File talk:World-cannabis-laws.png

The sources of this map are www.norml.org, www.erowid.org, www.webehigh.com, emcdda.europa.eu, and right here on wikipedia. If sources country by country are needed should i list them here or make a new page? CL8 01:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

List them here. Now isnt the moment but I will look for stuff myself over the next days, starting with Latin America and Europe so maybe you could start elsewhere. I think this is an excellent place to source the map info in this unquestionably controversial and international topic SqueakBox 01:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I've gotten started. I've done North and South America and what I've got on Europe. Sorry but those are the sources I have available right now. However, a lot of my Central America is still unknown. If you can find any additions or any corrections, please let me know and I'll add them to the map. Any new or additional sources, please add them in the below section.... I'll do Africa/Asia later tonight or tomorrow. Thanks! CL8 06:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Great work. These sources are exactly what we need. Of course it is a contentious issue, my experience of Portugal, for instance, completely contradicts this and while I dont bring my own experiences to wikipedia as unsourced my point is well made, I see someone is disputing the German bit on your talk page, SqueakBox 19:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree. These sources look good like this. They are just what is needed. If you can add any sources for any countries please do. And this map and sources should be discussed like the German guy. However I am not going to change Germany unless he can give me a source of some kind that contradicts the 2 or 3 sources I have. Just like anywhere on wikipedia, we'll make changes when there is concensus or new sources of information. :) - CL8 22:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK! I think I'm done listing all of the sources I have (still can't find my sources for Bahrain and North Korea). Please add or send me any additional sources. CL8 16:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

You might want to change the colors to be more distinctive (show contrast), as some of them (e.g. the light blue and regular blue) are too similar. People who are mildly colorblind would have a lot of trouble with this. -Nathan J. Yoder 13:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Unenforced" in Sweden?

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

As a resident Swede who also happens to be a cannabis liberal, I find the claim about cannabis usage not being enforced to be somewhat dubious. In Sweden you can (especially if you're underage) get busted for merely doing the drug, never mind possession of small amounts. And while there is plenty of skepticism to the harsh narcotics laws in the younger generation, cannabis usage is still a very major taboo among most Swedes. You can certainly get away with smoking in public, but only because most people don't know what they're dealing with (unless you look like a gangster, a skater or if you sport dreads). And I've never heard of Swedish police officers knowingly ignoring people whom they've spotted with a joint. To the best of my knowledge, most narcotic-related arrests are cannabis-related.

I don't find anything in the sources, other than the WebBeHigh-pages which aren't completely reliable, that would confirm that the cannabis laws aren't enforced quite stringently.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

One example of how Swedish authorities look on cannabis usage is the raid on a Reggae Festival in August this year, described in the Local. [3] and [4]. The public response to this was generally in favor of the police taking harsh action against anyone who uses illegal drugs. There is also a practice in Sweden of not classifying illegal drugs at all, the police website simply says that they are all illegal and that further discussion is irrelevant. Dankidding 22:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I saw a programme about drug enforcement in Sweden some years ago and their policy was anything but liberal or unenforcing. They are like the Japan of Europe in terms of extremely intolerant attitudeas and people being busted for cannabis in their bloodstream, SqueakBox 22:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Alright. I'm changing Sweden. :) CL8 23:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good!

Remember, Swedish law enforcement is not uniform throughout the country. Sweden have a great populationcenter in the south, in the former east provinces of Denmark were cannabis by any standards have to be considered street legal. It is sold in the streets of their naval quarters a block away from the congress and forigne departments for crying out loud!

On minors; Minors are in the custody of their legal guardians and can neither buy alcohol, tobacco nor soda with high caffein/sugarcontent legally in Sweden.

On smoking cannabis as an adult; I have for the better part of the last 15 years smoked cannabis on a daily basis. I've smoked in public on several occasions, in front of groups of both police officers, private law enforcement corporations, together with policemen, custom officers and medical doctors. I've smoked cannabis on the main square of Malmö during their cityfestival and I have done it at the national historical park of Skansen in Stockholm and at the Tivoli in Copenhagen as well as several other places. I have never had any problem with the law concerning the use of cannabis neither in Scandinavia nor any place else in the world I have visited smoking.

Who can honestly make an argument that it helps anything to publicly portray Sweden as a drugfascist state when in truth it is not. There does exist a great deal of scare tactics and propaganda. The country has a tradition of regulating drugs to the extreme and cannabis is yet not regulated and thus "illegal". But to quote a good friend of mine; "Show me one acutall case of someone being punished in any way for smoking dope in Sweden and I'll show you a jury who will not get prescriptions for the drugs they need." I've talked to a lot of people about this in person and there are threat and the like but still no one that have come forward claiming that they have ever paid a fine or done a day in jail for smoking marijuana.

Sincerly

Chris *Lakey — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSjoholm (talk • contribs) 12:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Morocco

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On Morocco we can read

Morocco ranks among the world’s largest producers and exporters of cannabis, and its cultivation and sale provide the economic base for much of the population of northern Morocco. The cannabis is typically processed into hashish.

So how is it really? Because the map lights Morocco in red, and the links above say that it is illegal.

No contradiction I can see, its just like in many poor countries, enforcemtent is sporadic due to lack of resources, SqueakBox 18:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

NO, in morroco its mainly due to corruption.

so maybe let's mark it as "illegal but often unenforced"?

Map key colours

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Excellent map, but the red colours in the key look very similar, and could perhaps do with making more different from one another, especially the reddish ones. The Real Walrus 10:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Reddish colors? There's a pink, a red, and an orange and they look nothing alike....Which colors are you having trouble with? It's roughly a 'temperature scale' color pattern and I'd like to keep it that way. CL8 01:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, I can see that there is a very slight difference between "confirmed illegal" and "illegal but often unenforced". I suggest making the latter in yellow, keeping it on the "temperature scale" theme. Hrodrik 05:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

A very slight difference? One is orange, the other is red. I used the built in labelled colors, not my own... I guess I could make the orange a bit lighter, but it looks good to be as is... Can you really tell me that when you look at China next to India you can barely see a difference? On my monitor they are clearly different. Thanks. CL8 05:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nevermind. I have now made the red used for illegal much darker. This should help to distiguish it from both the orange and the pink. Please reload the image and see if this helps. Thanks for the advice!! :) CL8 05:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that's much better. My screen is not very new and I've noticed that it's hard to distinguish some shades, compared to my laptop. Take the possible differences in systems into consideration when making other maps. Hrodrik 06:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

No problem. :) CL8 06:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to see 'Probably Illegal' changed to a more professional term. Presumably, Precedently or Antecedently perhaps. Also, the grouping of 'Legal' and "Essentially Legal' is quite broad. The map colouring gives the impression you will not be held accountable for possession in Ontario, Canada, which is not the case. You will just as likely there as you would the rest of Canada, which is coloured 2-stages differently. scoreoneforaids 04:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Canada

Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments10 people in discussion

Small amounts in Canada are decriminalized. (Not legalized, but still decriminalized, meaning you can't go to jail or anything. In the same way a parking ticket is decriminalized). Can someone change it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.222.173.28 (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC).Reply

All the references I have say otherwise. It is almost never enforced but its LEGAL status is still illicit and jail time is legally possible even for small amounts. CL8 01:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would like to see these references? 24.222.173.28 02:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. Ontario's cannabis laws were recently overturned by the courts. While the law still remains on the books, the courts have set a legal precident in deeming the law to be invalid. While one can be arrested for posession of small amounts of marijuana, one cannot be convicted for posession of small amounts of marijuana in Ontario. Because of this, the police don't waste their time with small amounts of cannabis unless it can help in an investigation of another crime. Basically cannabis is in legal limbo... even the police aren't sure what to do half of the time.

Arguably, there's no real limbo that differs from the other provinces of Canada, so I'd like to see Ontario on the map changed Orange for the time being. The recent precedent-setting hearing (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/07/13/pot-toronto.html) refers to "personal amounts" (under 30 grams) and for medical purposes. True, this precedent can (and no doubt will) be extended to personal, non-medicinal possession but until that is made into law Ontario, as with the rest of Canada, still sits comfortably as "Illegal but often unenforced." scoreoneforaids 12:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Criminal law is national, Ontario has no way of making its own specific law. Despite this, a court ruling by a federally-appointed provincial judge has effect on the specific province where the ruling was made, not the entire country, so this is why the blue is Ontario-specific and not national. The blue colour also outlines either truly legal or "practically" legal. Since the law as a whole was challenged and overturned by a Justice of the Ontario Superior Court, the entire law is considered invalid in the province, and therefore cannot be used until either the ruling is overturned by a higher court or the law is re-written at the federal level. Yes, the ruling was specifically made in reference to medical use, but by striking it down, the entire law was made void. To quote:

In court, the man argued that the federal government only made it policy to provide marijuana to those who need it, but never made it an actual law. Because of that, he argued, all possession laws, whether medicinal or not, should be quashed. The judge agreed and dismissed the charges.
— CBC.ca, http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/07/13/pot-toronto.html

That right there pretty much sums it up. Until the ruling is reversed, Ontario should remain blue. Snickerdo 22:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I also disagree with the map indicating many U.S. states to be decriminalized. Posession of any quantity of cannabis is illegal in all U.S. states under federal law. Although state laws may not criminalize cannabis, federal law does.--70.81.251.32 00:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would also like to add that I am very tempted to colour Saskatchewan in red rather than orange. Prosecution of criminal matters, although covered by federal law, is up to provincial courts. Many provinces - BC, Ontario and Quebec come to mind - have courts and crown attorneys/crown prosecutors who have been known to outright refuse prosecution of marijuana possession cases, and Ontario right now is in an interesting state of legal limbo where the law is invalid. Saskatchewan, on the other hand, has historically been very vigilant with prosecution of possession offences, and have even gone so far as to charge people with trafficing for handing a lit joint to someone else - I know of not one case of this, but several. I would like to hear thoughts from others on this. Normally I would not consider this, but Saskatchewan seems to be a very interesting situation in the nation when it comes to enforcing possession laws. Simply put, based on my knowledge you are just as likely to land up in jail and before a judge for a marijuana offence in Saskatchewan as you are in Michigan, Texas or any of the other US states coloured in red. Anyone else care to discuss? Snickerdo 22:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ontario should definately NOT be blue. Like it was stated before, Ontario possession laws are vague, however it is still very much illegal and therefore making Ontario blue on the map is misleading (and downright ludacris). I was just arrested for having 3.5 grams of pot on me IN ONTARIO and I was charged. The judge threatened me with 2 years jail time, but my duty council convinced him to lower it to Probation and Community Service because I had no priors. You call that Legalized? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.121.3 (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Haha if you got arrested you must have been a real dick to the cop and the judge or you were driving like an idiot or something stupid, and even then I don't believe you. It's by now way legalized, but the law has been ruled void and therefore the charge can't be held against you in court. They can arrest you and do all that good stuff, but they cannot legally convict you of anything until the July 13 ruling is overturned. Next time, get a better lawyer (or put two and two together like the July 13 guy did and argue the law yourself) and don't be such an idiot with the cop. The legal precedence has already been set, all you had to do was mention it to the judge to get it thrown out. At least you have grounds for appeal, unless you were stupid enough to plead guilty *shrug* Snickerdo 18:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, you might want to read the long post in the following page of this thread: http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1334314&fpart=22 Simply put, it was up to your lawyer to bring up R. v Long. If he/she didn't, and if you didn't do enough research on your own defence to advise council to bring it up, it's your own god damn fault you god convicted with something that has already been ruled unconstitutional. Good luck getting into the USA - or any other country outside Canada - at any point in your life in the future. It's your own fault. Snickerdo 18:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Since when has Marijuana been legal in Ontario? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle Falcon (talk • contribs) 00:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

From the Toronto Police:

"For the time being, nothing changes," Toronto police spokesman Mark Pugash said about how the force deals with marijuana possession. "We have to wait and see what happens with the process through the courts."
— CBC.ca, http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/07/13/pot-toronto.html

Therefore Ontario should not be colored blue. Police continue to arrest anyone in possession of marijuana, a controlled substance. 69.158.159.16 21:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, the police can arrest all they want, but as long as the ruling is there and as long as you invoked said ruling, the judge has NO CHOICE but to throw it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.166.54 (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC) The R. v. Long case is NOT binding, since the case was thrown out at the lowest court level (Ontario Court of Justice). Infact, Judge Borenstein stated himself that he could only "find" the possession laws to be unconstitutional, not "declare" that the possession laws are unconstitutional. Since the Long case, many people in Ontario have been arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced for Marijuana possession and trafficking. It is absurd that it is coloured blue on the map. The Crown IS appealing the Long case, and the appeal will be heard by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. If the Court agrees with Long again, the ruling WILL be binding. If the Superior Court agrees with the Crown, then other people charged with Marijuana possession will not be able to use Long's argument. (There is also the possibility that this case could then be appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, and then the Supreme Court of Canada, but that is a long way from now). In short, judges can agree with the Long decision, but it is NOT binding, and more judges than not are still convicting people charged with marijuana possession.Reply

