Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

Color scheme suggestion[edit]

Who's idea was it to make "medical" green and "recreational" blue? It should be the opposite, for several reasons. Blue has always been associated with medicine, for reasons I won't get into, but you can google it. And green normally means "Yes", "OK", or "Go". Positive in general. Legal for medicinal use is not "Yes", it's a conditional yes. Similar to an orange traffic light. You almost wouldn't have to look at the legend if it was the proper color scheme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djironarm (talk • contribs) 17:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont[edit]

Vermont has legalized recreational marijuana. http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/367526-vermont-house-votes-to-legalize-marijuana Webbess1 (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Webbess1: That's just the House; it needs to also be approved in the Senate, and signed off on by the Governor. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DC decriminalization[edit]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-council-eliminates-jail-time-for-marijuana-possession-stepping-to-national-forefront/2014/03/04/df6fd98c-a32b-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html?hpid=z5

the DC council just passed 10-1, a statute lowering penalties to $25for smoking at home and reducing possession in public of less then 1 Oz to $100. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talk • contribs) 05:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New colors ?[edit]

Was there a conversation about changing the colors on the map or did one guy just change them becase he found them and I quote "Obnoxious" becase now the colors on the map don't match the colors on the page. And there had never been a big issue with the colors they had been that was sense 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.157.110 (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New York State should not be light blue. True enough, in law, the blue is accurate. However, in practice, that is not the case. .03mg of stem is enough to receive the maximum sentencing of $4,000 fine, 60 hours of community service, and 9 months of drug therapy OR 1-2 years in prison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.47.80 (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, the colors are nearly indistinguishable. This is a usability issue. A2800276 (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was also confused by the indistinguishable colors of the map, but then noticed the colors in the table don't match and further are not consistent if you sort by status. I fixed a couple but now I am not confident the fixes are correct and will leave for someone more familiar with this page. Charles N. Gorichanaz (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found the map to be unusable due to the colors. They are indistinguishable. --Cowlinator (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think a better solution would be: GREEN = legalized; BLUE = medical; ORANGE = decriminalized; YELLOW = CBD only; RED = illegal. And for states that have multiple, like for example medical and decrim, give it a striped color of blue and orange.Terrorist96 (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The colors were changed about a year ago to apparently help with color blind people. However, I can see all the colors fine but I have trouble looking at it. Perhaps I will create a new map someday. The editor used Inkscape, a free program to add color to the states. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the map color hues could certainly be better, what's confusing is that they don't match the ones in the table! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.252.164.53 (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana possession is illegal in Ohio[edit]

The article currently lists Ohio as having marijuana possession "decriminalized". However, according to current Ohio law ( http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2925.11 , current as of March 26, 2014), possession ranges from a minor misdemeanor to a second degree felony with maximum sentence, depending on the amount:

(3) If the drug involved in the violation is marihuana or a compound, mixture, preparation, or substance containing marihuana other than hashish, whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of possession of marihuana. The penalty for the offense shall be determined as follows:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(3)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), or (g) of this section, possession of marihuana is a minor misdemeanor.

(b) If the amount of the drug involved equals or exceeds one hundred grams but is less than two hundred grams, possession of marihuana is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

...

(g) If the amount of the drug involved equals or exceeds forty thousand grams, possession of marihuana is a felony of the second degree, and the court shall impose as a mandatory prison term the maximum prison term prescribed for a felony of the second degree.

Joeyadams (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but a "minor misdemeanor" entails no chance of imprisonment and a maximum fine of $150. It's roughly equivalent to getting a traffic citation (e.g., for driving with a broken tail-light). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ([[User talk:Lothar von

Richthofen|talk]]) 04:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Colors[edit]

There was absolutely no discussion surrounding the change of colors on the map and the user changed them since the user said they were "obnoxious", the new colours are so light however, its difficult to see and much harder to distinguish the states, please can we revert back to the clear color scheme that we had before since those colors were very clear as opposed to these which are incredibly hard to make out Guyb123321 (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was no reply to the last post I've gone ahead and reverted the map Guyb123321 (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more ridiculous that someone chose green for "medical" and blue for "recreational", when it should be the opposite. Blue has always been associated with medicine. And Green is normally for GO or YES. OK for medical use is not "YES", it's a conditional yes, like an orange traffic light. Not an epic fail, but close. DJ Iron Arm (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Reservations added?[edit]

Should Indian Reservations be added as the United States Department of Justice recently allowed for the federally recognized domesic nations to regulate cannabis within their reservation? I thought I ask since there are a enormous amount of Indian Reservations. Seqqis (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Horizontal TOC template allows section editing by state[edit]

I returned the horizontal TOC template. Template:Horizontal TOC. It allows section editing by state, etc.. Unlike Template:Flatlist which does not allow section editing by state. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction. 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 to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to chart?[edit]

There are only like 3-4 cases out of 55 rows where there is any detail of note that distinguishes transportation from just basic possession. So we're tying up huge chunks of the chart for an entry that is usually "not clearly stated" or similar. Does anyone object to removing that column and just having "Possession - Sale - Cultivation" as the three columns that each state/territory is categorized by? Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to nuke it.Terrorist96 (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any suggestions on what the chart should cover? Right now it's kind of dense, and I'm not sure that all the detail it has on specific amounts, misdemeanors vs felonies, etc. is easily accessible for readers at a glance, and/or is assured to not be out of date. My overall thought is that the chart should make certain overall/general info immediately clear to the reader (kind of like how the map is supposed to) and the fine details would be in the articles for each of the states, which are linked from the chart. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can also remove the color in the chart. It serves no purpose. Otherwise, the rest is fine I think.Terrorist96 (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing the title of this post to ask for suggestions to changing the chart in general. Right now the far-right blocks are kind of wordy; instead I'd suggest that we just have a link to the state-specific article, and then a few really brief bullets for the key dates, like what year it was criminalized, decriminalized, medical marijuana, and legalized, as applicable. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the area around Indiana–Maine; those Notes section were empty so I tried bulleting in some key dates. Is that any clearer, or does that just start getting too empty? I do think we need to trim down or cut out the states with tons of data (like North Carolina) since a) it clutters the chart and b) a lot of it is detailed legal stuff easily subject to change c) a lot of it is just cribbed from NORML/MPP and their pages are honestly a better resource for that kind of detail. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibilities[edit]

  • Remove "Transport" column entirely? (GLM suggestion)
  • Remove color scheme (Terrorist96 suggestion)
  • Move legal misdemeanor/felony details from far-right column to state-specific articles. Use far-right column for bulleted list of major milestone years (crim, decrim, legal of MMJ or recreational) with only briefest of explanations to keep chart time. (GLM suggestion)
+1 to all three.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

The map is pretty complicated to look at, with six different shades of green. I think it would be better to simplify it to three colors: Legal recreational marijuana, legal medicinal, none. You should be able to tell those things at a glance, and you can't do that with the current map. --Surachit (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Surachit:, we have a thread discussing the map and how to improve it, if you want to come join in at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cannabis#Graphics_expert_on_standby_to_update_US_Cannabis_map_in_days_following_election.3F. Thanks for your input! Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it confusing. I'm not sure what those stars inside those few states mean, does it refer to the asterisks? Because if it is one of the three asterisks says "only non-psychoactive medical cannabis is legal" but there's already a specific colour that states the exact same thing. Also on other cannabis legality pages for instance the page "legality of cannabis by country" doesn't yet have the state of Maine coloured in dark green to indicate it's also legal there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frostpunk (talk • contribs) 20:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Frostpunk:, as of mid-day Thursday, Maine was still counting votes. The news I'm seeing says that "Yes" won, but the opposition might demand a recount, so it's not as certain as the other ones that are updated on the map. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Texas[edit]

I changed the section where it was indicated that possession was decriminalized in Houston and Dallas. This is completely untrue. Even small amounts of flower are being actively prosecuted as class B misdemeanors in those jurisdictions.

"Cite and Release" =/= decriminalization. A person faces EXACTLY the same penalties as before, he or she simply is not required to "book in" to jail.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B130:2330:BC0D:1604:AA63:9298 (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ I am a licensed attorney practicing criminal defense in Dallas and Houston

Map update: West Virginia[edit]

West Virginia needs to be updated on the map Soccer11147 (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Soccer11147: Care to expand on this? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia legalized medical marijuana, but on the map it is shown as not having any form of marijuana legalization. Soccer11147 (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the state passed a law to allow medical weed but it recently happened and the map's editor @Houdinipeter: has not updated it yet. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We need a couple updates on the map in general; I'll ping Graphics Lab later today. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney: So just change west virginia to legal medical? Psychoactive or not?Houdinipeter (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Psychoactive.Terrorist96 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done! Houdinipeter (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Houdinipeter:; at some point we need to find something better than the white stars for the mixed states (and also they should be a shade lighter since they're non-psychoactive plus decrim, not psychoactive plus decrim). Any brainstorms on striping them or something similar? Or ping Graphics Labs for how to best nuance those? Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem @Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney:! I tried striping them before, but ended up with errors after uploading, if you check out the history of the map. But looking at the chart on my page there are only 2 territories that are only decriminalized and 3 that are decriminalized with CBD use. I'll try again soon, unless there's a rush, then we could ping the graphics lab. Houdinipeter (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana legalized CBD oil in April 2017[edit]

Phone-editing so can't do the precise stuff, but please check our this source and modify map and table accordingly. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Houdinipeter:Indiana is now a jurisdiction with legal non-psychoactive medical cannabis. Can you please update the map? Thanks!Terrorist96 (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Houdinipeter (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Houdinipeter: thanks but it looks like you used the decriminalized color.Terrorist96 (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Indiana should be the same color as Tennessee, I believe. Soccer11147 (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done My bad! I counted up from white, instead of down from dark green. Houdinipeter (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a thankless job, but thanks for keeping on it! Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction. 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) 13:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no color key for the "By State" section?[edit]

I can't for the life of me figure out what that narrow second column from the left is for! It's just a solid color with absolutely no indication as to its meaning. What's it for? 68.189.139.242 (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction. 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) 02:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite of intro section[edit]

The 2nd paragraph of the intro section is currently pretty confusing, and the intro section as a whole could be improved in a few ways. As this is an article that gets 2000+ views a day, I think it is important that the intro be as clearly stated as possible. I went ahead and took a shot at a rewrite (shown below), and plan to implement the change in the next couple days.

In the United States, the use and possession of cannabis is prohibited under federal law for any purpose, by way of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Under the CSA, cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug, determined to have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use, thereby prohibiting even medical use of the drug.[1] At the state level, however, policies regarding the medical and non-medical use of cannabis vary greatly, and in many states conflict with federal law.

In 1996, California became the first state to legalize the medical use of cannabis. Currently, the medical use of cannabis is legal in 29 states, plus the territories of Guam and Puerto Rico, and the District of Colombia.[2] Seventeen other states have more restrictive laws limiting THC content, for the purpose of allowing access to products that are rich in cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychoactive component of cannabis.[2] In the U.S. jurisdictions that have passed comprehensive medical cannabis laws, the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment prohibits the federal government from prosecuting individuals acting in accordance with those laws.[3]

In 2012, Washington and Colorado became the first states to legalize the non-medical use of cannabis. Currently, the non-medical use of cannabis is legal in 8 states[4] (Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) and decriminalized in another 14 states[4] (plus the U.S. Virgin Islands).[5] The District of Columbia has also legalized the non-medical use cannabis; however, no system is in place for commercial distribution of the drug.[6] Although cannabis remains strictly prohibited at the federal level, the Justice Department currently tolerates commercial distribution of cannabis in the 8 states where it has been legalized, under the guidance of the Cole memo that was adopted in 2013.[7]

References

  1. ^ State-By-State Medical Marijuana Laws, Marijuana Policy Project, December 2016
  2. ^ a b "STATE MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAWS". National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved December 31, 2017.
  3. ^ Ingraham, Christopher (June 13, 2017). "Jeff Sessions personally asked Congress to let him prosecute medical-marijuana providers". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 31, 2017.
  4. ^ a b "MARIJUANA OVERVIEW". National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved December 31, 2017.
  5. ^ Armento, Paul (December 22, 2014). "Pot Possession Decriminalized In US Virgin Islands". NORML. Retrieved December 31, 2017.
  6. ^ Garcia, Maddie (June 30, 2017). "D.C. Marijuana Market: Stuck In A Gray Zone". NPR. Retrieved December 31, 2017.
  7. ^ Rough, Lisa (September 14, 2017). "The Cole Memo: What Is It and What Does It Mean?". Leafly. Retrieved December 31, 2017.

--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks for taking the initiative! Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Goonsquad. I went ahead and incorporated the proposed material (with some minor changes), and added an additional paragraph on individual cannabinoids / CBD, which should probably be addressed / clarified. Hopefully what I came up with makes sense.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we calling it "non-medical" instead of simply "recreational"?Terrorist96 (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Terrorist96. I was under the impressions that non-medical is the preferred term on Wikipedia, because there is an article called "Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States". Different people prefer recreational or non-medical, but I don't feel one is significantly better. I did happen to notice that recreational is used extensively throughout this article though. So if you want to change it, no problem here.
Regarding the edited sentence about low THC states, I think it sounded better and was more clearly stated before. Also, on a more minor note, the use of slashes is discouraged per WP:MOS. Anyone else want to weigh in on which version of the sentence reads better? Here they are side-by-side:

Seventeen other states allow for the medical use of cannabis with low THC/high CBD, a non-psychoactive form of cannabis.

Seventeen other states have more restrictive laws limiting THC content, for the purpose of allowing access to products that are rich in cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychoactive component of cannabis.

Regarding the sentence added about Vermont – I think it is better to leave that out, as it doesn't have anything to do with the actual legality of cannabis in the jurisdiction, rather it has to do with how cannabis was legalized. As it best to keep intro sections as concise as possible, I decided to leave that info out when doing the rewrite. What do you think about this point?--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to reword it. I just didn't like how it began with "have more restrictive laws" because it gave an impression that the state law is more restrictive than Federal law.Terrorist96 (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was clear that "more restrictive" was in relation to the 29 states, not the federal policy discussed in the preceding paragraph. I took out that phrase though, even though it sounds a little better with it left in IMO.
In regards to the method by which jurisdictions have legalized, I took that out considering the point mentioned above. And also changed non-medical to recreational in both places.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that "recreational" is the most common term in the media. I know some advocacy groups prefer the term "adult use" but I think that's kind of evasive, since adults use medical cannabis too, and that it's a POV issue of advocates avoiding "recreational" since they think the term is too loaded. I don't think "non-medical use" has anywhere near as much currency, other than that rather weird Wikipedia article Jamesy has been cleaning up (which honestly might need a better title too since it conflates Decrim and Legal). Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support changing it to recreational, and changing the title of that other article as well.Terrorist96 (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for new map scheme[edit]

Since there is a lot of discussion about the map on this talk page, I wanted to let everyone know that a new map scheme has been proposed on WikiProject Cannabis. Your feedback would be welcome.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Table colors[edit]

Last week, someone left an anonymous comment up above, stating that it is confusing that the map colors don't match the colors in the 2nd column of the table. I agree, and was wondering if we should either make them match, or just get rid of the 2nd column entirely. If we keep the column and make the colors match, the only problem is that there is no color(s) to distinguish the decrim states, as the four map colors pertain to medical entirely. It would still be OK to use those four colors, but I'm inclined to just get rid of the column entirely, or at least try it out for a few days and see what everyone thinks. It would also have the slight benefit of freeing up some space in the table. Thoughts?--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the synchronization of the map and the table.
This seems just like the kind of thing Wikidata was supposed to address, if we can get the US map colored by the same data source.
Until then I'm on board with deletion of the second column. If and when it comes back there should be some kind of text there if only a two-letter code or something. Having a sortable column without content is weird. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bri. I don't know anything about Wikidata, so I can't really address that point. I went ahead and implemented the change though. Looks fine with the column removed I think.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamesy0627144: @Bri: I updated Legality of cannabis by country and this chart both to make clearer the distinction between Recreational and Medical. I got rid of the Sales column since in the rare cases where sales aren't allowed despite recreational we can just annotate that in parentheses, and for the illegal states I'm not sure that having the specific penalty for sales is much more informative than the more useful Possession penalty (now filed as "Recreational - Illegal (annotation)"
In any case, getting back to the colors: I do think the chart is lacking without any colors, as the colors give a handy "at a glance" way to see what's what, and also if you sort by color you can see all the Legal states grouped together and so-on. My suggestion: can we color the column using the same colors as the map shows, and is it possible to have both color and a "D" for those states that have Decrim? Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can definitely have both a fill color and a letter in the boxes. In fact, something I just realized is that all the boxes had hidden letters in them that were the same color as the fill color, in order to allow sorting. If you highlight the boxes with your cursor in this old version you can see the hidden letters. I'd be fine with adding the color column back in, especially since there will be more space freed up with the transportation column removed.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what it would look like. Colors same as the map colors, with the D's added in. And the sorting works.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamesy0627144: I think that looks pretty good! I've pitched much larger changes to these charts and just not gotten any feedback, thus my recent Being Bold and just changing it, so I'd say you're probably clear to just paste in your version with the colors and call it good. One small note though: Nebraska is the weird exception with no medical or CBD, yet still decriminalized, so the gray color is still good, but it also needs a D in the column. Really nice work, I'm colorblind and not great at tables so I was definitely not the guy to fix this. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm used to waiting a little longer for input but since you think it's OK to proceed I did. I think it looks pretty good and is a nifty little improvement.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and though I deleted Transport from the Global chart, I left it in this chart since there is arguably some slight utility since both Decrim and Legal states generally give an upper limit to be carrying around, and the chart isn't unduly crowded. If you have a strong opinion to remove it, I'm open to ideas. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We get it, pot is green thus map makers want to be "cute" using ONLY shades of green, but non-green colors should be used too. I propose legal to be green, medical to be 2 shades of yellow, and prohibited be red, similar to the map at the top of "List of dry communities by U.S. state" article. 98.164.12.236 (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as being cute, I see it as being intuitive. The darker the shade of green, the more permissive a states' cannabis laws are. I think that makes the most sense.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(late reply) Sure green is slightly cutesy, but there's no particular reason not to use green vice any other color. And also it's good to avoid red/blue here due to their political implications (yes the US has a Green party but they've never ever won a state anything). And I think the "shades of green" map is really intuitive because it clearly shows a spectrum of approaches (which contrasting colors would not) and because a one-color spectrum is clear to full-sighted readers as well as to colorblind readers like myself. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I actually find the green shading is not distinct enough. It's also somewhat counter-intutitive for green to be used where it is illegal for recreational use, even if it used medicinally. Having read through more now, it makes more sense, but most people are not going to come to the talk page, and will find it initially puzzling. I would argue that multiple colours should be used, even at the risk of making it more garish. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 23:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's anything counterintuitive about making medical states green. The color scheme could probably be improved to make it a little more diverse though. Here is something I came up with that I think would be an improvement.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Started a topic for discussion at the WikiProject Cannabis page.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support making the recreational states blue, I'd like to suggest a slightly different color scheme: File:Map-of-US-state-cannabis-laws alt color scheme.svg. I think it makes the low-THC medical states stand out more clearly from the prohibited states. It still keeps the two different kinds of medical states as shades of the same color, but should be color-blind safe. --Surachit (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty good. I posted your version at WikiProject Cannabis; probably further discussion is better over there. If use yours though, need to take my version and just swap the four colors at the top of the text file, so that don't end up with the messy Inkscape code that is difficult to manually edit. The coding in mine has been redone BTW so only need to change in 4 places instead of 56.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Utah[edit]

Current medical status in accordance with HB 195 (signed by Gov Herbert in March) is not shown by the table. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I updated it, but also reverted the recent change by Goonsquad so that the color matches the map. Goonsquad, see the recent discussion on the Wikiproject page regarding how to classify Utah.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas CBD[edit]

CBD will technically be legal soon.Terrorist96 (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CBD is now legal in Kansas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.119.98 (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Terrorist96: my understanding from this snippet from Cannabis in Kansas is that *in theory* CBD medications are legal in Kansas. Is there a reason we have not changed the chart and map for it? I realize there's a lot of waffle-room on KS, but that's the case for a lot of our CBD states, so our convention is pretty firmly in the "if it remotely allows CBD in state law, it's a legal-for-non-THC state." Any nuance I'm missing or should we update chart and map? Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On May 14, 2018, Governor Jeff Colyer signed SB 282 which exempted CBD oil from the definition of marijuana. This essentially legalized CBD oil in general, but since THC is still banned, CBD oil is not expected to be readily available as it can contain traces of THC and does not establish a mechanism for obtaining CBD oil.[1][2][3]

I'm not sure why it hasn't been updated. Feel free to do so.Terrorist96 (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Jamesy0627144 (talk) 07:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Join the Marijuana Policy Project". Marijuana Policy Project. Retrieved 2018-06-03.
  2. ^ "Kansas: New Law Excludes CBD From The Criminal Code - NORML - Working to Reform Marijuana Laws". norml.org. Retrieved 2018-06-03.
  3. ^ "SB 282" (PDF).

