourced.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
http://www.ncmh.lk/Cannabis_use_in_Sri_Lanka.htm Hindianu (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
That's probably sufficient. I added refs to the table and will update the map shortly.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph in lead section about India / Sri Lanka

Regarding the paragraph about India / Sri Lanka, I strongly believe this is not appropriate for the lead section because:

  • Devoting an entire paragraph to the topic of India / Sri Lanka doesn't make sense – just like it doesn't make sense to devote an entire paragraph to the Netherlands either (as was discussed earlier on this talk page). No one or two countries is deserving of an entire paragraph; otherwise, if that was allowed for every country the lead section would be a mile long which would be silly. The lead is supposed to be concise and cover topics in proportion to the their importance in the article. There really is no reason to mention India / Sri Lanka at all since there are many other countries in the world where cannabis is tolerated to some degree.
  • The topic of the article is the current legal status of cannabis around the world. Historical information, especially when it is geared toward one small region of the world, is not appropriate for inclusion in the lead. Although the Notes section for some countries does contain some historical information, the main focus of the article is current legal status and as such the lead section should not delve into history. There are other Wikipedia articles that serve this purpose instead (see History of cannabis, History of medical cannabis for example).

Hindianu, I hope you understand I am not trying to give you a hard time about this for any reason. It's just that the lead section of any article should be given careful consideration, especially for an article that gets over 2,000 views per day. I realize you may think the information you have added is especially important for various reasons, and hence you have copied it to multiple articles. But for the same above reasoning the material was removed from Medical cannabis as well, so I am not the only person who believes the lead section should be concise and cover only the main points of the article. You can read more about standard practices for writing lead sections at MOS:LEAD.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

My reasoning behind the inclusion is that the situation is special. Whilst outright cannabis was made illegal under colonialism and UN resolutions, traditional mixtures involving cannabis remained tolerated and are legal throughout the country - this is essentially a local/non-western way of consuming cannabis. Hindianu (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I included the information because I wanted to discuss the idea of cannabis being legal as a by-product or a mixture, especially since the products are used for casual-recreational purposes and also for medicinal purposes, and in Sri Lanka pure Cannabis is sold by the Ministry of Health to traditional medicine vendors. Hindianu (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Cultivation column

Does anyone think there is a benefit to having the cultivation column in the table? I'm thinking now that the notes have been unhidden and the table has become much more crowded, the cultivation column should be eliminated and the information should be moved to the recreational and medical columns instead. I think this makes a lot of sense as it reduces the amount of compression in the horizontal direction, which also reduces row height and hence the overall length of the table (which at 198 rows is already quite long to begin with). It also seems like a more logical approach to specify cultivation info directly in the applicable recreational and medical columns, instead of trying to combine these two pieces of information in a third column.

If anyone wants to see a preview of what getting rid of the cultivation column looks like, I've put together a preview here (and here for the mobile version). I did up to the letter E, plus a few other select countries. I think it looks good with just two columns and definitely a lot less congested. No information is lost. Thoughts?--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

BTW, the crowding is obviously not as much an issue for people with wide desktop monitors; but consider that the majority of users are coming to this page from mobile devices, and this is what the page looks like for them. It's still readable of course, but definitely not ideal with the very narrow columns and tall rows that are produced. So I think getting rid of the cultivation column would be a significant improvement for this reason as well as being a more simple and logical way of organizing information.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I was the one who trimmed the chart from five columns (which was way excessive) to the current three. I would tentatively support reducing it to two as you propose. My only hesitation is that there have been a few African countries which have looked into growing solely for export to legal countries but with no intent of allowing use domestically. The question just becomes whether that situation is common enough to justify having a third column, and/or if that situation can be clearly indicated in a two-column system without confusion. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that could easily be dealt with in the Notes column if such a situation were to occur.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jamesy0627144: Overall I agree with cutting the chart down into just "Recreational" and "Medical" columns. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
OK. I'm probably going to move forward it sometime soon, maybe as early as this weekend.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

User:Cabayi observed that the table's left column, which contains the name of the country and the flag icon, could link to Cannabis in [country] instead of [Country]. This way we could save some more space in "Notes" by removing the part that says Main article: Cannabis in [country].