That is not true. The Crown never filed appeal within the 15 days ordered by the presiding judge. As a result, the R. v Long ruling has come into full force, and other cases - including one in October in Oshawa [5] - have been thrown out on these grounds. A strong legal precedent is forming in the province and it is snowballing nationally. As a result, Ontario very much is now deserving of the blue colour on the map. You may want to take a look at http://www.thepotlawhasfallen.ca/ - as of October 2007, the Crown hadn't even filed an appeal, although the judge in the October case believed there was an appeal. To quote the presiding judge:

THE COURT: I am going to expand my ruling ever so slightly simply to reflect what has happened here in the courtroom. I am ruling that in the face of the information that the case, *R. v. Long*, is under appeal by the Crown and the reluctance of the Crown here today to have the present case adjourned pending the outcome on the *R. v. Long* appeal, the charge is dismissed on the basis that the decision of Regina and Borenstein in *Long* is persuasive and there is no offence known to law which the accused have committed.
— ThePotLawHasFallen.ca, http://www.thepotlawhasfallen.ca/2007October19.html

If you check out the website, the lawyer confirms that R. v Long has not been appealed. Until such a time as an appeal, the ruling has no force as confirmed by the Court. It's only going to get more interesting from here now that there have been two rulings with one of them confirming that the law has no force. The R. v Stavert ruling in 2003 may be enough of a precedent to nullify the law nationally, but a judge must first make a ruling based on this in another province for the precedence to be set. Snickerdo (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Does anybody have any updated information about this? Where do these rulings stand now, December 2011? I would understand if the crown found around this without actually reforming the law but there seems to be no record of it past when cases began to be dismissed between 2000 and 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.49.226 (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Vancouver Island is coloured orange, but the rest of BC is pink, is this accurate? 199.180.96.190 (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

United States - Federal government vs States

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

While marijuana is decriminalized in several American states (such as California, which is coloured as such on the map), Federal government officials still persecute people in those states who have marijuana. Thus, the entire American map should be coloured as "Confirmed illegal". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.161.113.83 (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

Decriminalized US states don't have federal prosecution for minor possession. This map is only about minor possession and it is correct as to that. thanks. CL8 18:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I had gotten arrested, spent the night in jail, and was charged with 5th degree marijuana possession for having a $10 bag of some low quality shake in my car that I didn't even know was there. I would have smoked it in a blunt already if I had known... damnit[Why 5th degree possession and not 7th? Because cops around here don't get into any trouble for lieing or else I wouldn't have been pulled over in the first place.] This was last month[December '06] I live in New York. It is absolutely not decriminalized.

Yes it is. Read the lengthy discussion here. CL8 15:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I have worked for Legal Aid so I should know. This page is wrong, and NORML gets it wrong, unless you have a wacky definition of "decriminalized." (To NORML's credit, unlike this map, it qualifies "decriminalized" with "decriminalized to some degree.") Mere possession of more than 25 grams (0.88 oz) is absolutely a misdemeanor which will get you jail time, no matter where or why you have it. Smoking a tiny joint in public is a misdemeanor, and will get you jail time. Holding an unlit joint (open to public view) is a misdemeanor, and will get you jail time.¹ It is true that possession of less than 25 grams at home or concealed in public in "only" a violation, but it still falls under the criminal code, and guess what, on a third drug offense, it will still get you jail time. And even on the first offense if you're on parole it can send you back to prison. These laws are enforced—unequally of course, but routinely and on a very large scale.

And of course, like every state in the USA, it is illegal under federal law. Which is normally only enforced by federal agents, but can be referred by state/local police. I've never seen this happen in NY for small cases, as it's already illegal under state law. The above poster's story is entirely credible, I've interviewed many defendants who have spent a night in jail for dime bags. And some of them were destined to spend more nights in jail.

