Jump to content

Talk:Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article expansion

[edit]

I am glad to see an article for this proposed Act exists on WP. I changed some of the references to follow the "cite web" format--reference formats should be consistent, and please make sure all sources are reliable, third-party references. The article still needs some attention. There is some duplicate information, abbreviations that are unknown (I can only assume "Coms. on PUB. S. and HEALTH" is California's Commission On Public Safety and Health?), etc. The flow of the article could be improved, and there are other concerns as well:

  • are there any opinion polls that come from more reliable surveys or studies?
  • the Proponent and opponents sections needs to be expanded
  • see also section should be added
  • eventually, sections will need to be added for organizational purposes
  • references should follow same format, and all come from reliable sources

Any other thoughts on expansion and article improvement? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to take a second to show my support. Great article. To everyone who helped write it, excellent job! Dmarquard (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion Polls

[edit]

I removed the opinion poll section as this is unrelated to AB 390 whatsoever. This is about a bill designed to regulate marijuana, not an agenda to show how much it should be legal. Also, that "CNN poll" regarding "95%" want it legal, okay honestly people, if you actually believe that you've been smoking too much. Not even 95% of the Dutch think it should be legal. Furthermore, a lot of people who previously contributed to this article need to learn what is and is not a scientific poll with a margin of error. Regardless, any poll in this article is not appropriate unless it is in fact tied to AB 390 one way or another, which cannot be the case. Any Web poll, Call-in and tell us your opinion poll, forum poll, any not 100% completely random, telephone poll (with registered voters) is not scientific (therefore it is not accurate by any means), so anyone who used them before, please do not use them in any article, ever. thanks. Tdinatale (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have no problem with removing the opinion poll info from the article for the reasons you mentioned. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate tone

[edit]

This article needs to be rewritten according to the structure of Wikipedia encyclopedia articles, not a news story (see Wikinews for that) or an opinion piece. (see WP:NPOV). Empty statements like "gained much media attention" and using long quotes from policy directors of cannabis advocacy groups and proponents in the lead section isn't the way we write articles. Also, opinion polls are not in and of themselves notable. Please take a more neutral approach to this article or you may find it merged and redirected into a more neutral parent topic. Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well feel free to go ahead and do something.... you can edit the article in the same fashion I or anyone else can. And there is no issue with the opinions polls, they were hosted by reputable news agencies.... hello.. CNN...--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 17:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see above, cooljuno. Tdinatale (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

[edit]

Look, I'm totally for cannabis, I think it should be regulated etc, but this article has a strong pro-cannabis bias. This is unacceptable for Wikipedia. Does anyone know why the Opponents section was deleted (I know this was some time ago)? But I'll re-add it and help change the tone of this article. Wikipedia is not a place to set an agenda, just the facts. Tdinatale (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed a lot of the article.Tdinatale (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better. If some of the opponents can be added back to the article (below the proponents section), I think the 'tone' tag can be removed from the top of the article. This bill has received a LOT of media attention, both locally and nationally, so we need to make this article as good as possible. Perhaps this could be a collaboration for WikiProject Cannabis, with a goal of reaching Good status. Looking forward to next year, when the bill will be back in the spotlight. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've been wanting to rewrite this thing for a while, but now that it's popularity has decreased (for the time being) it would be a good time to fix it. Yeah this is going to be looked at a lot. If there is a strong bias it will send the wrong message about Wikipedia. Any suggestions/problems obv anyone is open to change and express. We'll see what happens next year!!! Tdinatale (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added opponents. Tdinatale (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

[edit]

I removed the December 14 event regarding the petition signatures. This petition is seeking a ballot measure (presumably for November 2010), but is unrelated to AB 390/2254. Thanks for the enthusiasm, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.174.185 (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gupta under opponent section

[edit]

Once again, I removed S. Gupta from the opponent section. I don't care if he is FOR OR AGAINST cannabis, legalization of canabis, for medical use, or anyother cannabis related topic. FOR HIM TO BE UNDER PROPONTANT/OPPONENT SECTION, or for anyone to be under either of these sections, the must be talking specifically about their support or disapproval of THIS BILL. In the reference provided, he is solely discussing his opinion of legalizing cannabis, not talking about THIS BILL.

If you look at the other people under the pro/against section, they are specially commenting their opinion on THIS BILL, not marijuana.