Example:

Replace this

Country/Territory Recreational Medical Cultivation Notes
 Afghanistan Illegal Illegal Illegal
Main article: Cannabis in Afghanistan
Production banned by King Zahir Shah in 1973.[1]

by this

Country/Territory Recreational Medical Cultivation Notes
Afghanistan Afghanistan Illegal Illegal Illegal Production banned by King Zahir Shah in 1973.[1]

- Alumnum (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I would advise pretty strongly against this for the following reasons:
  • The country links are valuable to have in the table, as I've personally clicked on them countless times... to find out where countries are located, what the population is, or various other pieces of information. Some of these countries I've never even heard of, so it's pretty useful to have info on them one click away.
  • Many people are going to come to this article and not even realize that there are "Cannabis in [country]" articles, whereas if the links are clearly visible in the Notes section they are very hard to miss. And it is important for people to realize that these "Cannabis in [country]" articles exist, as they provide much more of the information that people are coming to this article for.
  • More of a minor issue, but I prefer the look of having at least something in the Notes section for every country, whereas to take the proposed action would leave the Notes section of many countries blank. And it should also be noted that removing the "Cannabis in [country]" link from the Notes section of these countries doesn't save any space.
I do agree with you BTW that saving space in the table is an important consideration... but in this particular case I don't think it's worth the trade-off. There's other ways of saving space that would improve the appearance of the table more without having major drawbacks.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose for a number of reasons...
It seems a bit odd to not have a general link to the country in question, and having the topic link disguised as the country link seems confusing and counterintuitive. For clarity and consistency I support keeping the links separate.
Concerning space constraints: For the majority of countries it barely saves any space, and for countries with little to nothing in the notes column it doesn’t save any space. And for that matter it’s only marginally reducing vertical height, which is arguably a lesser concern compared to reducing horizontal space, and I see there is already a discussion open concerning reducing horizontal space.
Also, there seems to already be a precedent on other pages to link to the country/region in said column, and when possible, link to additional information regarding the topic in those areas be included in the Notes column. I guess I could see moving Cannabis in [country] to the country column under the link to the country but that hardly feels like an elegant solution. redsparta ••• talk to me 08:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
No one is sent on a click ride; it is completely optional to click on Palau if someone would like info on Palau. And how is the country of Palau not relevant to the laws of Palau?
Just to clarify though, getting rid of the country links isn't even my main objection to making the change.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't really make much sense that the first link that we can see and use doesn't take us to any information about the topic at hand. So I'll have to press the back button and then locate the right link..... link run around at its best--Moxy (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Most people are going to expect the link for a country's name to take them to that country. And that's exactly why I think it's a bad idea to hide the "Cannabis in [country]" articles in the country names. The "Cannabis in [country]" articles are very important for the reader to be aware of.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
How is it link run around? The first column is clearly labeled "Country", so I don’t know what you were expecting the country links to link to other than the country? I fail to see how a refusal to look at the other columns to see there are specific links in each Notes column is link run around. redsparta ••• talk to me 10:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose: I had considered this in the last major chart re-vamp, but since the "Cannabis in Foo" articles are fundamental to the reader getting more info, I think having them more prominently featured in the right column helps. I think a lot of readers just won't intuit "the name link will tell me all the rest" and so many will end up not realizing there is a full country article. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Alternative version

What about adding a tiny info link on the right, so that we can keep both links and still save space?

Country/Territory Recreational Medical Cultivation Notes
 Afghanistan (info) Illegal Illegal Illegal Production banned by King Zahir Shah in 1973.[1]