¹ The allegation is usually that the defendant saw the police and tossed a small baggie containing marijuana to the ground. Whoops, possession in public view, that's a misdemeanor arrest charge. Many times in these dropsy cases it's actually found in an illegal pocket search and the police lie about the defendant ditching it. This is incredibly common (and not just in NY), to the extent of being nearly informal policy in some departments. Possession of marihuana in the 5th (any quantity of marijuana open to public view) is a real B misdemeanor with up to 3 months of jail.

NTK 14:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Alaska: Marijuana is currently legal to possess in the home in amounts up to four ounces. This certainly qualifies Alaska as "Essentially Legal".

The ballot to legalize in Alaska failed. It is decriminalized there, however. Just like Ohio it ONLY GIVES A CITATION for people possessing under 4 ounces for personal use. This is what decriminalized means. Buying/selling/smoking publically is still illegal and there are no legal coffeeshops like there are in the Netherlands and Switzerland. Alaska is the perfect example of an area that is decriminalized. CL8 15:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Germany

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I can't really agree with the decriminalized part for germany. Posession ist still illegal but the judge can (deppending on the state) dismiss it if it's only a very small amount of cannabis. In Bavaria for Example you get busted even for something like 1mg. In some it's a more lenient (up to 2g if i remember correctly). Switzerland is wrong too as far as i know.

I don't know about the situation today, but a few years ago, you could get away with 30g in Berlin... --Elfboi 18:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The lower part of Germany on the map should be coloured red, it is criminalized in Baden and Bavaria.

What you are saying directly contradicts the information I have referenced above...If you can find sources to back this up, please let me know. ;) Thanks! CL8 18:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am from Germany but live in United states now. German law says marijuana is not legal but if you have less than small amount cops usually give only a warning or maybe fine if there asholes. Map says decriminalized...is that what decriminalized means? Thanks nice map. --Retro89

Yes this is basically what decriminalized means. Thanks much for your input! :) CL8 00:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Im from and still in Germany. (so excuse my poor english) I dont think its decriminalized!!! In some Staates the judges can dismiss, thats true, but if u r caught in the car with this stuff you ll loose your driving license!!! Just because u used it, transporting this stuff. (thats why in most cases trains r used) doesnt matter if u r stoned or not! the consumption is not illegal! So the fact is: If you are sitting together, smoking joints, and u dont pass it to the others, there is only one person, that does illegal stuff. The Owner. If the owner of the weed places the joint in the thing for the ash (?? Aschenbecher in German.) like for normal cigarettes, and an other person takes the joint, and smokes, the second person doesnt do anything illegal. Thats because the second person doesnt become owner of the weed, and just is consuming. If the second person passes the joint to a thrid, the second person does something illegal!

End of the Story: Only consuming is legal. But bearly unpossible without onwing stuff. And onwing weed is highly illegal everywhere in Germany. In some staats its just that they dont care so much on charges for "personal use" and they close the case. But those charges arnt the same every where. (It also depends on the judges. :) ive seen on tv, that a judge smokes weed too, and if he has to judge about weed owners, he has higher tollerances, than other do!!!) User Dunstkreis in German wikipedia. :) PS: i live in Münster, near to Holland, and its realy hard to get some good weed at the moment, because they busted quite a lot of dealers!

Its never been illegal to consume in the UK, only to possess for instance, and this reality doesnt make for decriminalisation, SqueakBox 17:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Some things have been confused here. Consuming isn't illegl in Germany at all, it's possession and import which are prohibited. The police, contrary to what was stated above, is obligated to start a complaint in any case someone is catched possessing and/or importing cannabis. The prosecutor then has to decide wether he is going to bring it to court or leave it with a warning or a small fine, as long the amount of cannabis didn't excess what is called "Geringe Menge" (minor amount) in Germany. The "Geringe Menge" it handled differently by the federal Bundesländer and can vary from 3 Gramm (in Bavaria IIRC) to 30 Gramm (in Saarland IIRC). But the prosecutor might just don't care about the "Geringe Menge" and bring the case to court anyways, and is obligated to when the amount excesses the "Geringe Menge". However, the "Geringe Menge"-clause only counts once, the second time someone is catched possessing cannabis there will be a lawsuit. Additional factors totally indepedet from wether there's a lawsuit or not is the fact, that if someone is cought in a car, stoned or not, his/her driver's licence might get confiscated. The decision to do so is not a judge's work, but one of an official of the "Führerscheinstelle", the administrative unit for drivers' licenses. Conclusion: Very small amounts of cannabis can be either be tolerated for one single time or be punished. Bigger amounts or a second-time-catch will always be punished. That's not what I would call 'decriminalized'. 172.158.54.224 17:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

UK

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It's not decriminalised in the UK. It is still illegal - the recent changes were changing the drug from a Class B restricted substance to Class C.