Local decriminalizations[edit]

Been meaning to add some local decrim laws to this article but haven't had time. If anyone else wants to do it, here is a good source:

https://norml.org/legal/local-decriminalization

Also, Bethlehem, PA recently decriminalized but isn't included in that article yet. Terrorist96 (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(late reply) @Terrorist96: I would suggest that instead of putting cities here (which we haven't been doing) that instead you add cities here where we've been keeping a by-year list: Timeline_of_cannabis_laws_in_the_United_States#Municipal. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. I never got around to doing this but if I do, I'll post it there. In the meantime, anyone else can also do it. Thanks!Terrorist96 (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

THC warning labels[edit]

I'd like to add a section of the THC warning labels each state has implemented. Washington, Colorado, California, etc each have developed their own standard symbol for packaging Marijuana products, but they vary greatly. It would be useful to depict them all here. Are there any objections to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4jonah (talk • contribs) 03:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really wouldn't put packaging requirements anywhere in this article, especially as a stand-alone section / paragraph if that is what you are referring to. That is a very narrow subset of cannabis policy that has much more to do with regulation than criminalization, whereas this article is intended to provide only a brief overview of criminal penalties in each state (with a little bit of federal stuff thrown in the intro). It's possible packaging requirement could be the topic of a new article though. I'm not sure if it would meet the notability requirements or not, but maybe someone else who has more experience could weigh in.
BTW, it would probably be better to move this discussion to a new section at the bottom of the talk page, for better organization / visibility.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moving 4jonah's comments to be their own new section. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@4jonah: it's an interesting idea, maybe take a look at Nutrition facts label and use that as inspiration? It should be its own separate article though, this article is already pretty dense. I would note though that you have to use WP:Secondary sources. You can't just look at labels yourself and draw conclusions, you have to report on what other sources have documented about labels, not personal obervation, which would be using the labels as a WP:Primary source. So it's a little tricky because you can't just write on "it seems so obvious" from what you see personally. Makes sense? Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guam legalizes recreational cannabis![edit]

Here's the source, someone update the map, I dunno how to![1]

Cbd[edit]

Cbd is federally legal now . This whole page needs updating . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.218.104 (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Table[edit]

The table repeatedly has

State Recreational Medical Transportation Cultivation Notes

in the middle of states. This seems off, but I don't want to screw anything up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FredModulars (talk • contribs) 05:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those were intentionally added so that readers can keep track of what the columns represent as they scroll down. I don't think it is something that is absolutely necessary or anything, but I would probably say the table is better with it than without it.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map is missing cities that are legal or decriminalized[edit]

Wouldn't be complete without these local laws. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be complete depending on whether or not one thinks that is something that should be covered in the article. Personally I think it makes the article too messy to be listing individual cities in the table, but it is something I have never raised an objection to on the talk page before. I'd be interested to hear if anyone else thought the same.
What I feel more strongly about though is that new rows should not be added to the table for individual cities, as discussed below.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I hadn't noticed the above point regarding listing cities could include what Georgia has already had: decriminalized cities (as opposed to the case with Madison's legalization where I actually separated the city in the table by giving it its own row). Is this something that you are seeking to advance more strongly? Because I already put back the decriminalized portion (not Madison, to satisfy your request of course). There had already been Georgian decriminalized cities in the table so I figured I'd mimick the old status quo from other people. If this is an issue please let me know... we could remove the ones from Georgia as well, but personally, I would think that this is not over-complicating the table. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble understanding some parts of your post, but I think what you're saying is that you hadn't previously noticed states like Georgia where the decriminalized cities were put in the recreational column, so upon noticing that you did the same for Wisconsin. Yeah... I definitely think that is the better way to do it instead of adding another row to the table. As far as whether to cover decriminalized cities in the table at all, it's not really something I feel strongly about, as it does clutter up the table a bit but not a huge amount.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my unclear language. I was actually apologizing more specifically about my last edit at Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction, because I should have seen first that you did not want cities to be mentioned at all. Georgia already had them, but, if I had seen your comment more clearly, I would have even considered going with removing Georgia's cities, too. Altanner1991 (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding new rows to table for individual cities[edit]

Regarding this edit, Altanner1991 has split the Wisonsin entry up into two separate rows and assigned a different color code to each – blue for Madison, and light green plus (D) for Wisconsin. I think each state should be limited to one row only because it just seems bizarre and overly complex to start assigning individual rows to individual cities. There are surely going to be other rows that are added for other cities, and where do you draw the line with that as far as lesser populated towns that pass decriminalization/legalization ordinances? Fifty rows for fifty states seems like the right way to do it and what readers would expect. Also, what is with the (D) that was added for Wisconsin? The column is supposed to match the map, so Wisconsin should not have a D notation.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Order of presenting information[edit]

@Jamesy0627144:, thanks for engaging. My changing of the order of information was based on Legal status of same-sex marriage, which I find to be quite sensibly presented (global overview, in chrono order, followed by all the specific country-by-country detail). However, I certainly have no strong feelings on the order either way. I would just strongly suggest that we keep the chrono list as well as the bar-graph, I know it's the same info but it's good to have both for readers who find one or the other format easier to interpret (graphical vs text information). Cheers! Jdcooper (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree on keeping the timeline table. That's interesting on the same-sex marriage article, but I still think it makes the most sense to put the current legal status information should first, rather than the historical information.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me! One other point, would that timeline table benefit from being sortable? I ask speculatively, as I do not have table skills. Jdcooper (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I actually can't think of any reason that it shouldn't be sortable, so I just went ahead and did it. Does that look good to you?--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, nice one! Jdcooper (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idaho[edit]

Since Idaho has now legalized CBD oil for medical use, it should now have a light green bar in the timeline graphic. JoeSmoe2828 (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South Dakota[edit]

There has to be an explanation about South Dakota voted legal by the people by ballot and now held up in court by individuals who feel they have more say in the matter than popular vote.

Looks like it's covered to me. In the Notes column it says:
  • November 3, 2020: Medical and recreational use legalized by separate referendums.
  • February 8, 2021: Recreational legalization referendum overturned by circuit court judge as unconstitutional.
  • Supreme Court hearing is scheduled for April 28, 2021, which is expected to decide the fate of recreational cannabis in the state.
--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2022[edit]

The map needs to be edited to change the color for the state of Mississippi to green. Medical marijuana is now legal (and decriminalized) in Mississippi, so the current map is out of date. The articles on this page are correct, but the map is wrong.

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_US_state_cannabis_laws.svg#mw-jump-to-license 2600:8807:5415:8100:7C83:6DAB:6C95:8AAA (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done also, since the file itself is unprotected on Commons, you could have edited it yourself casualdejekyll 22:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section wikilinks[edit]

@Jamesy0627144: Per MOS:OVERLINK & MOS:EASTEREGG, it doesn't benefit us to link to as many articles as possible (while using very similar text to do so). The reader wouldn't be able to distinguish where the links direct to. We only need to link to the most specifically relevant topics; those linked articles already contain the more general links. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care whether Medical cannabis and Recreational drug use are linked in the article or not. I think it makes a lot more sense to have Medical cannabis in the United States and Legalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States linked at the beginning of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs though, since those two paragraphs are dedicated specifically to those topics and the links are more visible there instead of in the 2nd and 3rd sentences of the first paragraph. So I would just leave those two links there where they have been located for a long time.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Links should only occur at the first instance. Even though part of the context in the first paragraph is in regards to prohibition, it's still in reference to medical/recreational use in the United States. There's no harm in linking it at the usual location, and omitting links for the secondary mentions later in the lead. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's set in stone that it has to be done that way though; this is all I could find from the MOS: "as a rule of thumb, only link the first occurrence of a term in the text of the article". Nothing definitive about that and as a practical matter it is better as explained above so why mess with it? It's been that way for years for a reason.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why this would be an exception to the "rule of thumb". However, we'd need a third party to break our 1–1 disagreement, so I'll leave it at that. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland updated[edit]

In April 2022, the Governor of Maryland allowed a bill to become law - with no action of a signature or veto to legalize cannabis recreationally within Maryland. Medicinal cannabis is already legal in Maryland. However, another bill that passed the Maryland General Assembly in April 2022, puts the very same cannabis policy straight onto the ballot box for Maryland voters to implement in the November 2022 election as an initiative - and does not require a Governor's signature (a bypass mechanism).[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:C13E:5A00:5AC6:F0FF:FE00:9665 (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]

New Jersey recreational legalization update needed[edit]

Not familiar with formatting here, but this needs to be updated to reflect New Jersey's recent recreational legalization as of April 21st [[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.135.34 (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate[edit]

Has this been updated recently? Shannon243 (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Up to date[edit]

Is this topic up to date on the laws now? {{Shannon243 (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a poor substitute for a lawyer. If you are seeking specific legal advice, please see one.
That said, we have a pretty active team of volunteers who try to keep this up to date, and I am one of them. There are no lapses that I know of. There are also some important caveats, one being "legal" isn't a straight "you can go out and buy it from a store". Virginia for instance is coded here as "legal" but at List of 2023 United States cannabis reform proposals you will see there is new legislation being considered, but not yet enacted, which would make sales legal. Maryland is coded here as "legal" based on legislation that has been enacted, but at Cannabis in Maryland you will see it's in a decriminalized status for a few more months. Sometimes it's what you might call a gray area where the police enforcement powers are limited kind of like the discussion in Pulp Fiction.
The map can't show all the nuances, this table can just summarize them, the articles discuss them in detail, and none of them can be considered 100% trustworthy if you have an important legal question. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminate transportation column, cultivation too maybe?[edit]

The idea to eliminate the transportation column has been raised in the past and there has been support for it, but it was never followed through with. Should we finally get rid of it since it doesn't serve much purpose and a bunch of entries just say "Not clearly stated" anyways? I edited one of my sandbox pages to show what the page would look like with the column taken out. Thoughts?

Also, if we get rid of the transportation column should we go ahead and get rid of the cultivation column too, as was done at "Legality of cannabis"? Here is a preview of what that would look like, though I did not take the time to transfer any information from the cultivation column to the recreational and medical columns yet (so the table is more empty in this preview than it would end up being). To me it makes more sense to have that information in those two columns instead of trying to combine it into a third column that is not really needed.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So do you propose to include the information about cultivation limits in the other columns? as long as all the information is retained somehow, I support this. Jdcooper (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I went ahead and eliminated the transportation column just now btw, and might try to do the cultivation column tomorrow. We'll see how it turns out.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if getting rid of the cultivation column is necessary after some further thought. But I'm probably going to work some more on the table filling some information in at least, and then maybe take another look.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The cultivation column as it stands now I think is more of a liability than a net gain. Some the entries, like Alabama, speak to cultivation for medical use specifically but don't say so explicitly, and others, like Washington State, are basically incorrect (WA should say legal for licensed commercial growers or certified med patients only, but it says "Legal with restrictions..."). I'd like to not have incorrect information in the table which I'm afraid means rooting it all out.
Just to make an already complex situation more complex, I'm starting to see some interstate compacts come into play, which would depend on feds allowing interstate shipping one way or another (which could come about in a Supreme Court case or legislatively, or by executive action such as re- or descheduling), as well as states that are hedging new regulations on federal legality. Presenting all this nuance in a table is fraught with errors whenever you go beyond a basic either-or legal/illegal situation. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I filled in some information in the cultivation column and tried to make a few things more clear. We could still decide to get rid of the column later by transferring the information to the recreational and medical columns. I'm probably happy just leaving it alone for now though, mainly just wanted to get rid of the transportation column.
As far as commercial growing, I avoided even mentioning it because it is just kind of already known that there is commercial cultivation in states that allow sales.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 06:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Texas should be green on the map[edit]

Medical marijuana is legal in Texas with low THC since the Compassionate Care Act was passed in 2015. Dispenaries are open in at least Austin TX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:7A07:9200:4DAE:D99F:A3C7:82CD (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations such as NORML and MPP do not consider Texas to be a state that has legalized medical cannabis, because of the low THC limitation. Therefore we do not mark it green.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa (Citation Needed)[edit]

The updated map shows Iowa as green, implying that it has legalized cannabis for medical uses, but I have not found a single source confirming this anywhere, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Can we either confirm that this happened, or change Iowa back to gray? 134.134.137.88 (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa is perhaps close to being considered a state that has legalized medical cannabis, but none of the organizations that track cannabis policy (NORML/MPP/NCSL) consider them yet to be a medical cannabis state. So I do not believe it should be marked green and will change it back on the map and also the color-coded column in this article.
Also Jamesr1492, I am going to change Minnesota back to green for now until the bill is officially signed into law. That is the practice that has typically been used to update these various cannabis policy articles. We discuss topics such as this at WikiProject Cannabis btw, if you are ever interested in joining us over there.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly considers a state to be green in this context? Cause I've seen that "low-THC/High CBD" states aren't listed as green, in fact I find it quite misleading to leave out those particular states as I know there was previously a separate color for those states. that made more sense in my opinion.
From what I've seen so far, these "low-THC/High CBD" states are categorized by having medical products that individually are limited to a low amount of THC, Iowa on the other hand doesn't limit product THC limits, only the amount of THC that can be purchased by a medical patient by default (4.5g per 90 day period) when a medical-card is given, which is quite often increased according to several card-holders I've spoken to in the area (I live in central IA // I myself am a medical card holder and my limits were easily increased to 9g). The Iowa department of health's website has a page on the medical cannabis program the state offers and a few other pieces of information.
Yes, I don't believe statistical numbers have been released, but there still is an active program.
https://hhs.iowa.gov/omc/For-Patients-and-Caregivers Jamesr1492 (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as what criteria organizations like NCSL/NORML/MPP and others use to determine whether a state has officially legalized medical cannabis, I couldn't really tell you. But I do believe they consider other factors besides THC content. For example, Utah passed a law several years ago that allowed people to use cannabis that would not be considered "low THC", but it only allowed use for terminally ill patients, so none of those organizations considered it to be a "comprehensive" medical cannabis program (Utah has since passed a "comprehensive" medical cannabis law, so it is now green on the map). I know there was also some debate about whether Louisiana was a medical cannabis state several years ago, and eventually those organizations changed their classifications as some incremental reforms were passed in the state. But Iowa, as of now, is not classified that way by any by these organizations, perhaps because the THC limits are not considered to be high enough, or perhaps for reasons besides, or in addition to, that.
The light green color on the map (low-THC, high CBD) was eliminated a couple years ago because there was only two states left that were gray and all 50 states had already legalized Epidiolex as well as the sale of CBD products over-the-counter. Also some states considered to have passed "low THC, high CBD" laws did not allow for any kind of functioning program to be implemented, like Iowa has in place. So it didn't seem to make much sense to keep the color on the map for various reasons.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even though there is not any real coverage of this from good websites, there are still laws and places that state its legality. Something to consider or look more into.
https://www.nbc15.com/2023/09/22/wis-democrats-optimistic-about-push-full-legalization-cannabis/
"Iowa has legalized medical use."
https://hhs.iowa.gov/medical-cannabis/for-law-enforcement-and-public-safety
"Products may be legally purchased, and possessed by registered Iowa cardholders, and their caregivers. Medical cannabis cardholders in other states are also allowed to possess medical cannabis products in Iowa, provided that the products are in a form authorized by 641 IAC 154.14." RandoWikiContributer (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio[edit]

Ohio has legalized recreational marijuana. 2001:56A:7DBD:BD00:E811:F279:2408:1659 (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decriminalization - MS, LA, NC, ND[edit]

Those 4 states are listed as decriminalized; however as per NORML's website, possession is still a misdemeanor in those 4 states. A misdemeanor is a crime and being convicted of one creates a criminal record; that's not decriminalization. All those 4 states have done is remove the possibility of jail time for first-time offenders; but they still saddle them with a criminal record. Since Ohio legalized marijuana, the only 3 remaining "decriminalization" states are NH, NE and HI. 24.206.75.51 (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you are saying but NORML still considers those to be states that have decriminalized, and other organizations such as National Conference of State Legislatures, Marijuana Policy Project, and Drug Policy Alliance do as well. So we go by what those organizations say on the matter.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV re importance of federal law.[edit]

Dubious[edit]

The heavy emphasis on federal law early in the article seems inappropriate. Why? 9 of the 10 largest states have legalized medical and recreational marijuana, and the 10th (TX) has substantially legalized medical marijuana. (And In most states, medical marijuana is legal. In 24, recreational marijuana is legal too.) On federal property (a small fraction of the US) Schedule I still applies to >0.3% non-synthetic Δ9-THC, but per https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/23/2017-05809/schedules-of-controlled-substances-placement-of-fda-approved-products-of-oral-solutions-containing, "Syndros, a drug product consisting of dronabinol [(-)-delta-9-trans-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC) oral solution" is "in schedule II of the CSA" effective March 23, 2017, and per https://web.archive.org/web/20221104154012/https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/rules/1999/fr0702.htm, Marinol is Schedule III <sic>.

Severe undue weight is placed on the, as I understand it, currently largely unenforceable and unenforced federal law. Given that the vast majority of US law enforcement treats at least medical use as legal, the current wording emphasizes federal law too much. It's good to lead off with it, but briefly, without presenting it as if it is the whole story until/unless one reads much much more of the article. RudolfoMD (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how two sentences at the beginning is "heavy emphasis" and "severe undue weight". It would be hard to make it any more concise. Also, disagree with you on Texas though it's rather minor to your main point.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I misspoke. Under the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment and Cole memo (under AG Garland), even on federal property, most of the time, the federal prohibitions can't be enforced. So those first two sentences are way off.
So I propose the following initial sentence:
"In the United States, except when allowed by state laws, the use and possession of cannabis is illegal under federal law by way of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970."
"State laws and federal policy have mostly nullified the federal prohibition on the use and possession of cannabis by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970." RudolfoMD (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @RudolfoMD:, if that second sentence is your proposal for the beginning of the article, I feel the emphasis is slightly confusing for readers unfamiliar with the situation. I would propose something like this:
"The use and possession of cannabis in the United States is prohibited by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. However, this federal prohibition is not widely enforced, and 24 out of 50 states have legalised cannabis for recreational use."
This phrasing would contrast the legal reality with the practical reality in a more balanced way. I agree with Jamesy that starting with the federal prohibition is not undue weight: it is the law, after all. But I agree with you that our article should make clear that it is widely unenforced. Jdcooper (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a longtime Wikipedian and cannabis user, I really like this sentence. The opening of the sentence needs to be clear and up front, while reflecting how things actually are. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes it sound like one is at risk of having the federal prohibition for possession of a joint enforced throughout most of the US, which is not the case. "... However, federal policy prohibits most enforcement of this federal prohibition. 24 out of 50 states have legalized cannabis for recreational use..." would be workable. RudolfoMD (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Federal law may not be actively enforced on US citizens, but it is still enforced on foreign tourists: for example. CBP agents sometimes ask if tourists have ever consumed marijuana, and if the person says "yes", they are turned away and banned from re-entering, and need a waiver to enter the US for the rest of their life. The same thing happens if the CBP officer googles the person and finds out that they have ever used marijuana. This is all due to federal law, and it's pretty significant. 24.206.65.51 (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just those two sentences for the first paragraph? I'm thinking something like below would be better, leaving the first two sentences alone and rewriting the third sentence to address enforcement.

In the United States, the use and possession of cannabis is illegal under federal law by way of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, determined to have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use, prohibiting its use for any purpose. Despite this policy, the Justice Department generally does not enforce federal law in states that have legalized medical or recreational use.

--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Cole memo is no longer in effect (it was rescinded by Jeff Sessions), and it was also never binding under law (merely guidance for federal prosecutors), but yes federal law is generally not enforced in states that have legalized medical or recreational use, though it still does have significant impact on what goes on in the states in some ways. The first two sentences are not incorrect, but yes probably something could be added to address the enforcement issue.
I would say my main issue with what you have proposed is that the sentence sounds more like an editorialization than something that could be verified by a consensus of reputable sources. Specifically the use of the word nullification which from looking at the wikipedia article for it is a controversial legal theory that has not been upheld by the courts. I'd have to look more into it all but I cannot recall a time I have ever seen federal cannabis law referred to as being nullified or mostly nullified. I think there are better ways to address the enforcement issue such as the paragraph proposed in my previous post.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote under AG Garland because the Cole memo is being respected by his DoJ. Nullified may not be the best word, given what you uncovered. "Neutered" avoids that baggage. The first two sentences were a problem for the reasons I've given, which you keep ignoring. Most prominently: 9 of the 10 largest states have legalized medical and recreational marijuana - and the federal government respects those laws, as a matter of policy (but not nullification, as you correctly note!).
Also I call on you to explain this revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._jurisdiction&diff=prev&oldid=1190847134. RudolfoMD (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jamesy can of course answer for himself, but to me the reverted version reads better/smoother, and is much clearer, especially about what happened in 1970. Jdcooper (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(You're responding re the last sentence in my comment.) That doesn't justify the revert. It's in the lede, not a history section. The USG no longer considers that it has "no accepted medical use". https://www.natlawreview.com/article/ag-garland-signals-department-justice-s-cannabis-policy-will-be-very-close-to-cole. RudolfoMD (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the Justice Department pretty much is acting as if it is in effect, I just wanted to clarify that it is no longer a formal policy and never carried the force of law to begin with, like the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment does.
If you changed nullified to neutered, the sentence may still be more of an editorialization because I'm not sure that could be backed up by reliable sources as the effect of federal law is still significant, affecting areas such as access to banking services, taxation (see "section 280E"), interstate commerce (completely banned), ability to buy firearms, veteran health care, federal drug testing, ability to live in public housing, ability for cannabis to be distributed in pharmacies, and more. I think it would be better to just say that federal law is generally not being enforced rather than saying it is mostly neutered.
For the sake of accuracy, it is actually only 7 of the top 10 most populous states that have legalized medical cannabis, as North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas are not considered to have comprehensive medical cannabis laws by organizations that track such policy. I still maintain the first two sentences are correct, but I will be proposing something shortly to further address your concern about federal law.
Regarding the sentence "In 1970, cannabis was determined to have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use, and thus classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, prohibiting its use for any purpose", I'm not sure about the accuracy of that. The story behind that is that when the Controlled Substances Act was being debated in 1970, there was disagreement regarding what schedule cannabis should be placed in. Eventually a compromise was reached to temporarily place cannabis in Schedule I until cannabis could be more thoroughly studied by a commission set up under the CSA, which later became known as the Shafer Commission. The Shafer Commission never ended up addressing where cannabis should be scheduled under the CSA, and no action was ever taken to change the temporary placement of cannabis in Schedule I, even though the report said its dangers were exaggerated and recommended decriminalization. I do know that the "high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use" determination was made in 2016 though, and also before that I'm sure when other rescheduling petitions were considered, but I'm not sure about it being done in 1970, so I think it would be better not to attach a 1970 date to it.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Justice Department pretty much is acting as if the Cole memo is in effect. I don't dispute that the effect of federal law is still significant. I do insist that they have been "mostly neutered". Also, let me inform you that rescheduling petitions were considered recently: HHS recently urged the DEA to reschedule it, and I expect we'll see a response from the DEA soon. RudolfoMD (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After further consideration, I would like to propose the following paragraph to address the stated concerns:

In the United States, the use of cannabis is legal in 38 states for medical use and 24 states for recreational use. At the federal level, cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substancs Act, determined to have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use, prohibiting its use for any purpose. Despite this prohibition, the Justice Department generally does not enforce federal law in states that have legalized medical or recreational use.