- Alumnum (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I would support this too but I don't want to be the one doing the editing. I've seen the country name link directly to the topic's article on many articles so I think doing that wouldn't be against any sort of convention used in Wikipedia, but I also agree that this would be good option that takes in both sides' concerns. Hindianu (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I still think "Cannabis in [country]" is significantly better as it's more visible and clear as to what is being linked. "Info" on the other hand is pretty vague and can be easily dismissed / overlooked. Adding it would also slightly increase crowding in the horizontal direction (which is already quite crowded to begin with).
BTW, I see you utilized the <small> tag but keep in mind that doesn't function in mobile.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
One can quickly find out what the info is about just by hovering the mouse over it (the equivalent in mobile is tapping it once, if I'm not mistaken). The horizontal crowding, which we are already striving to trim, can be dealt with by adding putting it to the next line with <br> (it will be much shorter than the current form in Notes). - Alumnum (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
To view a link target in mobile you have to press and hold down on the link until an infobox pops up. Why bother people with doing this though instead of clearly indicating what the link is? The result will be that a lot of people aren't going to bother, and they will remain unaware of the "Cannabis in [country]" articles. Also, aside from word "info" being unclear, the fact that it is a 4-letter word in small text doesn't help it get noticed either. Certainly not as much as "Main article: Cannabis in Afghanistan" does.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm with Jamesy0627144, this option still removes the explicit communication of "hey guys we have an entire article on this country" which I think is really important. This is a very high-traffic article and filters views down to our country-specific pages. We should be encouraging folks to "go down the rabbit hole" rather than risk hiding the hole in the interest of tidiness. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ a b c Martin Booth (30 September 2011). Cannabis: A History. Transworld. pp. 325–. ISBN 978-1-4090-8489-1.

How should we view medicinal cannabis in Sri Lanka

Cannabis can only be legally sold through traditional medicine practitioners on the island, with these practitioners obtaining the cannabis from the Ministry of Health, mostly sourced from seizures of illegally imported cannabis. Cannabis is mostly viewed as a herb by the islanders and therefore it's possible to buy it like a herb. I was wondering therefore if we should classify Sri Lanka as supporting medicinal cannabis? It's a grey area I understand but it would be possible to go to a doctor that will work with traditional medicine to obtain a cannabis based product for example.

And also, the government allows cannabis plantations under its control: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-09-sri-lanka-export-cannabis-plantation.html Hindianu (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It could probably be considered legal. Is that what you think it should be? If so, go ahead and update the table and I can do the medical map if you don't know how to do that.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Cannabis was criminalized under colonial rule. A law legalizing the use of cannabis (and opium) by ayurvedic physicians was enacted after independence in 1962. The previous law still exists on the island, but conversely the latter law allows the sale of cannabis through a restricted channel (herbal shops).
I have found that the previous law had been clearly amended to allow the use of opium for medical and scientific purposes, but I don't see anything direct about cannabis. However, the previous law has however been amended to allow the use of cannabis as a herb; the document uses the term "galenical" which is translated as "a medicine prepared by extracting one or more active constituents of a plant. a medicine prepared by extracting one or more active constituents of a plant" according to merriam webster. http://www.nddcb.gov.lk/Docs/acts/25345.pdf
Hindianu (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The data seems to show they're selling cannabis in Ayurvedic shops, and unlike our "yellow" medical category it isn't solely extracts of the plant (is it the absolute full plant including buds, or is there any limitation?). From my understanding Medical for SL should probably be green (or yellow at minimum if there is any part of the plant banned from Ayurvedic use). Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Common mistakes about legality in the Netherlands

Gedoogbeleid can be very confusing. For example, sales in a coffeeshop are tolerated but supplying the coffeeshop is not unenforced. If a policeofficer wants to, he can confiscate your weed as soon as you walk out of the coffeeshop (see nolle prosequi).

There is also a myth that growing less than 6 plants is always legal. It is not, cause it is never legal. It might be unenforced depending on the setup. Five plants outside under the sun and all they can do is confiscate. Three plants, one growlight and an airfilter and they can arrest and prosecute because it is considered a professional setup.

Quote OM: "Indien, ongeacht de hoeveelheid planten, wordt voldaan aan twee of meer punten, genoemd in de lijst indicatoren met betrekking tot de mate van professionaliteit, zoals opgenomen in bijlage 1, wordt aangenomen dat er sprake is van beroeps- of bedrijfsmatig handelen." (see ref).

According to Dutch lawyer Mr. Veldman you might not be convicted if you can proof that the 'professional setup' was for personal use and did not financially benefit you.[1]He also warns that this will vary from judge to judge.