I agree - was suprised to see this, it's /not/ decriminalised in the UK. I think even the 'illegal but often unenforced' category is not correct for the UK, the legal implications in terms of severity of punishment may have been relaxed recently (now 'class C') but this by no means decriminalises the drug. I believe this diagram is misleading. 82.112.137.168 17:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)PeterReply

A Class C drug is not decriminalized. Large possession, growing, distributing, trafficking -- all still illegal. However it seems that the prosecution statute gives NO JAIL TIME for minor possession. Therefore Class C drugs are still ILLEGAL but minor possession of them for personal use IS decriminalized and minor possession of them for personal use is exactly and exclusively what this map displays. If you want this changed, find me a source that says jail time is possible for minor possession. All of the sources that I have indicate that it is not. Thanks! CL8 19:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cannabis is a class c drug and as such falls under the Home Office regulations on drugs, class c drugs CAN lead to jail time.THE STATUTE DOES ALLOW FOR JAIL TIME PLEASE SOURCE WHERE IT HAS BEEN TAKEN OFF AND NOT JUST A CHANGE IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO POLICE OFFICERS. DECRIMINALIZATION MEANS NO LONGER A CRIMINAL OFFENCE NOT NO JAIL TIME...IT IS STILL VERY MUCH A CRIMINAL OFFENCE EVEN FOR MINOR POSSESSION. A source for you....the home office..http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs/drugs-law/Class-a-b-c/. Cannabis is a class C drug and as such can lead to up to two years in prison or unlimited fine.

I noticed this too, but because of the fact that the two maps show conflicting information. It is a class C drug, and this conflicting information should be sorted quickly. Reverieuk 23:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

FYI these posts are out of date now and cannabis is since reclassified to B and is no where near decriminalised. Also aren't all drugs for personal use in Portugal legal so why light blue? 77.102.39.153 (talk)

Peru

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there another source supporting the information that marijuana is legal in Peru? I did a small research in google and most sites say there is a ban on the drug.

I'll post a reference soon, it is legal, up to 8 grams.

here's a reference from Huffington Post: Marijuana Laws Huff Post up to 8 grams are legal, so long as you are not in possession of another illegal drug at the same time. From posts I've seen online, they are strictly enforcing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.79.153 (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Colombia

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The sources given here for Colombia and other countries are simply unreliable per W:NPOV.. and should be colored in red. --F3rn4nd0 ^{BLA BLA BLA} 20:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am in the process of looking for sources but official sources are hard to find. In the absence of official sources I will use news stories, nongovernmental organizations, or the published collected experience of travellers, etc.. This map is true to the best of the knowledge collected here. It does not claim to be definitive, but rather is a work in progress. The sources will get better as more and more users contribute. CL8 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

misleading image

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

in the United States, it is a supreme court ruling that state decriminalization of marijuana is unconstitutional under the commerce clause. seeing as this is the case, i believe marijuana is definitely illegal in every state, and is not decriminalized (although local authorities can still go about enforcing the law at their own discretion).

This is not the case. I live in Ohio, a decriminalized state. There is no federal enforcement for minor possession. I have heard of and read of numerous cases of simple citations being given for minor possession. It is decriminalized here and the federal government does nothing to interfere with it. I understand that this is the case in all decriminalized US states. CL8 06:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

From a technical legal perspective I believe the first poster is correct. Under the Controlled Substances Act, Cannabis is a Schedule I drug. State laws do not replace (for lack of a better term) Federal laws. So even if local or state police are not enforcing the federal law, it is still illegal, and federal agencies (ie DEA) will enforce it (although if you're caught by the DEA for an ounce of cannabis it's probably because you have kilos of something else.) Perhaps it would be better to note that in the U.S. it is illegal at the federal level, but is often unenforced in certain states. This could be indicated on the map in another color to show that it is decriminalized at the state level, but still illegal at the federal level. This would be the most appropriate way of delivering the correct information, as the individual states of the USA are not individual nations (the USA isn't a commonwealth.) --Tonytnnt 15:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Technically person 1 is right, but it doesnt always work like that..