--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would refine that to say generally unenforced against possession or economic activity legal under state law, and within state borders. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Here's something I came up with by revising the third sentence.

In the United States, the use of cannabis is legal in 38 states for medical use and 24 states for recreational use. At the federal level, cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substancs Act, determined to have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use, prohibiting its use for any purpose. Despite this prohibition, federal law is generally not enforced against the possession, cultivation, or intrastate distribution of cannabis in states that have legalized such activity.

--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with starting off the article with this. RudolfoMD (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support also, except I would say "the use of cannabis is legal in 38 states for medical purposes and 24 states for recreational purposes", more precise and avoids repetition of the word 'use'. Jdcooper (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer medical use and recreational use which are common terms. I'd be OK with cutting "the use of". RudolfoMD (talk) 22:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cutting "the use of" is also fine. Jdcooper (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Made it so.
Also, I tagged "Some cannabis-derived compounds have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for prescription use." w/ [dubiousdiscuss] because Marinol, Syndros, and Cesamet are NOT "cannabis-derived". They contain synthetic, rather than being cannabis-derived cannabinoids. I propose : "Some drugs containing synthetic cannabinoids have been approved ..." instead.
(It's true (and IMO absurd) that federal law treats synthetic and cannabis-derived THC differently, even though they are chemically identical. Perhaps mentioning (w/NPOV) in a foodnote?) <corrected 04:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)> RudolfoMD (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be accurage to refer to nabilone as "cannabis-derived" at least. I would just combine the first two sentences to read something like this:

Cannabinoid drugs which have received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for prescription use are Marinol (THC), Syndros (THC), Cesamet (nabilone), and Epidiolex (CBD). For non-prescription use, CBD, delta-8 THC, and other naturally-occurring cannabinoids derived from industrial hemp are legal and unregulated at the federal level, but legality and enforcement varies by state.

--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does "industrial hemp" mean something other than "hemp"? Could it say "hemp as defined by the 2018 Farm Bill? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah "industrial" doesn't seem necessary, but I would probably add some parentheses so the sentence reads a little easier.

Cannabinoid drugs which have received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for prescription use are Marinol (THC), Syndros (THC), Cesamet (nabilone), and Epidiolex (CBD). For non-prescription use, CBD, delta-8 THC, and other naturally-occurring cannabinoids derived from hemp (as defined by the 2018 Farm Bill) are legal and unregulated at the federal level, but legality and enforcement varies by state.

--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edited) Better to say "dronabinol" or "synthetic THC" rather than jut "THC" in parentheses. THC is
natural. How 'bout:
For non-prescription use, CBD, delta-8 THC, and other naturally-occurring cannabinoids derived from hemp (as defined by the 2018 Farm Bill) are legal and unregulated at the federal level as long as Δ9-THC content is low enough, but legality and enforcement varies by state.RudolfoMD (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's somewhat personal preference I guess but I like to make things as simple as possible for the reader, especially in a very brief overview of U.S. cannabis laws which we are dealing with here. Not many people know what dronabinol is I'm guessing or are going to be interested here in the manner in which the THC is produced; for this more detailed information they could click the Marinol/Syndros article. As far as THC content, if that information is going to be included I would add it in parentheses in this way for smoother readability:

For non-prescription use, CBD, delta-8 THC, and other naturally-occurring cannabinoids derived from hemp (cannabis containing less than 0.3% THC) are legal and unregulated at the federal level, but legality and enforcement varies by state.

--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, "derived from" is a problem. How 'bout:
For non-prescription use, products containing CBD, delta-8 THC, and other naturally-occurring cannabinoids (if containing less than 0.3% Δ9-THC) are legal and unregulated at the federal level, but legality and enforcement varies by state.
It's (IMO absurd but) true that "the manner in which the THC is produced" impacts legality, so I still urge "synthetic THC" rather than just "THC" in parentheses. If we cut out the "(THC)"s and wikilink the brand names, that's not as bad as leaving "(THC)". RudolfoMD (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "(THC)" is just quick reference information for the reader so they know without further clicking what chemical compound the drug is. I suppose it is possible someone could jump to the conclusion that Marinol is THC extracted from the cannabis plant, but if the information is really that important to someone they can read the wikilinked dronabinol article or find out from many other places that it is not. And if you really want to split hairs you could even argue that "(synthetic THC)" is not accurate either because Marinol contains other ingredients besides THC (gelatin, glycerin, sesame oil, and titanium dioxide for example), but the "(THC)" is just saying what the active ingredient is and it really is not necessary to go into more detail than that.
What is the problem with "derived from"?--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem? Example: Surely hash can be "derived from" 0.2% Δ9-THC hemp, and would illegal in ID.
"they can read the wikilinked dronabinol article". False. Not from this article they can't. Perhaps you didn't read/absorb the end of my comment you replied to. RudolfoMD (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've incorporated some resolved and proposed changes to fix things. RudolfoMD (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jamesy0627144: Swapping in
cannabinoids derived from [[hemp]] (cannabis containing less than 0.3% THC) are legal
for
cannabinoids derived from hemp are (if containing less than 0.3% Δ9-THC) legal
totally ignores this problem after I pointed it out AND then - at your request- further explained it. It reintroduces false information, without explanation, after discussion. Not cool. Removing the CNN/McPhillips reference from content it supports is not cool either. Reverted. RudolfoMD (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There may have been some miscommunication / misunderstanding and resolving disputes on wikipedia can sometimes be a rather difficult task, made harder by the fact that it is not a face-to-face conversation. I really do not want to do anything out of line. Putting that aside, I will address the sentence that you wrote in the article:

For non-prescription use, CBD, delta-8 THC, and other naturally-occurring cannabinoids derived from hemp are (if containing less than 0.3% Δ9-THC) legal and unregulated at the federal level, but legality and enforcement varies by state.

The way the sentence is written makes it sound as if cannabinoids can contain THC, when in reality they are individual chemical compounds and not a solution of different compounds mixed together. So it doesn't make sense to refer to a chemical compound as having a certain level of THC. The sentence that I wrote is more clear I believe:

For non-prescription use, CBD, delta-8 THC, and other naturally-occurring cannabinoids derived from hemp (cannabis containing less than 0.3% THC) are legal and unregulated at the federal level, but legality and enforcement varies by state.

In regards to the paragraph being split up, why split it up into two single sentence paragraphs when the sentences are related to each other? One sentence addresses prescription use cannabinoids, while the other addresses non-prescription use cannabinoids. They both are about cannabinoids, so why split into two paragraphs?
Regarding the reference that was moved, it was originally located after the word "unregulated" (inserted by User:Esb5415 here), then you moved it to after "delta-8 THC", and then I moved it to the end of the sentence. I wasn't sure if you moved it by mistake or what and no explanation was given so I figured it was either an accident or something that you considered minor. It could probably go multiple places in the sentence so moving it to the end seemed like the most logical place to me, right next to the NPR article that actually goes much more in depth on delta-8 THC. If you really want to move it back though then go ahead.
I changed back to the original wording and re-combined into a single paragraph while we sort this all out, but the change to the beginning of the paragraph I left in as it seems pretty much sorted out at this point and the wording that you came up seems fine.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The way the sentence is written makes it sound as if cannabinoids can contain THC, when in reality they are individual chemical compounds and not a solution of different compounds mixed together.
— User:Jamesy0627144 05:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

OK. But you're ignoring the already thrice-identified problem with what you've put in. Again, you're reintroducing false information. (At least it's alongside discussion this time.) Again: The problem? Example: Hash "derived from" 0.2% Δ9-THC hemp, would be federally illegal. But your sentence says it's legal. And your valid point is easily fixed by adding "products containing":
For non-prescription use, products containing CBD, delta-8 THC, and other naturally-occurring cannabinoids derived from hemp are (if containing less than 0.3% Δ9-THC) legal and unregulated at the federal level, but legality and enforcement varies by state.
(also includes improved wording). Or how 'bout :
For non-prescription use, products with less than 0.3% Δ9-THC containing CBD, delta-8 THC, and other naturally-occurring cannabinoids derived from hemp are legal and unregulated at the federal level, but legality and enforcement varies by state.
Are you ok with either of those? RudolfoMD (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this sentence that you are taking issue with:

For non-prescription use, CBD, delta-8 THC, and other naturally-occurring cannabinoids derived from hemp (cannabis containing less than 0.3% THC) are legal and unregulated at the federal level, but legality and enforcement varies by state.

I don't think your point about hash applies, because hash is not an individual cannabinoid—it is a collection of many cannabinoids—while the sentence above is referring only to individual cannabinoids. However, the sentence may still be problematic in that it could be interpreted to mean that hemp-derived THC is always legal, when in reality it is only legal under a second condition that the end product being sold also contains less than 0.3% THC.
Regarding the sentences that you came up, I think the second one could work but it leaves out any definition of hemp, which is not a necessity but which would probably be better to include. So perhaps this would be better:

For non-prescription use, products containing less than 0.3% THC that contain CBD, delta-8 THC, or other naturally-occurring cannabinoids derived from hemp (cannabis containing less than 0.3% THC) are legal and unregulated at the federal level, but legality and enforcement varies by state.