There are also myths about the size of the plants, but the size is irrelevant to the law. 188.206.78.155 (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.cnnbs.nl/19-7-16-opnieuw-de-vijf-wietplanten-regel/

Medical Cannabis

Cannabis is one of, if not the most the most misunderstood plant. Due to the harmless plant being labeled poorly, there are controversial aspects of finding is purpose for medicinal use and legalization. Over the past years, many new research has come out in findings of is medicinal purpose. Such purposes include: Helping reduce nightmares with survivors of PTSD, relives many forms of chronic pain, and is even being studied in the cancer field of research. For example, recent studies by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs showed that the widely used Sertraline or SSID was no more effective than a Placebo Pill, bringing more thought to medicinal cannabis as a alternative treatment, (Trigwell, J. 2017). With the change in minds for many patients, many have been truing to cannabis for help. For patients dealing with nerve pain or multiple sclerosis, they have claimed medical cannabis can help them continue daily activities without being disengaged. Unlike Lyrica or Neurontin, which made patients not to continue to perform their daily activities, (Grinspoon, P. 2018). With hopes that many have changed their minds on the medical purposes of cannabis, one can agree, that a effective medicine such as cannabis should be legalized.

References:

Trigwell, J. (November, 2017). How Cannabis Can Help Treat PTSD. Retrieved from 

https://www.canabomedicalclinic.com/cannabis-can-help-treat-ptsd/Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Grinspoon, P. (January, 2018). Medical Marijuana. Harvard Health Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/medical-marijuana-2018011513085Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).


Logan1157 (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there something specific about the Legality of cannabis article you would like to discuss? Otherwise I am inclined to remove this post as it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the article (and may for the purpose of spamming).--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Croatia decriminalization

Recently the recreational status of Croatia was changed from decriminalized to illegal, with the stated reason being that a misdemeanor still counts as a criminal offense. However, I have seen varying definitions of decriminalization, with some organizations such as NORML and Drug Policy Alliance defining it in such as way that a misdemeanor fine still qualifies. In fact, NORML says the states of Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio all impose misdemeanor fines for possession. Considering that every organization I know of classifies these as decriminalization states it can be inferred that every organization goes by this same definition. Also, this source which seems pretty reputable says possession in Croatia is a misdemeanor but at the same time not a criminal offense. Multiple sources at Cannabis in Croatia also say that cannabis is decriminalized. So I think it should be changed back to decriminalized.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Strange American Bias in the map

I wonder why the map has only the USA subdivided, but not other countries such as Brazil that also has states with similar powers. I think all countries should just be treated as equal and a single colour applied. The USA should be considered illegal since federal law supersedes state law. These two facts seem like it has a pro-American liberalism bias. 135.23.111.210 (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Or perhaps the image is edited by people whom are more familiar with American or other English speaking countries laws. I have not seen people reverting or otherwise opposing people adding sub-national laws to other countries to the image... as a matter of fact Australia also has information for individual states. Perhaps you haven’t noticed you are on the English Wikipedia, and there will inherently be more people familiar with the laws and day to day life pertaining to such countries. redsparta ••• talk to me 08:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm wondering if Brazil has legalized and non-legalized states? If no, you've got your answer right there. --Gbuvn (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
A past version of the map had hre states of India broken out too. But I don't know enough about Indian law to know how much individual latitude they have. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
India probably has a different categorization system too. Sri Lanka allows medicinal cannabis and herbal medicines - notably you can use cannabis herbal medicines for relaxation purposes like herbal teas - but obviously I have no idea how to class this in the western model. Hindianu (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Merger Proposal (Dec. 2018)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was closed as moot. The article in question has been user-fied as the result of an AfD discussion. It's now at User:Kaseroo1982/Pros and cons to the legalization of marijuana and we can wait and see how the user proceeds with this topic of personal interest.(non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I am starting this discussion on behalf of a different editor who recommended a merge but inadvertently skipped the creation of this talk page entry. There is a new article called Pros and cons to the legalization of marijuana that has already been tagged as a personal or argumentative essay. User:Natureium suggested merging that article to here.---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning is the article Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States which has a large section dedicated to arguing the pros and cons of cannabis reform. I've thought for a long time that it doesn't really fit well in an article narrowly dedicated to the United States.... although it does seem to make the case for and against legalization from a somewhat U.S.-centric perspective. Any discussion of what to do with Pros and cons to the legalization of marijuana should take that into consideration doing something with that material as well.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spain vs South Africa/Georgia

According to many sources, consumption or cultivation by adults in a private space is legal in Spain. How is it different from what the courts ruled in South Africa and Georgia? Is this another "tolerance vs legality" case? Can someone who understands Spanish law explain? Otherwise I don't see any reason why SA/Georgia is blue yet Spain is yellow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhouzichuan (talk • contribs) 04:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

In Spain, the consumption or cultivation of cannabis is not legal anywhere, even if it is a private space. Another thing is that it is decriminalized, as well as any consumption of any type of drug (for example cocaine consumption in a private space). That is, no one will be arrested for using cannabis or any other drug at home, but if for example a neighbor denounces another for using cannabis at home, the police can register that address and take any illegal substance found, including any quantity or cultivation of cannabis. If, in addition, the amount found exceeds what may be reasonable for self-consumption, that person may be arrested and charged for drug trafficking. This does not depend on whether the consumption or cultivation is in private or public spaces, else on the amount found, whether for self-consumption or not. The difference between consumption or cultivation in public or private spaces is that in the first case also an accusation of incitement to drug use (administrative fault punishable by a fine), but criminally there is no difference between a consumption in public or in private, otherwise, if it is self-consumption (little amount found) or drug trafficking (much amount found). --Tximitx (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
"If for example a neighbor denounces another for using cannabis at home, the police can register that address and take any illegal substance found, including any quantity or cultivation of cannabis." What is the legal basis for removing the person's cannabis if neighbor complains? If one's neighbor complains he/she can smell cannabis odor, the police can search the person's home? --Zhouzichuan (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
The legal basis is that cannabis is an illegal substance, like any other non-legal drug. Consumption is decriminalized, but it is still an illegal substance. If one's neighbor complains that he/she can smell cannabis odor and the police verify the existence of that odor, the police can search the person's home for annoying or unhealthy activities, besides that smell reveals the existence of a substance illegal in that home. --Tximitx (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Russia - decriminalized or not?

In Russia two types of offenses exist - criminal and administrative. Possession of up to 6 g of cannabis (2 g for hashish) is not a criminal offense. But for administrative offenses individual still can be detained for 15 days max (it is not same as imprisonment, it is called "administrative arrest"). Does it mean that cannabis is decriminalized in Russia?

I don't see how holding someone against their will for 15 days is not imprisonment, and a punishment of imprisonment doesn't meet any definition of cannabis decriminalization that I've ever seen. So I don't see any way to justify marking it decriminalized.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Does lead section need to distinguish "sovereign states" and "states with limited recognition"?

In an article about cannabis, why does the reader need to be bothered – in the lead section of all places – with technical details about which countries are "sovereign states" and which countries are "states with limited recognition"? They are all countries (see first sentence of wiki articles for Israel and Cyprus), so why not just say countries and keep them all grouped together? @Munmula (Alumnum), most of your edits make sense to me, but I have no idea where you are coming from on this one, and I don't know why I need to "read about those subjects". Anyone else agree it's silly to botch up the lead section with this kind of stuff?--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it important to distinguish between completely independent jurisdictions (sovereign states) and jurisdisctions that are subordinate to others (such as U.S. and Australian states)? It's not the case for Australia and the U.S., but some of these subordinate jurisdictions can be called countries (e.g. Scotland, Greenland, Catalonia, Tibet) and if, now or in the future, they happen to have their own law regarding cannabis (one that is different from that of the sovereign state they are subject to), using the term "countries" would make their inclusion ambiguous. I told you that because you were apparently mistaking "sovereign state" for "recognized state" which, though related, are different things. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 06:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, I understand a little bit better now that sovereign state is a broader term that incorporates both countries and other territories such as Greenland that do not qualify as countries. And you would prefer to use the term "sovereign state" because it is a broader term that could include places such as Greenland should they ever decide to legalize. I can understand that to some degree, though my preference is to use the word "country" because such a situation hasn't come into play yet and the term "country" is much more widely used and understood. If you want to change the last two instances of "country" in the lead section to "sovereign state", I don't have a major problem with that but would be good to hear anyone else's thoughts here if they have an opinion.
What I do have a big objection to though is mentioning in the lead section that Israel and Cyprus are states with limited recognition. There is no need to go into technical details like that in an article about cannabis (especially in the lead section), so I don't know why you reverted to add that information back in and also split up the last paragraph.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The problem is semantic: the word "country" doesn't have a single geographic definition. See wikt:country or the article country here. The most common definition of a country is synonymous with sovereign state, but it is not the only one. The articles for Greenland, Scotland, and Catalonia, for example, all mention them as countries at some point, but none of those are included on this cannabis law list because they are not sovereign states.
I agree in that we don't need to mention the limited recognition of Israel and Cyprus here, something that was never a problem for me, but I must insist in my vision that "sovereign state" is preferable over "country" - not necessarily in the whole article, but at least in the third paragraph of the lead, where Canada and Uruguay are especifically mentioned as "the only countries". Although a little more technical, I see it as more precise and appropriate for this case. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 19:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, as far as the example of Greenland goes, it looks like I misunderstood in my previous reply as to whether or not it is a sovereign state. So I'm still a little confused by what "sovereign state" means, but if you want to change back to that usage of the word as it existed in the article for a while (looks like you added it in January), I don't have a problem with that.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Alright then. I've changed the sentence that refers to Uruguay and Canada back to its previous form. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 06:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate colorings

In the world map image, I think it's inaccurate to label South Africa and Georgia(country) blue. Possession is legal, but sale is strictly illegal. Maybe there should be a "lighter blue" color, for countries where sale is illegal but possession is legal? The current darker-blue should represent countries where it is fully legal (sale, posession, etc).

I'd rather keep it the way it is... doesn't seem worth it to add a new color just for two countries. A case could be made to add a color for Spain and the Netherlands too, because those two countries are decriminalized but actually do allow for sales in some form. But the map is only meant to be a very basic representation, and I think trying to get too much into technicalities is not a good path to do down and will not be of benefit. If people want to know details of a country, that is a function that the table in the article serves.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Map is not inaccurate BTW; since the title ("Legal status of cannabis possession for non-medical use") makes the distinction that the coloring refers to possession.--Jamesy0627144 (talk)

Ecuador

Per these two sources (1, 2) it appears that the legislation pertaining to medical cannabis that was recently passed in Ecuador has not yet become law, as it has not received approval from the executive branch. I will therefore be revising the article to reflect this.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Legality of hemp

The article about hemp, a non-psychoactive type of cannabis that is grown for industrial purposes, states in the lead that legality of hemp varies a lot between countries and points users to this list if they want to find out more. However, this list only covers (recreational and medical use of) marijuana, the psychoactive type of cannabis. I see three ways to resolve this: (1) create a new list for the legality of hemp and make the link in the hemp article point there instead (2) incorporate hemp into this list; after all, it is called "Legality of cannabis", not "Legality of marijuana", so the argument could be made that the non-drug version of cannabis should be included here as well (3) remove the link and create a section "Legality" in the hemp article.

Tell me what you think. PJvanMill (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi PJvanMill. I see in the Hemp article that the Producers section already has a list of countries that have legalized hemp cultivation, and for some of those countries it goes into more detail. So perhaps nothing else is needed right now and the wikilink in the lead could be removed. The one option I would argue strongly against is covering hemp in this article. That would require another column in the table which I do not think there is enough room for. We actually had another column in the table as recently as January 2019 (titled "Cultivation"), but it was removed after discussion on the talk page – the main reason being that there was too much compression in the horizontal direction and the rows were becoming very elongated vertically (especially for mobile viewers, which are now the majority), and it just looked like crap with a dozen lines for some table entries with each line consisting of just two or three words. The remaining option is to make a separate "Legality of hemp" article but I don't think there is enough material yet that would warrant that. I think the Producers section in the Hemp article can be added to for now.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Italy

