Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

Part of original version is from Legality of cannabis[edit]

A portion of the first revision of this article was taken from Legality of cannabis. – Alan Liefting (talk) – 05:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cannabis in New Zealand. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Kanapi" in Maori, add to lede? but needs a source[edit]

Per the logo of Otago NORML the Maori word appears to be "Kanapi" but I can't find a source verifying this yet. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

picture[edit]

I know its an article about cannabis, but that particular picture adds nothing. It's just a weed nugget, probably not even from New Zealand. Can it just be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byconcept (talk • contribs) 13:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Zealand Members of Parliament who have tried cannabis[edit]

I have removed this section as a) I don't believe it is appropriate for the section on legality, b) it probably isn't appropriate for any section in this article and c) probably just doesn't have a place on the site at all. On points A and B, this is the sort of list that will never be complete, will likely be fossilised as relevant only to the ministers of 2020, and holds little bearing on encyclopaedic topics. I suggest using the primary reference to support other statements about usage and prevalence in NZ, and not as a barely concealed argument that "cannabis should be legal because politicians have used it".

In case I am wrong on the list's utility on Wikipedia, I leave you (present or future editors) reference of the last page it existed, so to copy the list easily. — HTGS (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from original poster[edit]

Tomachi (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC) I was hoping to build an "all time" list to support my own views that the law is inconsistently applied, unpopular and widely disrespected here. Perhaps in hindsight this was vindictive, however NZ does appear to have an issue with indirect discrimination regarding cannabis, as shown by the following excerpt from parliaments Health Select Committee Report into Cannabis: [1] ″The 21-year CHDS concludes that current cannabis laws are administered in a discriminatory way, with males, Māori, and those with a police record being more likely to be arrested or convicted for cannabis use than female users, non-Māori users, and users without a criminal record. We are particularly concerned with the suggestion that a high level of police bias is leading to the disproportionate arrest and conviction rates of Māori for cannabis offences, based on the irrelevant attribute of ethnicity rather than the actual extent of offending. The submission from Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa appears to support this finding. The submitters believe that diversion is inconsistently applied throughout New Zealand in a way that discriminates against Māori. The findings of the CHDS are shown in Table 3." </ref>[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/reports/document/47DBSCH_SCR2531_1/inquiry-into-the-public-health-strategies-relating-to-cannabis

Differentiation between illegal cannabis and legal industrial hemp[edit]

Currently, the word 'cannabis' is used too loosely in the article. Since 2006, cannabis cultivation and consumption has been allowed as long as it has a THC content of less than 0.35%. As such this needs to be made more clear to readers. In addition, the article very much needs a section on industrial hemp to make it more complete.Philipp.governale (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand cannabis activists[edit]

I am concerned about the list under the heading "Notable advocates of cannabis legislation" for a variety of reasons:

  • The biggest concerns stems from the associated category name: "Category:New Zealand cannabis activists"
  • "Activist" can be a loaded term and there are sometimes negative connotations
  • How do we determine who belongs into that category? Chlöe Swarbrick would be rather uncontroversial. But anybody who has ever voiced a pro-cannabis reform view in public; are they an activist?
  • Some of the entries are unreferenced and for a controversial topic, that is certainly not good enough.