--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "products with less than 0.3% Δ9-THC containing" to address the "it could be interpreted to mean that hemp-derived THC is always legal" problem we agree existed.
I object to not including "Δ9-", and don't see you've given any reason to reject "with". I prefer to leave "and some" in rather than add a definition of hemp, but if you feel strongly and want "less than 0.3% Δ9-THC" in there twice, I'm ok with that. RudolfoMD (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I don't see any reason to include "some" in the sentence anymore, now that the situation with hemp-derived THC has been clarified.... so I took it out. Also, minor point but it's odd to say Δ9-THC and then delta-8 THC later in same sentence, so I changed Δ9-THC to delta-9 THC for formatting consistency.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks OK by me!
Formatting consistency is good, and following precedent like with US vs UK spelling. Green tickY RudolfoMD (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin[edit]

THC is legal for recreation as long as it's not specifically prohibited federally. ~markezuma 2600:6C44:7D7F:B060:F8F2:B719:3653:4BAD (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map of state regulated cannabis programs[edit]

I started a new section. See article version with it. Feel free to edit further.

Cannabis overview map from the National Conference of State Legislatures.[1]

References

  1. ^ Bryan, Kate (April 9, 2024). "Cannabis Overview". National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved April 9, 2024.

It looks like the Northern Mariana Islands are currently using the blue color in the legend: "Adult use only, no medical regulated program". --Timeshifter (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is what you meant by feel free to edit further, but I went ahead and removed it. There's already a map at the top of the article which pretty much serves the same purpose, but is better in several ways such as it being a SVG file and the color scheme being more logical. The only major difference between the two is a color code for low-THC/high-CBD laws, but considering that Epidiolex is available in all 50 states now, and the fact that you can buy CBD over the counter in Idaho and Nebraska too (not sure about Kansas but I have seen other sources indicate that actually do have a low-THC/high-CBD law), labeling these states on the map becomes pretty much pointless, which is why the low-THC/high-CBD color code was eliminated from the top map three years ago, as previously discussed here. So I really cannot see any reason for keeping the second map in the article.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Epidiolex is prescription only in the US. See Cannabidiol#United States. That is federal (FDA and DEA) regulated. That can be clarified here.
This map is titled "State regulated". So I don't think it includes federal laws such as the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills linked in Cannabidiol#United States. That can be mentioned here.
So this map provides additional info detailing state-only regulation. That can be clarified here. It doesn't get mixed up in the federal regulation. I believe that was the purpose of this map.
And I believe the main map at the top of the page here may be wrong concerning some of the states marked as "illegal". According to the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills hemp-derived CBD (cannabidiol), delta-8-THC, etc. can be sold over the counter at many places unless specifically prohibited by state law. I need to check the latest state laws prohibiting them. For example:
https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/cbd-legal-states
https://neurogan.com/blogs/legal/is-cbd-legal-in-all-states
https://www.seattlemet.com/discover/thc-delta/why-is-delta-8-legal
The fact that this map is a different color scheme is a good thing. Because it does not confuse federal and state law.
--Timeshifter (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Epidiolex is prescription only in the US. See Cannabidiol#United States. That is federal (FDA and DEA) regulated. That can be clarified here.
Yes, the article already mentions that Epidiolex is a prescribed drug.
This map is titled "State regulated". So I don't think it includes federal laws such as the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills linked in Cannabidiol#United States. That can be mentioned here.
The article doesn't mention the farm bills directly, but it does cover what the effect of the 2018 farm bill was, in that it made CBD and delta-8-THC legal at the federal level.
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying about the map including federal laws though. It's a state map so how could it show federal law?
So this map provides additional info detailing state-only regulation. That can be clarified here. It doesn't get mixed up in the federal regulation. I believe that was the purpose of this map.
Yes, it shows which states have passed laws considered to be low-THC/high-CBD. I'm not sure what you are saying about what needs to be clarified or about mixing up with federal regulation though.
And I believe the main map at the top of the page here may be wrong concerning some of the states marked as "illegal". According to the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills hemp-derived CBD (cannabidiol), delta-8-THC, etc. can be sold over the counter at many places unless specifically prohibited by state law. I need to check the latest state laws prohibiting them. For example:
Fair point that "Illegal" is not the most accurate label for the gray color code. What is really meant by that is neither green or blue apply, so maybe something like "not legal for recreational use or considered to have a comprehensive medical program" would be better, or to be more brief "neither".
The fact that this map is a different color scheme is a good thing. Because it does not confuse federal and state law.
Same as above, this statement about federal law is not clear to me.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my previous comment everything is in reference to the "state regulated" map. So that is why Epidiolex legality in all 50 states does not affect the states in white on the "state regulated" map. It is a federally regulated drug.
The confusion seems to be that this "state regulated" map covers state-controlled recreational and medicinal cannabis.
But those same states make laws restricting or blocking hemp-derived CBD and delta-8-THC, etc.. I think this "state regulated" map does not cover that.
I found a very good map for delta-8-THC legality. I will be uploading it right away. See:
https://cbdoracle.com/news/policy/delta-8-thc-legal
I believe that the "state regulated" map use of the word "cannabis" excludes hemp. I had forgotten about this ignorant use of the word "cannabis" or "marihuana" in law. Since a hemp plant is still a cannabis or marijuana plant.
https://www.mcglinchey.com/insights/hemp-industry-2024-state-and-federal-changes - Excerpt:
By carving “hemp” out from the definition of “marihuana” – the Schedule I controlled substance – Congress effectively legalized the cultivation and sale of hemp (as well as “all” of its “derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids,” and more) at the federal level.
--Timeshifter (talk) 07:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the "state regulated" map shows states that have passed low-THC, high-CBD laws, which is something different than whether or not a state allows delta-8-THC or CBD sales to the general public. Here's some more information on the low-THC, high-CBD laws by the way, many of which turned out to be mostly symbolic as the document details. So that's just something else to consider in regards to the above discussion.
The delta-8-THC map definitely seems useful and something that people would be interested in. Not as sure about whether the "Cannabis record clearance by state" map is worth including, but if you want to include it I'm not really worried about it.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did a quick glance at the archived article. An mpp.org site search found this:
https://www.mpp.org/issues/medical-marijuana/overview-of-states-flawed-high-cbd-laws
More later when I have time hopefully. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map with legend on it. State regulated cannabis programs[edit]

Jamesy0627144 and all who are interested. I think the main SVG map should have 5 colors. See main SVG map at the top of the article:

This map below has 5 colors, and does a good job of summarizing the current marijuana laws in the US. I think the main SVG map should keep its existing 3 colors, and add 2 more colors. Maybe Cmglee can help in adding 2 more colors to the main map.

See map source with more info. Hover to see state and territory names there.

Memory aid

"State regulated" is in the map title for a reason. Some states enacted "CBD/low THC programs" shown on the map in orange. This map does not show access to federally-regulated hemp-derived CBD (cannabidiol), delta-8-THC, etc.. Those are available in many states due to the federal 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills linked in Wikipedia: Cannabidiol#United States. Some states have restricted access to those hemp-derived substances. For more info see: [3][4][5][6][7].

It looks like the Northern Mariana Islands are currently using the blue color in the legend: "Adult use only, no medical regulated program". --Timeshifter (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with that for the reasons mentioned previously:
• Epidoliex (CBD) is legal in all 50 states now.
• Over the counter sale of CBD is legal in most states now including Kansas, Nebraska, and Idaho.
• Several of the low-THC/high-CBD laws have little to no practical impact (as outlined in the MPP document).
In other words, CBD is available across the country now, so these laws, several of which were basically irrelevant to being with, are even less relevant now. Maps should not be overcomplicated, and adding two more colors would just unnecessarily overcomplicate it. The extra color was eliminated from the map three years ago for good reason.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marinol is legal in all 50 states now too. Like Epidiolex. Both are prescription only. The current map says nothing about either one of them. The current map says nothing about the hemp-derived CBD you are talking about. A separate map should cover hemp-derived CBD. A map is not needed for Marinol and Epidiolex. Since they are available by prescription in all 50 states.

The 2 maps are exactly the same for the main 2 colors: State recreational, and state comprehensive medical.

The gray areas in the current map are the same states as the orange and white states in the map above. But the map above is much more informative.

Orange and white could be added to the existing map. A link to the MPP article can be put in the legend.

The map caption can state that the CBD/low THC state programs have little to no practical impact in most of those states. Or as the MPP article states concerning those states: "All but two of the laws — Georgia’s and Iowa’s — fail to allow for realistic, in-state access."

Both maps only cover the state regulated programs. But with 2 more colors readers have a much better map. A map that covers all the state regulated cannabis programs. And they have the "D" for decriminalized. Which is also at the state level.

@Cmglee: The current SVG map could be combined with this map's SVG:

Medicaid expansion map of US. Affordable Care Act

Then we could have state names on the map here. A simple list could be placed in the article for the decriminalized states.

The resulting map could be used as a template for other maps in this article, and others. A delta-8-THC map. A map for cannabis record clearance. Etc..

I found a template that lets one add legends to an SVG image. And optionally to make them links too. See template and example:

Four types of arthropods showing the acron and 9 head and/or body segments. Trilobites and chelicerates are shown with 7 head segments, and crustaceans and tracheates with 5 head segments. Of these, the first head segment of chelicerates and the second head segment of trachates is lost in development. All four start with an acron at the anterior end bearing compound eyes. All have nephridia on some or all head segments, some of which are lost in development in chelicerates. All—other than chelicerates—have antennae on the first head segment, and crustaceans also have antennae on the second head segment. Only chelicerans have chelicera, on the second head segment and first body segment, and pedipalps, on the third body segment. Crustaceans have mandibles on the third head segment and maxillae on each of the fourth and fifth head segments. Trilobites and chelicerates bear legs on all remaining head segments, but crustaceans and tracheates have legs on the anterior body segments.
A
L
L
L
L
L
L
x
C
P
L
L
L
L
Ci
A
A
Mnd
Mx
Mx
L
L
L
L
L
A
x
Mnd
Mx
Mx
L
L
L
L
    = acron
    = segments contributing to the head
    = body segments
x = lost during development
    = eyes
    = nephridia
O = nephridia lost during development
L = Leg
Mnd = Mandible
Mx = Maxilla
Four types of arthropods showing the acron and 9 head and/or body segments. Trilobites and chelicerates are shown with 7 head segments, and crustaceans and tracheates with 5 head segments. Of these, the first head segment of chelicerates and the second head segment of trachates is lost in development. All four start with an acron at the anterior end bearing compound eyes. All have nephridia on some or all head segments, some of which are lost in development in chelicerates. All—other than chelicerates—have antennae on the first head segment, and crustaceans also have antennae on the second head segment. Only chelicerans have chelicera, on the second head segment and first body segment, and pedipalps, on the third body segment. Crustaceans have mandibles on the third head segment and maxillae on each of the fourth and fifth head segments. Trilobites and chelicerates bear legs on all remaining head segments, but crustaceans and tracheates have legs on the anterior body segments.

References

  1. ^ Ruppert, E. E.; Fox, R. S. & Barnes, R. D. (2004). Invertebrate Zoology (7th ed.). Brooks / Cole. p. 520. ISBN 0030259827. who cite Ax, P. (2000). Multicellular Animals: The Phylogenetic System of the Metazoa. Vol. 2. Berlin: Springer. p. 396.