Isn't the situation in Italy after the court ruling essentially the same as in Georgia? Therefore green should be used as background color in the table as well. --Gbuvn (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, i think so too. --WDHOSS (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I would have to disagree. From reading several articles (1234), the court does not appear to have legalized cannabis more broadly such that it would be legal to possess outside the home in one's pockets or in one's car. It could be inferred that Italy has legalized possession at home (even though none of the articles explicitly state this), since I don't know how a plant growing on your property you could not be considered to be in possession of. But I think in order for a country to be considered as having legalized cannabis it would have to be legal to possess outside the home. And in this situation I'm not even sure that home possession is legal outside of a plant growing in soil. None of the articles I have read say that Italy legalized cannabis BTW, just home growing.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"Decriminalization of marijuana (disambiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Decriminalization of marijuana (disambiguation). should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 21#Decriminalization of marijuana (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Australian Capital Territory - Legal or decriminalised?

The source used in this article (no. 17) is an ABC web page claiming it has been legalised in the ACT for personal use. But the official ACT government page on cannabis claims "Cannabis is not legal in the ACT, it has been decriminalised". Should the map and table entry for Australia be updated to note it has been decriminalised but not legalised? --The Elysian Vector Fields (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Most reporting that I have seen says ACT legalized cannabis. I would go with that, especially since that is what the policy appears to be since there are no penalties for possession. Decriminalization is most commonly understood to be a policy where a small penalty still applies.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Jamesy0627144 but there are penalties for possession - you can only possess up to 50 grams of dry cannabis or 150 grams of fresh cannabis, otherwise you can still be charged. The 50 gram limit was noted in both the referenced article and in the official government page I linked. It’s also illegal to sell cannabis, including seeds, or to give it away for free. It should be noted that about one year after the referenced article, the same news organisation published a story referring to the status of cannabis as “decriminalised”. --The Elysian Vector Fields (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Possession limits are in place in every state or country that has legalized as far as I'm aware. As for selling, there are other states/countries that have legalized possession without legalizing selling, and those places are still considered to have legalized.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Legalization or decriminalization

I have raised the question of terminology, legalization or decriminalization, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

France on the spot fine

Is the newly introduced on-the-spot fine for all drug possession offenses considered decriminalization in France? How is this different from the other decriminalized countries where possession is fined. (Think the policy was first introduced in 2018, but only enforced recently) https://www.connexionfrance.com/index.php/French-news/France-introduces-200-spot-fine-for-drug-use-from-today — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.111.122 (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

There's varying definitions of decriminalization that are used, but it mainly has to do with how the offense is classified under the law, whether it is a criminal offense or not. Something can still be illegal without being a criminal offense, such as a minor traffic violation. I actually looked into the situation in France a while ago and it did not appear to me that it was decriminalization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis_in_France&diff=885464300&oldid=883706836
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legality_of_cannabis&diff=prev&oldid=885466057
Here's an article that says France has not decriminalized:
https://www.thelocal.fr/20180125/france-to-slash-fines-for-pot-smokers-despite-rise-in-cannabis-use
--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Hey Jamesy, I appreciate your work on this page. I (OP, forgot to sign in when I posted) don't speak French, so the sources I've read were all in English. Just want to point out that "decriminalization" in some countries/contexts can mean "no penalty at all" or synonymous with "legalization", which isn't the same definition of "decriminalization" in countries like the U.S., Israel or Czech Republic for this matter. The case for France sure looks like possession remains a "crime", but can you be put in jail for possession? Does the fine show on one's criminal record and/or affect future legal proceedings? I wonder if there are French speakers that can offer insights here. Of course, we all know that in practice a "decriminalized" country doesn't necessarily have more lenient enforcement than an "illegal" country.
Apparently thelocal.fr source you attached stated Germany opted for decriminalization, which is wrong yet quite interesting. Germany didn't decriminalize possession on the book, but simply chose not to press charges for minor amounts. So in practice, the actual legal consequence of possessing 5 grams in France ($200 fine), Germany (tolerated), or "decriminalized" Israel ($275 fine) might be different from the legal status.
Zhouzichuan (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, it can be messy trying to figure out how to categorize what, especially when dealing with limited information available and also varying definitions that are used. I think the best approach is usually to just go with the media reports generally state and leave it at that.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Ireland (Republic of)

