Talk:Marijuana Policy Project

There was a link to Chuck Thomas earlier, but the substub for him was deleted due to non-notability. 205.217.105.2 15:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jack black was listed, but Kyle Gass was not so I added him.

I dont believe we should have a quote in the opening, not least as we musnt let this organisation appear top define themselves re our WP:NPOV policy, SqueakBox 23:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

As far as I know, the organization focuses on marijuana, and not other cannabis products such as hashish, hashish oil, hemp, etc. I believe we should leave the "marijuana" references intact. Josephgrossberg 16:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you source this as there is no eveidence to support what you say? Wikipedia uses the scientific word cannabis not the US word marijuana and I dont see why this article should be different from all the others. We need to remain consistent. Changing the link for Cannabis (drug) to marijuana, a redirect, is clearly unhelpful as we try and repair redirects not create them, SqueakBox 16:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

(Quick note: I didn't make that change; some anonymous user did.)

"Marijuana" is not synonymous with "cannabis" -- it is a specific. subset of the latter ^[1], so a substitution is often but not always appropriate.

This particular article should be "different from all the others" because this organization deliberately focuses on marijuana; and not cannabis in general.

For example, there is the Nevada initiative that MPP backed:

Section 3. Article 4 of the Constitution of the State of Nevada is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section to read as follows:
Sec. 39. Regulation of marijuana.
As used in this section, "marijuana" means a plant of the genus Cannabis or its product, but does not include hashish. ^[2]

I think it is clear that in this one case, the more specific term "marijuana" is accurate and "cannabis" is incorrect. Josephgrossberg 21:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I dont think that is so at all as Americans tend to call cannabis marijuana far more commonly than they call it cannabis but the wikipedia international name for the wikipedia international encyclopedia is cannabis. Some source about them not wanting preparations but only the plant would be best to back yourself up, SqueakBox 01:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just gave you a source -- the Nevada bill they spent a year pushing for, which mentions marijuana, Cannabis and hashish by name -- and I'm not sure what else you want.

You're clearly in the minority on this, for what it's worth -- I'm one of multiple users (check the varying IP addresses) who has changed it to say "marijuana" and you're the only one who replaces that with "cannabis".

Twice previously, you even changed the quoted mission mission statement, before finally removing it (in frustration?).

I just can't see you conceding the point that, in this particular case, "marijuana" is the correct term.

I contribute to Wikipedia because it's interesting and fun; this edit war is neither. I am tired of this dispute and am not going to do any cannabis→marijuana reverts any more. Josephgrossberg 14:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

In the minority? How is that in a debate between 2 people. IP addresses are not confiable especially when they dont join in the devbate on the talk page. I have stated I think a quote in the opening is wrong in any article though you were right that if the quote says marijuana we shoulkdnt change the quote to say cannabis. I honestly think that in your ref they used marijuana because that is what Americans do and many have a problem with the word cannabis because it isnt used a lot in the States. But wikipedia does use the word cannabis, nor does the UK, see this story from today, SqueakBox 15:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would say that in accord with general wikipedia standards and international usage as seen on global newsgroups, we should use the "cannabis" nomenclature rather than "marijuana" in all references except direct quotes and the name of the organization itself. Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Drug Free America Foundation article needs expansion. I tried to add a little to it, but sourcing stuff has been tough. Gigs (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the United States of America medical marijuana is legal in twenty-three states and in the District of Columbia; while recreation marijuana use is legal in only three states. The state of Colorado has legalized both medical and recreational use of marijuana. The federal legalization of marijuana would benefit all people in the United States by offering alternative medical treatments, refocused state legislation, and increased state revenue. The legalization of cannabis in Colorado provides homeopathic and natural treatment options for numerous medical conditions. Use of medical cannabis helps relieve the side effects of several medical conditions such as chronic pain, appetite loss, sleep deprivation, and nausea. Secondly, the cost of prohibiting marijuana, at state and federal levels, is estimated at eight billion dollars each year (Blackwell, 691). Marijuana prohibition diverts critical law enforcement resources from violent crime. Also, while other states are seeing cut backs in their education programs as a result of national budget cuts, Colorado has promised forty billion dollars from recreational medical marijuana excise tax to public schools. As one of the first states to legalize medical marijuana, Colorado officials are working through unforeseen problems but also receiving millions in tax revenue. One thing remains clear, while the state of Colorado has legalized marijuana sales on a state level, marijuana sales are still very much illegal on the federal level.