And also, whoever provided the reference, and keep re-adding it, i recommend you learn how time and calendars work.. this bill was introduced late February... the Gupta article was written in January... BEFORE THE BILL WAS EVER INTRODUCED.--cooljuno411 21:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Sanjay Gupta

If we're going to have a proponents/opponents section, why is the aforementioned quote not significant again? Oh, he wasn't commenting on this bill, like any other bill would make a giant difference for a proponents/opponents section. wow. .... but when we have non-sense "opinion polls" with "95%" wanting it legal-- that's okay. That makes sense. Whatever, you're ridiculous. And you do care- It's blatantly obvious: you just don't like the fact that a doctor doesn't agree with you. <tommy> (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It really bothers me that you go from .. basically making an agenda for making pot legal to now, after I call you out on the carpet for it, you're now all "oh no, it MUST" be like this. ... megalomania?. <tommy> (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please have a discussion here without name calling or accusations? Thank you. After reading the article, my vote would be to remove Gupta as an opponent, as his comments do not specifically address this piece of legislation. If we were to include all doctors or organizations that were against marijuana legalization, the list would be endless (as would the list of proponents for legalization). Not to mention, proponent/opponent sections are often for mentioning major organizations and/or political figures tha are for or against the specific piece of legislation. Gupta is neither or these--he is a doctor and CNN medical contributor. Let's keep the proponents/opponents section for major organizations specifically fighting for or against this act. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Tdinatale, I very much appreciate your attempts to improve the article. I really do. However, here I would have to agree with cooljuno, but don't let that turn you off from continuing to update and improve the article over time. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken. I just have to question the integrity of certain types of people based on their history and numerous CSD articles. <tommy> (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to note that i also removed Norm Stamper from the support section for the same reasoning. So no need for threats of biasses on my talk page..... Ironic though... you all let the Norm Stamper one fly by without a remark.. but made a fuss over Sonja [bias?] But to the point. Yes, Norm Stamper supports the legalization of cannabis... cool great.. but for him to be under the proponent section, he must be in specific support of this bill. Just the same with Sonja Gupta. You are synthesizing their comments, and essentially putting words in theirs moths. What you guys are doing is just the same as me saying i was vegetarian then sourcing me under the support section on wiki article about a bill that would make the sale of meat illegal. I said was a vegetarian, not that i support or opposed the bill. [not a vegetarian btw].--cooljuno411 05:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what vegetarianism has to do with pot legalization.. And yes you could say that, but when Norm Stamper is in movies such as "The Union" which Im sure you've seen, he would obviously (most likely) support it. But I digress. <tommy> (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cooljuno, please do not say "you all" when making criticisms. I have not read the entire article, so I am not sure if Stamper belongs in the proponents section. I simply saw that there was an edit war over Gupta's presence in the article, so I was offering my two cents on that specific issue. Although I started WikiProject Cannabis, I am 100% against articles having a pro-cannabis bias. Please do not think otherwise. Back to the issue... if Stamper supports legalization, but has not specifically addressed this bill, he should not be listed under the proponents section. Again, if we listed every person or organization that was for or against legalization, the list would be endless. Only major organizations or notable people that have specifically addressed this bill need to be included in the proponents and opponents section. This article could be such an interesting, informative read, so we all need to work together to make sure it is accurate and balanced. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I added him because I know he'd support this bill, whether or not he's commented on it publicly. I know that not's not what we're supposed to do but it's not even questionable, he'd obviously support it, especially considering he's a member of LEAP. .. Yeah, a lot of cannabis-related articles have a bias, I basically had to rewrite all of the Cannabis#Hemp section and Cannabis#Recreational use section because they were atrocious (actually thats why I joined wikipedia; but I didn't know anything about it. Glad I joined!!). It's bad because, who are we kidding, everyone who has contributed has probably smoked pot at least a couple times; regardless, any POV is bad. <tommy> (talk)

More problems with this article

[edit]

1. Is the super long


really required? Can we shorten this somehow? It doesn't serve the typical reader of this article much benefit, I think you'd all agree.


2. The proponents section - much much more detailed than the opponents causing a bias in this article. We need to fix and shorten this.

<tommy> (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no one could be bothered to put their opinion in here so I'm going to change it.

Timeline 2010

[edit]

From the link in the 2010 section of the timeline:

"Feb. 2 From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
Jan. 31 Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution."

I'm not familiar with Joint Rule 56. Does anyone know if that implies a change in the bill's status, or an intent to resubmit, or is it just housekeeping to remove a dead bill from their inbox? -76.169.134.135 (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bill was re-introduced on February 18, 2010, and is now known as AB 2254. More info here and many other sources using Google News search. This source mentions one difference between the new bill and AB 390: "Unlike the last one, AB 2254 does not include a federal preemption clause that would only allow the state to tax the drug after marijuana became legal under federal law. Now the bill includes both full decriminalization of marijuana and the immediate taxation of it." --Another Believer (Talk) 04:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opponents

[edit]

You don't get to put opposition in there just because you think it should be there or out of a sense of balance. If you don't have a source, it doesn't go in, period.174.73.5.74 (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act. 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) 12:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marijuana_Control,_Regulation,_and_Education_Act&oldid=1208806727"