Here is a map with color backgrounds, links, and legend:

--Timeshifter (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current map says nothing about the hemp-derived CBD you are talking about. A separate map should cover hemp-derived CBD.
What do you mean separate map? I thought you wanted the map at the top of the article to be changed.
But the map above is much more informative.
More information does not necessarily mean better if it's low value information. Especially on maps, which are only supposed to convey very basic information and for which it's good to use as few colors as possible, because then you have less issues with the colors bleeding together for people that have issues seeing colors or for people viewing the map in black and white, such as on a printout. The current map at the top of the article is very easy to read and shows simply and clearly the areas of the U.S. that have the most liberalized cannabis laws (the northeast and west coast) and the areas lacking in significant reform (south/southeast and middle part of U.S.), which you can tell by looking at the map right away, without even really looking at the legend. The darkest states represent the highest level of reform (recreational), the less dark states represent a lower level of reform (medical), and the least dark states represent the states that do not have either reform. This is in contrast to the NCSL map, which does not follow this convention and for which there are states like Indiana and Tennessee colored in the most darkly when the laws they passed are basically worthless. The colors of the NCSL map are nice and soothing I guess, but functionally it is not a good map.
The map caption can state that the CBD/low THC state programs have little to no practical impact in most of those states. Or as the MPP article states concerning those states: "All but two of the laws — Georgia’s and Iowa’s — fail to allow for realistic, in-state access."
A note would probably be OK stating that some states have more limited low-THC medical cannabis laws (not considered to be "comprehensive"), which are not shown on the map. But I really do not think the extra color should be added back in for the three main reasons mentioned in my previous post, and also the reasons mentioned above.
Also, a color definitely shouldn't be added for the single case of the Northern Mariana Islands, which is really a very minor point that they have a recreational law without having a medical law. Legalizing recreational use means people can use it for whatever reason they want, including medical – so that is basically all-encompassing and there is no need to go into more detail than that. And actually I have seen information that NMI does in fact have a medical cannabis program, such as here and here, so it appears that NCSL is not really on top of things with their map.
Then we could have state names on the map here. A simple list could be placed in the article for the decriminalized states.
Please no. There is no need to spell out the name of the states on the map, especially at the expense of removing the D's which is actually useful information. If you are just talking about a map for delta-8 though, the D's do not need to be on that map – although the state names are still unnecessary, especially when they pop up when hovering the mouse over any state, which is the case with the current map at the top. But absolutely this is a bad idea for the main map at the top.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Delta-8 THC legal status by state[edit]

Delta-8 THC

Source: https://cbdoracle.com/news/policy/delta-8-thc-legal - Hover over the source map to see state names and more info. Use table of contents below the source map for detailed state-by-state info. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

US map. Cannabis record clearance by state[edit]

Source: https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/cannabis-overview#records

Hover over source map for state and territory names. Source has more info: "As of 2023, 45 states, two territories and Washington, D.C., have record clearing laws which may apply to cannabis. Of these jurisdictions, 28 have legislation that applies specifically to record clearance of certain cannabis-related offenses." --Timeshifter (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Universal symbols for recreational legal states[edit]

I made a revision to this page to add a column to the states table listing the universal symbols for packaging required in recreational legal states. The edit was reversed as a claim was made by @User:Jamesy0627144 that it messed up the table styling (fair). I do think this is a relevant spot to include this information as it is related to its legal use and identification of sales that are compliant with state laws. If a table column doesn't work, would folks be ammendable to a gallery section at the bottom displaying the symbols? There isn't anywhere else where these symbols are shown and I think it is a useful/interesting aspect of the state-level system in the US showing the variance of the markets/regulation regimes. --Gimelthedog (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A gallery at the bottom of the article sounds good. That is often where galleries go. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for understanding Gimelthedog. I'm not exactly sure what a gallery would look like in the article but that seems like a much better option than adding a column to the table. Also, keep in mind that the "Cannabis in [state]" articles are another place the images could go.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of separate maps for CBD/low THC. Delta-8-THC. Record Clearance. Etc.[edit]

I think an added gallery of separate maps at the bottom of the article may solve most problems. It keeps the main map at the top of the article simpler, as desired by some.

  • CBD/low THC
  • Delta-8-THC
  • Cannabis offense record clearance
  • Hemp-derived CBD
  • Etc.

When possible, the maps should be editable so that mistakes can be corrected. Such as with the Northern Mariana Islands on the NCSL 5-color map. All gallery maps, whether made by users, or pulled from websites, can have a date put on them so readers know the last date at which the map is accurate.

If possible, I think the maps should have 2-letter state abbreviations. Even on the main map. An asterisk can be used instead of "D" on the main map.

I found some time, and started a map gallery. The maps wrap. Narrow your browser window to see. See: Help:Table/Advanced#Side by side tables/images. It is a more customizable image gallery method.

Delta-8 THC legal status by state.[1]
Cannabis offense record clearance by state.[2]

References

  1. ^ Johnson, Lee (October 31, 2023). "Is Delta-8 THC Legal? A State-by-State Analysis (Fact Checked)". CBD Oracle. Retrieved 29 April 2024. Fact-checked on March 10, 2024, by Neil Willner, co-chair of the RCCB law firm's cannabis group.
  2. ^ Bryan, Kate (9 April 2024). "Cannabis Overview". National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved 29 April 2024.

The "Universal symbols for recreational legal states" do not need this more complex gallery method. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Potential] Schedule change[edit]

I've added a single sentence (probably all the article should have until things move forwards or more analysis appears) about the annoucement today of plans to move Cannabis to Schedule III. I don't think we should say more than that until something happens; alternatively, if nothing comes of it, we should probably delete it outright. Also mentioning this at Cannabis in the United States. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 21:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over coloring of main U.S. cannabis map[edit]

Timeshifter and I are currently tied up in a dispute over the coloring of the D's on the main U.S. cannabis map, which he would like to make purely black. This may seem like kind of a minor issue but since the map appears at the top of this highly viewed article, as well as at the top of other highly viewed cannabis articles, I'm giving a heads up here since I don't think many people are subscribed to the map Commons page. Feel free to weigh in, we are kind of at a stalemate and some outside perspective would probably help.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

State names need to pop up when thumbnail map is hovered over[edit]

I now support having only 3 colors in the main map at the top of the page. The 5-color map is great if one understands how bogus nearly all of the CBD/low-THC state programs are. Otherwise one may think those states actually have a better medical program than they actually have.

Back to the current 3-color map. I, and many others, often confuse the state names if they are not written on the map (full names or 2-letter abbreviations).

If there is no state name or abbreviation on the map, then the state name should pop up when hovering over the state in the thumbnail map. Currently, the state name only pops up after clicking on the map twice. Try it and see.

There are various US map templates where the state names pop up, even from the thumbnail map:

Template:USA image map

AlabamaAlaskaAmerican SamoaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaGuamHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaNorthern Mariana IslandsOhioOklahomaOregonPuerto RicoPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUnited States Virgin IslandsUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingDelawareMarylandNew HampshireNew JerseyMassachusettsConnecticutDistrict of ColumbiaWest VirginiaPuerto RicoUnited States Virgin IslandsGuamNorthern Mariana IslandsAmerican SamoaVermontRhode Island

A US map with territories could be used the same way. There does not need to be any text on the map. The state names can be made to pop up just from hovering over the blank state. The states can be colored any way we want.

If desired, the map can be made such that clicking on the state takes one to that state in the table. This template is made for that:

The text can be removed from the map, and the states colored any way we want. For more info see:

--Timeshifter (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the above map a bit I kind of understand how it works now (involving a wikipedia template built on top of a wikimedia SVG file) but it's definitely more complicated than the current SVG map and especially the code of the SVG file is more complicated and lacking in organization. I would say the map definitely couldn't be used without adding territories because you need to show the three territories that have legalized recreational cannabis and one that has legalized medical use. The state names popping up without the extra clicking is nice but I don't think see it as a huge benefit and as far as clicking the state to connect to the entry in the table that seems like a lesser benefit, especially with the horizontal table of contents which has now been added and I don't think most people mind scrolling to a state's entry to begin with. I love the simplicity in code while at the same time the fine detail in borders of the current map that Heitordp created (especially how the territories were done) and I think people here have become accustomed to using and editing it. IMO opinion it works great and there is not a need to replace it, and I have never heard anyone complain about it until all of a sudden the last couple of weeks. I would still strongly suggest leaving the map the way it is.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The map could look exactly the same as it does now. The only difference a reader would see is the state name popping up while hovering over a state.
Occasionally a state color has to be changed due to changes in the law. That is easy to do once one looks at the SVG text with any text editor. I have gotten pretty good at figuring out where this is happening in the SVG for US maps. Same for adding or removing the "D" from states. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horizontal table of contents for the table of states[edit]

See Template:Flatlist. Example below with all 50 states (no Washington, DC).

Contents

The above flat list has been added at the beginning of the table of states:

Via the id= method discussed here:

A flat list (without all 50 states) is in the article section linked below. It is in the map caption:

Clicking the state on the map there will also work. Map does not have to be there, but it is convenient.

I had to put nowiki tags around an Alaska reference (that I had not added) before I could work on the table in a sandbox.

When I removed the tags here, I got a blacklist filter warning for legalweedalaska dot com

Here is the removed reference:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legalweedalaska.com|title=Legal Weed Alaska|last=Labs|first=Kelley Code|access-date=January 24, 2017}}</ref>

I know from past experience that sometimes a specific reference can be removed from the blacklist if you ask. Depends on the reference.

Here is another possibility for the "By state" section of the article. Put this just above it.

Table of contents. Click states on map, or in list.

#Alabama#Alaska#Arizona#Arkansas#California#Colorado#Connecticut#Delaware#FloridaGeorgia#Hawaii#Idaho#Illinois#Indiana#Iowa#Kansas#Kentucky#Louisiana#Maine#Maryland#Massachusetts#Michigan#Minnesota#Mississippi#Missouri#Montana#Nebraska#Nevada#New Hampshire#New Jersey#New MexicoNew York#North Carolina#North Dakota#Ohio#Oklahoma#Oregon#Pennsylvania#Rhode Island#South Carolina#South Dakota#Tennessee#Texas#Utah#Vermont#VirginiaWashington#West Virginia#Wisconsin#Wyoming#Delaware#Maryland#New Hampshire#New Jersey#Massachusetts#ConnecticutDistrict of Columbia#West Virginia#Vermont#Rhode Island

--Timeshifter (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New color scheme of map[edit]

Hey everyone. So Timeshifter and I have been in a dispute over the past week or so over whether the D's on the map need to be colored black for accessibility purposes, rather the dark red that I proposed as an alternative to the pure red which was used for many years (the pure red as Timeshifter correctly pointed out was not sufficient for accessibility purposes). I made a post at WikiProject Maps asking for more input on the matter but haven't gotten much support for my position over there, lol. So the D's are probably going to have to be changed to pure black, which isn't the end of the world but I don't care for the current color scheme of the map with the black D's substituted for red. So I came up with some alternative color schemes using this site and uploaded some samples to see what people thought. I also came up with a 9th color scheme which I took from Help:Using colours and made the borders black instead of white. I'm kind of liking 9 the best, with 3, 4 and, 8 also being decent. Thoughts?

edit: Actually I'm kind of liking 8 the best after having more time for these to sink in.