No person 1 is incorrect. Decriminalization and legalization are not the same thing. The former is when it's still illegal but the penalties are only a fine etc rather than a criminal prosecution. Speeding is illegal but decriminalized because you only get a fine instead of being prosecuted as a criminal. It's possible for states to decriminalize without being in breach of federal law. 'Legalization' is another matter entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.34.82 (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

The interpretation of the constitution is always up for debate, so whether or not federal laws are above state laws is really up to the police/ local courts. And even if federal laws do bypass state laws, I think it would still be important to indicate the laws of each state, for reference purposes.

Re: CL8's first response. Just because marijuana laws are not being enforced currently doesn't mean Federal enforcement plans could not be implemented. While an officer may not pull you over for going 75 in a 70 mph zone that does not make it legal. The Federal government has neither the manpower nor time to enforce small possession marijuana violations. They are more concerned with stopping drugs at the border and using interdiction tactics to reduce supply side surplus. This does not mean small possession is legal, not bulletproof in decriminalized states.Whitoflaven 18:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're missing the point that we're not talking actual legality here, but rather "essential" legality. If a US state was to totally legalize marijuana, it would be "essentially" legal since the feds wouldn't be the ones doing the enforcement, of which they don't do in intrastate matters. The same applies to decriminalization. Until the feds actually start going out stormtrooping on personal possession cases, the map should stay the way it is. Snickerdo 06:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is essentially legal in many northern states in India, and the entire country on certain religious holidays. Likewise, it is hardly decriminalized in Brasil: while you only get sent to basically a light rehab program, it is mandatory or else leading to jail time. I think weould could use a new color for places where it is legal only for ethnic/religious regions/holidays like india, or medical reasons like nearly all the decriminalized states in the US, but where the federal government still basically considers it illegal in a technical sense. --— robbie ^{page talk} 19:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is fucking illegal in Arkansas! Don't get busted here damnit!

Weed in Taiwan

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I am from Taiwan and it is definately illegal to smoke there, smuggling is punishable by death or life imprisonment and smoking it is automatic jail time for 18 years. I dont know where the above website got that information from that Taiwan is only a 4 on a scale from 1 to 5 (with 1 being most strict). It is definately illegal there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.85.3.189 (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

Give me a decent source and I'll change it! :) CL8 15:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I will second this. Smoking weed in not tolerated in Taiwan. The source already listed above for Taiwan confirms this. [6] Every international airport in Taiwan has signs up about the drug trafficking death penalty. I will also confirm the source that weed is rare in Taiwan, with hash being the somewhat preferred form, but uppers and other drugs being more preferred over weed. Taiwan's biggest drug problem is definitely [meth]amphetamines, I think MDMA is also available, but generally speaking most folks stick to tobacco, alcohol, and betelnut. anyway, please color Taiwan red. NTK 14:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I concur...Taiwan should definitely be colored red. Marijuana is definitely illegal and enforced here. I wouldn't want some poor sap to see an orange colored Taiwan and conclude that it's a smoker's paradise, then get incarcerated for smoking. 203.73.233.131 04:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

So why hasn't this been changed yet? Who is in charge of updating this? Zachorious (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hashish

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can we have a map for the hashish belt (Morocco to India plus Europe). We have one of Europe which was in hashish and has been removed for POV reasons concerning the article and not the map; we have the world map but were it possible a map of the hash belt would be great, SqueakBox 17:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, you can make it yourself....or if you have a country list for hash laws, etc., I'd be happy to make it for you. :) CL8 19:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

geting high in spain

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

here it staes that possesiom of small amount of cannabis is decrimnilized while the map states that it is legel - who's right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.77.4.43 (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

I live in spain, and i know for a fact that consumption and possession of marijuana is completely illegal in spain and is strongly enforced.

Decriminalized in New Mexico, USA

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

However if in possession of over 1 ounce then it is illegal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thrawst (talk • contribs) 17:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

Middle East

using or posession of any type of drugs are illegal (By Quran & International Law) but the punishments can be "imprisonment" or "a heavy fine" for (small quantity), or "Death Penalty" for (large quantity).

