This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cannabis List‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cannabis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cannabis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CannabisWikipedia:WikiProject CannabisTemplate:WikiProject CannabisCannabis articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law List‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: 50,000 Challenge List‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Unreferenced BLPs Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help!

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[reply]

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[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[reply]

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[reply]

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[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[reply]

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

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

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[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)

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[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[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[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131024033036/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/november96/marijuana_11-7.html to http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/november96/marijuana_11-7.html

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[reply]

I vote to nuke it.Terrorist96 (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

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[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[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[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[reply]

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[reply]

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

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

@Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney: So just change west virginia to legal medical? Psychoactive or not?Houdinipeter (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Psychoactive.Terrorist96 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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[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[reply]

Houdinipeter (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Houdinipeter: thanks but it looks like you used the decriminalized color.Terrorist96 (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, Indiana should be the same color as Tennessee, I believe. Soccer11147 (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150801064052/http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/16/tribe-bets-on-legal-pot to http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/16/tribe-bets-on-legal-pot

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[reply]

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130610093111/http://governor.vermont.gov/gov-shumlin-signs-marijuana-decriminalization to http://governor.vermont.gov/gov-shumlin-signs-marijuana-decriminalization

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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]

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

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

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

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[reply]

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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

Started a topic for discussion at the WikiProject Cannabis page.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]

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[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[reply]

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

CBD is now legal in Kansas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.119.98 (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]

 Done --Jamesy0627144 (talk) 07:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[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[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[reply]

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[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[reply]

Moving 4jonah's comments to be their own new section. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

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

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[reply]

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[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[reply]

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

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[reply]

@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[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[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[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[reply]

Yeah, nice one! Jdcooper (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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[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[reply]

@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[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[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[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[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[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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

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

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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

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[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[reply]

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[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[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[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[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[reply]

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

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[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[reply]