--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the original map colors (as does TheTechnician27) that have been around a long time. They aren't washed out pastels. And they work well with the white borders.
But for the decriminalized states I would prefer white diagonal striping on top of the state color. Instead of using "D" on the map. As suggested by SportingFlyer at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps#Must the text used within maps always be pure black?
File:Map of US state cannabis laws.svg
--Timeshifter (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying this just a compromise: I actually really enjoy both Jamesy's Map 6 (now that we no longer use the light green for CBD, I think this looks great, with the cherry on top being that cannabis is commonly associated with the color green) and the stripes idea. In fact, I think I enjoy Map 6 moreso than the previous color scheme of the blue with the green, mainly because I feel like the darker green we used would be better off associated with full (recreational and medicinal) legalization, and the contrast is easily discernible but not jarring jarring. Moreover, I like Timeshifter's/SportingFlyer's idea of using diagonal stripes instead of the 'D' for decriminalization. I believe it would 1) make it considerably easier to, at a glance, determine which states are decriminalized while also having accessibility, 2) look more aesthetically pleasing, and 3) more intuitively (and interlingually) convey what's happening. Thus, my vote is for Jamesy's Map 6 with diagonal stripes for decriminalized states; I actually believe that would look fantastic so long as the color scheme in Map 6 is suitable for those with accessibility issues as Jamesy says it is. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds OK to me. As long as there is no color blindness problem. Someone needs to run this map's colors through the tester pages. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decriminalized: Diagonal striping alternating between white and a US state's background color[edit]

See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps#Diagonal striping alternating between white and a US state's background color. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone not paying attention to the discussion at WikiProject Maps, we found a way to do the hatching and I have proposed five maps that I think would be acceptable, which are shown below.

Timeshifter has proposed this one:

Comment over there I guess to keep it in one place, even though I am not sure if maybe the conversation would be better suited over here now that we have figured out the technical issue.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lighter green in the map[edit]

TheTechnician27. Please compare these 2 maps. The larger size (350px wide) is the same as in the map template at the top of the article. What do you think of the map with the lighter green #80CE69? The blue and gray colors are the same. I find it easier to read the "D", especially at smaller thumbnail map sizes. I also made the white borders slightly wider in the map with the lighter green. The new map does very well in all the color blindness and contrast testers. I increased the size of the D in the 2nd set of maps below.

Larger font size for the "D":

--Timeshifter (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lighter green looks OK to me but I wouldn't increase the size of the D's much otherwise it starts to look rather cartoonish... which I would say starts to occur once you increase it to more than 19 or 20 px. As far as thumbnail size, I'm not worried about what the map looks like at 180 px (the size you posted), 100 px, or anything like that. The standard thumbnail size is 220 px and I have never even seen the map used at anything other than 350 px.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 05:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You never know when an image may be used at standard thumb size (no pixels indicated in wikitext) in Wikipedia or off Wikipedia.

For logged-in users they set the thumbnail size here:

  • Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering - From 120px to 400px.

I don't think the enlarged D size looks cartoonish. The size of the enlarged "D" in the above map is the maximum size I would use because a larger size would not fit in the state of New Hampshire. If larger sizes were used in the other states I can see that it would look weird at a certain point. But the current SVG code only allows one to change the D size in all states. And I see no need to increase the D size more than I already did.

In cell phones the larger D size matters even more. The larger D size helps me see it clearly in all locations: thumbs, desktops, mobile, tablets, etc.. Here is 220px thumbnail:

I find the larger D essential for my ability to read it. I am sure many others will find it helpful too. If we were already at this larger D size, there would be people ticked off if it were reduced in size. Especially to the tiny size it is now.

On my iphone SE 2020 I can't read the small Ds at 350px. I have to break out the magnifying glass, or use pinch-zoom. I can read the larger Ds at 350px without any aids. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just disagree that we should worry about what the map looks like at 220 px, 180 px, 120 px, or anything like that, since the map is never even used that way and people can just set the size at 350 px when the map is added to articles in the future or use Template:Legality of cannabis by US state which already sets the size at 350 px. And I don't know why increasing to 27 px is now "essential" when you previously said you don't have any problem seeing the black D's, even at smaller map sizes.

I can miss the "D" on the small state of New Hampshire if not paying attention. Red text was especially bad. Whereas pure black stands out even at smaller map sizes. I don't have to squint, or make an effort.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Map_of_US_state_cannabis_laws.svg#Color_of_D's
Let's just increase the D's to 19 or 20 px and be done with it already. Between making the D's black, making the green lighter, and increasing the D's some I think the map would be plenty accessible, as you yourself previously indicated.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I am right up on the monitor I can see the smaller D at 350px size. But if I am farther away, as I often am, then it is difficult. I am 3 feet away now, and it is difficult for me to make out the small D at 350px, and impossible at 220px, which I believe is the default thumbnail size.
People often put images in articles at thumbnail size without indicating a pixel size.
I am using a 27 inch monitor at the kitchen table. This is the PC I use the most at home. I am sitting in a high-back chair that I can tilt forward or back on. So 3 feet away is very comfortable. I know I am not alone in doing this.
I don't get why you almost always seek minimum accessibility versus trying to make the maps more accessible.
And you ignored what I wrote about cell phones: "In cell phones the larger D size matters even more." It's definitely essential for cell phones. Concerning your "seeing" ability it's like you only see what you want to see. I also wrote:

On my iphone SE 2020 I can't read the small Ds at 350px. I have to break out the magnifying glass, or use pinch-zoom. I can read the larger Ds at 350px without any aids.

--Timeshifter (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that. You said before you can see the black D's without squinting or making any extra effort, even at smaller map sizes. So I don't know why you are now saying something different on both accounts.

I don't get why you almost always seek minimum accessibility versus trying to make the maps more accessible.

That's not true actually. I have said multiple times that the pure red D's did not provide sufficient contrast and have thanked you for pointing that out. I also lightened the shade of green which you then reverted saying "Pure black worked fine against the original darker green color", "pure black is better with the darker green", and "The extra contrast from the pure black is more helpful against a darker shade of green.". Now you want to change it back saying the complete opposite of what you said before which I said would be fine to change it to what I originally proposed. I have also said that increasing the size of the D's some would be fine up to 20 px perhaps. So it is simply not true that I am seeking to minimize accessibility.... but I also do care about the appearance of the map as someone who has been very active in redesigning and maintaining it over the past 6+ years.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The map was reverted from the lighter shades of blue and green back to the original darker shades at the request of TheTechnician27. Edit summary:

Reverted to version as of 13:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC). Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps favors the black text and higher contrast. TheTechnician27 and I favor the original background colors for now.

TheTechnician27 found the lighter shades to be washed out. The reversion also allowed me to go back to the pure black for the text. That pure black was also preferred at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps#Must the text used within maps always be pure black?

I preferred the pure black text against the dark green background. As opposed to the maroon text color you liked. The darker green was the background color at the time. I never said I was against the lighter green background. I fully intended to ask about using the lighter green later. As I am doing now.

Concerning the hatching (diagonal lines) discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps#Diagonal striping alternating between white and a US state's background color you wrote (and I agreed):

Let's just leave the map the way it is.

That is the map with darker shades of blue and green. The map preferred by TheTechnician27.

You still haven't addressed the cell phone text size issues I brought up now. Do we need to go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps again so that people more concerned about accessibility can weigh in? Over 50 percent of website traffic is from cell phones. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course appearance on cell phones should be considered and yes it is true that they account for a large percentage of traffic. Please don't pretend that increasing the size to 27 is "essential" though after previously saying you "don't have to squint, or make an effort" to see the D's at their current size. I definitely do think they could be increased some though.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about desktop monitors until this thread. As I said, and you ignored:

If I am right up on the monitor I can see the smaller D at 350px size. But if I am farther away, as I often am, then it is difficult. I am 3 feet away now, and it is difficult for me to make out the small D at 350px

The increase in text size is essential for cell phones. As I wrote:

On my iphone SE 2020 I can't read the small Ds at 350px. I have to break out the magnifying glass, or use pinch-zoom. I can read the larger Ds at 350px without any aids.

--Timeshifter (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned cell phones in the very next sentence, so it is obvious you were referring to both desktop and cell phone there in stating that there was no problem. Here is the full quote:

I can miss the "D" on the small state of New Hampshire if not paying attention. Red text was especially bad. Whereas pure black stands out even at smaller map sizes. I don't have to squint, or make an effort. This is even more important on cell phones.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Map_of_US_state_cannabis_laws.svg#Color_of_D's
We were talking about cell phones throughout that discussion actually, such as how the map needed to be changed so you wouldn't have to turn up the brightness on your phone in the sunlight, because you said it uses up too much battery power to do that.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. My bad. Discussion before though was theoretical. I hadn't actually looked at the 350px map on a cell phone until this thread. And I never said that I had actually tested anything back then on a cell phone. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the recent change with the following edit summary:

Reverted to version as of 06:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC). Jamesy0627144 has not said the larger D size is too big for his cell phone. Or that he is able to clearly see the smaller D on his cell phone.

!. Yes, size 27 D's is still too big whether using my cell phone or desktop.

2. Yes, size 17 D's are clearly visible on my cell phone. I have repeatedly said though that I wouldn't be opposed to increasing the size some. So I went ahead and increased the size to 19 instead of 27, and if you want to I think increasing the size to 20 would be OK too.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the file names for the above maps to the map versions at the time of their posting. Back then we were comparing 2 different green colors, and between 19px "D" and 27px "D".
Currently we are comparing these 2 maps below at 350px wide (same as the template). We are only comparing the ability to distinguish the "D" in cell phones. It seems we have agreed on the lighter green color 80CE69.
These 2 maps below compare 27px and 20px "D". I find the size 27px "D" much easier to distinguish on my cell phone.
Do you not find the 27px "D" easier to distinguish on your cell phone at the 350px width below (as in Template:Legality of cannabis by US state)?

--Timeshifter (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not find the 27px "D" easier to distinguish on your cell phone at the 350px width below (as in Template:Legality of cannabis by US state)?

No.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jamesy0627144. Well, would you mind allowing me and others to be able to more easily distinguish it at 350px-wide template size and smaller on cell phones? I find it difficult to distinguish the "D" on my iphone SE 2020. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps[edit]

See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps#Ability to distinguish "D" on map on cell phones. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]