Why is cannabis listed as being legal in the Republic of Ireland? This absolutely is not the case. Have a quick Google and you'll find this isn't the case. Do people not verify edits? The actual page "Cannabis in Ireland" also states that it's legal, but also states that there'll be a fine for possession. I'm not going to edit this page and the Cannabis in Ireland page, but someone spend two minutes Googling it and you'll find that the notion that cannabis is legal in Ireland is a load of nonsense. It's even on the Irish gov websites about law and judiciary etc. The following quote is from Citizens Information Ireland: "Possession of controlled drugs - cannabis or cannabis resin Under the Misuse of Drugs Acts anyone found in possession of cannabis or cannabis resin is guilty of an offence. If the court decides that the drug was for personal use and not for sale or distribution and this was a first offence, it can impose a class D fine on summary conviction in a District Court".

How this means it's "legal" in Ireland I will never know.

This is a misconception. The stuff is just to scam tourists and doesn't contain real cannabis. --2001:16B8:2D7E:3E00:B98E:9D36:EC5D:B961 (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like a questionable claim to me based on the references. I'll take it out.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Marijuana is illegal in most of the world. Only 4 countries and 15 U.S. states have made it fully legal. Placing "Illegal" first in the chart is both alphabetical and relevant for almost everyone. Altanner1991 (talk) 08:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

People look at the map because they want to see where cannabis is legalized/decriminalized though. They understand it's illegal in most countries, and want to see where it is that reforms have been enacted. Having legalized/decriminalized first in the legend is basically a reflection of this. It wouldn't make any sense to put red first, since red is basically the background color. That would be pretty strange!
While we discuss this further, I have reverted back to how the legend has existed going back to 2016 with Legal at the top. This is also the order that is used on the map's Commons page and on Cannabis (drug).--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

"Decriminalized": is still illegal enough to pay those fines (like parking tickets). Altanner1991 (talk) 08:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand this point. Perhaps you can further clarify.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

THC content determines legality

It's absurd to divide cannabis into hemp and cannabis. It is the THC content that determines if cannabis is legal or not. In some countries 1% THC is the limit, but the UN Recommendation 5.5 has been rejected by a majority of 43 votes against,6 for and 4 abstentions, meaning the UN will not “Add a footnote on cannabidiol preparations to Schedule I of the 1961 Convention to read: Preparations containing predominantly cannabidiol and not more than 0.2 percent of delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol are not under international control” (even though that has been recommended by the WHO). That means there is still legal ambiguity under the UN conventions. Some countries might even identify CBD cannabis as "psychoactive" if it contains enough THC under their legal code. So what is "cannabis" or just "hemp" is determined by the jurisdiction. I know it sounds strange, but in Switzerland 1% THC is the limit but such material would be considered psychotropic (as marijuana I mean) in the US under the current legal code. Also, cannabis was totally removed from the 1961 convention, which is not clarified here either.Osterluzei (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I would say the article should cover the use of cannabis as a drug, both as a psychoactive drug and a non-psychoactive drug, but not its use/cultivation for industrial purposes. You are disagreeing with that? I couldn't quite determine from your post.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the OP was disagreeing with that.
And fyi both recreational cannabis and medical cannabis are considered "psychoactive". Altanner1991 (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Poland

Placing Poland in "often unenforced" category is very misleading. Poland definitely enforces laws against possession of drugs. For example, according to this source, most of (13 out of 19 thousands) drug-related prosecutions were for drug possession. 55% of them were for possession of less than 1 gram of substance and only in 20.4% of cases court decided to classify this as less serious crime for which cases can be dropped. Borysk5 (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything to support keeping it as "Illegal but often unenforced" besides the 2011 law which I don't think sufficiently supports that. I'll change Poland to red on the map in the next few days unless can come up with a good reason not to.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legality_of_cannabis/Archive_3&oldid=1079343636"