Who's got thoughts on the matters above? Schwede66 08:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hello, I created that section. I have removed the reference to the cannabis activist category because as you say, not everyone who voices support for legalised cannabis would necessarily be a cannabis activist. I mustn't have thought hard enough into it.
  • I believe it should be anyone notable (having a Wikipedia page is a good sign) who has voiced support for legalised cannabis in New Zealand, but I'm happy with whatever criteria others want. I'm somewhat new compared to others who edit.
  • I will add references to the unreferenced ones. I apologise for this. Nexus000 (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment For neutrality, we should probably also add a list of notable people, organisations, and political parties opposed to legalised cannabis. Nexus000 (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I too had noticed this, Schwede66 and I’d been planning to remove at least a few of them. I think most were simply copied from the referendum article, and while the list there is clear in its inclusion criteria and meaningful to the article as a whole, it’s very much a different story when looking at the broader context of cannabis “activism”. Nexus000, I strongly disagree that anyone who has voiced support for cannabis legalisation is thus an “activist”. I’m also not sure that listing vocal opponents of cannabis is what’s needed for this article, nor that that addition alone brings neutrality, though I welcome other input on that. — HTGS (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not argue anyone who voiced support for cannabis legislation would make them an activist. In fact, I took off the category "cannabis activists" from the section and the section is named "Notable supporters of cannabis legislation" Nexus000 (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of removing the lists here and restricting them to the referendum article. Given the broader scope of this article, maybe any support or otherwise could be discussed in prose, where it would be appropriate to mention people by name as the text can give the relevant context. Nexus, what do you think of that? Schwede66 09:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you guys think is appropriate. I just did added the list to try add more relevant information to the page for anyone curious, but am happy for it to be removed if you think that is appropriate. Nexus000 (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So in thinking about it, I feel like the closest approach that would work would be a section on people who have had significant influence on cannabis in nz (legally or culturally). Whatever the section looks like, I think it should exclude people like Sam Neil, the Topp Twins, John Key and Andrew Little. Supporting or opposing cannabis just doesn’t feel like enough to merit mention in this article, but some of these names are more than mere supporters, and presumably have brought bills before parliament or had other, larger influences. The list, if it is kept, should try to be historic, and not to be limited to supporters from a specific time and place. And sorry about earlier, Nexus, I missed that you’d already changed it from “activists”; I definitely don’t mean to be critical, and I think we all appreciate the efforts you’re putting in. — HTGS (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While you both are here, I'd be interested in writing about cannabis culture in New Zealand - J-Day, Whakamana Cannabis Museum, Otago NORML, anything else I can find. Right now the "history" involves Abe Gray's cannabis museum, but I feel that doesn't belong there. Should I call the new section "Cannabis culture"? Nexus000 (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There’s also an article Cannabis culture that already has summary sections for three countries. Maybe have a detailed description here and then summarise for that article. Schwede66 18:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People without Wikipedia pages being classed as notable[edit]

Should Aaron Ironside, SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana), Patrick Drumm and James Farmer be included in the section "Notable opponents of cannabis legislation"? Helper201 (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don’t include. Every other entry for both supporters and opponents have a Wikipedia page, whereas these people and this organisation do not. The people and organisation like all the others should be deemed notable enough to have and maintain a Wikipedia page first, then if that happens, they can be included. Helper201 (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they're not WP:NOTABLE enough for an article, they're not "notable" in WP terms. But that kind of begs the question. It maybe should not say "notable opponents", just "opponents", and include any/all of those if they are major players in the NZ cannabis debate. Cf. WP:INDISCRIMINATE: something does not have to be notable to be mentioned in an article on a broader topic, just encyclopedically relevant to the topic. It is better for things like major parties to a poltical or legal dispute to be covered in an article on that dispute than for people to create crappy "perma-stubs" about essentially non-notable but still marginally encyclopedically discriminate parties. I don't know enough about NZ politics to "vote" yes/no on these four particular entities and their inclusion, however. Each should be considered separately, with an eye to what reliable independent sources are saying.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. They're notable in terms of opposing recreational cannabis legalisation, so they should be included in the article. They don't have WP articles, but they're all noteworthy enough to have articles created, and they were all important and influential 'public opinions' in the 2020 cannabis referendum. SAM NZ was one of only two organisations registered against recreational cannabis legalisation, compared to 15 supporting it. Ironside was SAM NZ's spokesperson. I think the titles 'Notable supporters of cannabis legislation' and 'Notable opponents of cannabis legislation' are incorrect. They should say 'Notable supporters of recreational cannabis legalisation' and 'Notable opponents of recreational cannabis legalisation'. Those in the second list are supporters of current legislation, but opponents of recreational legalisation. Some would be supporters medicinal legalisation. E James Bowman (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've corrected those two titles in the article. E James Bowman (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - While they aren't WP:NOTABLE, I still think they're notable specifically in the discussion of recreational cannabis. I don't see why we should interpret "notable opponents" through the lens of Wikipedia's notability policy, people & organisations who aren't WP:NOTABLE are commonly included in other wiki articles without issue. - ThatSpiderByte (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cannabis_in_New_Zealand