Works Cited Blackwell, J. Michael. “The Costs and Consequences of US Drug Prohibition for The Peoples of Developing Nations.” Indiana International & Comparative Law Review 25.1 (2015): 665-692. Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 Apr. 2016. <http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=4&sid=e1220709-c354-44af-9113-b39bce636b36%40sessionmgr4002&hid=4201&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=102812210>

2601:280:C000:1A4C:8D6F:D983:8EF3:18C9 (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marijuana Policy Project. 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/20140529064352/http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/out-of-state-money-funded-push-to-pass-amendment-64-and-legalize-marijuana-in-colorado to http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/out-of-state-money-funded-push-to-pass-amendment-64-and-legalize-marijuana-in-colorado

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) 18:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Marijuana Policy Project. 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/20120608022700/http://www.mpp.org/about/mission-statement.html to http://www.mpp.org/about/mission-statement.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130216231911/http://www.uatrav.com/2012/11/07/issue-5-goes-up-in-smoke-narrowly/ to http://www.uatrav.com/2012/11/07/issue-5-goes-up-in-smoke-narrowly/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111212114629/http://cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/4109.html to http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/4109.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100118123239/http://hightimes.com/news/bean/6133 to http://hightimes.com/news/bean/6133
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111010011418/http://mppcalifornia.org/home/ to http://www.mppcalifornia.org/home/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Kzawidzki (talk · contribs), thank you for declaring a WP:COI on your user page. You are strongly encouraged not to edit this article directly, but to instead bring ideas to talk where they can be discussed and vetted by impartial editors. Please don't make edits like this, which remove reliably sourced content without an explanation. If you have issues with the content, or alternative sourcing, I suggest starting a discussion here and then other editors can implement any changes that are agreed upon. Marquardtika (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Leadership at the organization has recently changed, so I propose the following edits to reflect that:

Matthew Schweich, who joined MPP as the director of state campaigns in early 2015, served as interim executive director until August 2018, when the organization named Steven W. Hawkins its new executive director.^[3]

Staff size and budget numbers also need an update for accuracy:

MPP has grown to over 40,000 dues-paying members and is the largest marijuana policy reform group in the United States. The organization has approximately 20 staffers and an annual budget of about $7 million.

Kzawidzki (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The first change seems fine. Do you have a source for the "MPP has grown to over..." part? We want to avoid the organization's own website whenever possible. Marquardtika (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what kind of sources you want me to provide. All one has to do is count the number of staff on our staff page for an accurate number. For the budget, our 990s are publicly published online. For our number of dues-paying members, I have referenced our member database. I'm just trying to provide accurate updates for all of this information. Kzawidzki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Vermont's bill was signed in late January, so I propose the following edit to reflect that:

In January 2018, the Vermont Legislature passed a limited legalization bill, which will make it legal for adults to possess and grow limited amounts of marijuana. Gov. Phil Scott (R) signed the bill into law on January 22, 2018. MPP’s staff and lobbyists led advocacy efforts for medical marijuana, decriminalization, and legalization in Vermont for more than 15 years.

Kzawidzki (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Could you provide a source for this? The last sentence, especially, is promotional. The whole section "state legislative victories" is actually problematic. This should be an encyclopedia article reflecting an overview of the group, its history, activities, and why it is notable. Per WP:NOTPROMOTION, it shouldn't resemble a press kit or brag sheet of "accomplishments." At a minimum, we need some sourcing (not MPP authored per WP:SPS) for the Vermont stuff. Marquardtika (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I propose deleting this whole section. Kampia is no longer affiliated with the organization in any way, so this information is no longer relevant.

Kzawidzki (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

This content is still relevant to MPP and it history, as Kampia was the long-time leader. Seven MPP staffers quit. This is a notable episode in the organization's history and its notability isn't reduced because Kampia is gone--in fact, he is gone because of the scandal, affirming the notability of this issue. Marquardtika (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

He's not actually gone because of the scandal. Not sure why you purport to know more about the organization than I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kzawidzki (talk • contribs) 14:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Look, Wikipedia does not look fondly upon COI editors. I tried to explain that to you and to help you. But I have no interest in helping you if you are going to be rude. I'm done here. If you continue trying to push your edits through here, I'll start a discussion at WP:COIN. Marquardtika (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sir, people outside of the organization, without a COI, can't always provide the accurate information. I want the information for our organization to be correct, not wrong and outdated. So I'm not sure what you want me to do here. The staff numbers, budget numbers, etc. are all incorrect. Kzawidzki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Within my research that I have done recently, there a many benefits to legalizing marijuana. According to the World Health Organization, North America is the largest consumer of marijuana. Why wouldn't the U.S. want to take advantage of this market. The amount of money that can be gained from the taxes and revenue that could be brought in is exponential. This market can do so much for the American economy; the money that this market would bring would exceed the amount of money it takes to prosecute. Jeffrey Miron who is a Harvard economist estimates the legal and illegal market to be around fourteen billion dollars. Not only making it legal for medical use, recreational use would sky rocket these numbers. There are already policies in place for not prosecuting medical marijuana business and users, for example the in 2009 the Department of Justice issued the Ogden Memo stating operations in medical marijuana states cannot be prosecuted. Also the amount of jobs that can be created for this industry for example government regulators, license issuers, jobs in retail and agriculture. Also the amounts of jobs that can be created for research and to further explore its benefits. Thank you Rachael Underwood — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdrunderwood (talk • contribs) 23:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply