Talk:Legal and medical status of cannabis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Drug Policy, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of drug policy. Feel free to participate by editing this article or by visiting the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] Rename or merge

I suggest this page be renamed to 'Medical status of cannabis' or be merged into another article. There is already Decriminalization of cannabis in the United States & Legal issues of cannabis, so I think this should be strictly about medical status. ChristopherMannMcKay 09:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've already added merge tags, and it looks like it should be merged into legal status due to massive overlap. Legal and medical status are one and the same. —Viriditas | Talk 09:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"Legal and medical status are one and the same" There are places that have rescheduled cannabis for medical issues, which this page explains. That is different than reducing punishments or allowing non-medical use. So, they are not one and the same. I was saying that this page only really tells about medical cannabis and not cannabis for non-medical reasons, that is why I suggested renaming it--at least until it is merged. ChristopherMannMcKay 01:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I'm concerned that this article is heavily slanted to a pro-legalisation POV, particularly in the section regarding the United States. The tone doesn't seem entirely appropriate for an encyclopedia. Does anyone agree, or am I way off base here? Carom 20:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks factually accurate to me. -- Davidkevin 13:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well if you feel that please edit the article to make it more balanced and NPOV, SqueakBox 20:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

U.S. section is totally inaccurate, and inclusion of information on FDA program is irrelevant at best. Marijuana is illegal everywhere in the U.S. under federal law (with the apparent exception of this FDA program). The reference to a "medical necessity" defense resulting in hte FDA program is total nonsense. The idea of medical necessity as a defense wasn't even around back in the 70's. It was first brought forward by law profession Eugene Volokh at UCLA during the late 90's. Incidentally, courts have firmly rejected the defense in a few recent cases.

The graphic is also inaccurate inasmuch as it makes it appear that use is "decriminalized" in certain U.S. states. This is patently false, as the federal prohibition remains in full effect per the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Violators can be, and frequently are, prosecuted under federal law including the CSA and criminal RICO. Despite the removal of state-level criminal laws, state and local authorities are empowered to enforce the federal law (CSA) through prosecution in state courts, and frequently local authorities choose to do so even where state law does not define the conduct as criminal. 24.219.30.222 (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)