Russia

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

In Russia cannabis is a Schedule I drug. According to the Criminal Code of Russia (Article 228) possession, storage, transportation and preparation of "large amount" of cannabis is illegal and is punishable by either a substantial fine (about 1500 USD), corrective work (up to 2 years) or imprisonment (up to 3 years), harsher sentences apply for "extremely large amount" (3-to 10 years imprisonment). Government Decree No. 76 from February 7, 2006 further elaborates the definition of "large amount" of cannabis as being equal to 6 grams (0.211 ounces) dried, and "extremely large amount" - 100 grams (3.512 ounces) dried. Growing any amount of cannabis immediately nets you a 4-to-8. It is most definitely NOT decriminalized in Russia.

Definitely NOT decriminalized. Posession of even less than 6 grams can be punished by imprisonment of 15 days. But that's not the worst thing that may happen. If one happens to share his stuff with some friends, he will be charged 4-8 years for "selling" it (UKRF 228.1), even if he gave it them for free. But even if one is toking alone and posessing less than 6 grams, he may still go to jail for a large amount, because of overwhelming corruption in police. They are really harsh, they can threaten one, demanding huge bribes, and if you don't pay, they can "magically" make you posess 200 grams, or a bag of heroin, whatever. It's very common here.

Even if one manages to escape trade and trafficking charges, and has only administrative punishment, he will still have a lot of trouble, because his name will be included in special police list ("поставят на учёт", not sure how to translate it), and he will lose his driving license, he may lose his job and be expelled from school or university, he will have serious trouble with finding a new job, going abroad, and he will be pressed with huge social stigma. Having been excluded from that list is possible only after a few years and is extremely difficult, requiring one to regularly pass drug tests to prove that he's clear. But again, all problems can be solved with huge bribes.

Therefore, let me change it.

NotStoned (talk) 08:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I thought it was SVG. Not sure how to edit PNG correctly, so I would please ask somebody more competent to do it. Thanks in advance. NotStoned (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Finland

On the map it says "Illegal but often unenforced" in Finland, which is far from correct. Cannabis laws in Finland are strictly enforced, partly because the public opinion about cannabis in Finland is strictly negative and discussion is a taboo. Source for the legality status, see Finland above. Correction has to be done to the image.

im from finland and I dissagree with it beein strictly enforced, there are cannabis marches around the year and often they end up in a park huge omounts of people lightin there joints and theres no cops even near. and this was made in a public park in the 5th Largest town in finland so im kinda sceptic about "strictly enforced"

Legend

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could the terms used in the legend be explained? For example, what is "essentially legal"? What is the difference between "decriminalized" and "legal"? -- Beland 17:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

As of November of 2014. The United States has legalized the manufacturing, possession, and distribution of Marijuana for anyone age 21 and older in 4 States. As we all know in Colorado and Washington were the first two states to legalize the recreational use of Marijuana. In November of 2014 two more states have legalized the recreational use of Marijuana, being Alaska and Oregon. In 2016 several more states are likely to legalize marijuana, among them are Massachusetts, California, Nevada, and Maine. Although Marijuana is still illegal under Federal law in the United States, the People of the United States are ending this prohibition on Marijuana to spite what The Federal Government says. The U.S. Government (which is supposed to be run by the people for the people) has not been just to its own citizens. many ways (freedom being one), has been stripped of the people and the people are fighting back. One prime example is by blatantly ignoring the Federal Government and saying We the people have made Marijuana legal, what are you going to do about it. The Federal Government could enforce its laws on Marijuana, but would a mutany by its own States and citizens really be worth it?

Map Image doesn't include Hawai'i, US, which should be light blue.

Ohio

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

How can cannabis be considered decriminalized in Ohio when they still send people to jail for small amounts? I was a former resident of Oxford (Butler County) and had my apartment raided by a dozen officers with a battering ram for smoking a joint. All I had was a half ounce (14g) and I had to hire a heavy duty lawyer to avoid going to county jail for three months. In the end I paid $1,000 in fines, did 100 hours of community service and was on probation for two years and that was considered getting off light. I have since had to leave my home state of Ohio for California due to Ohio's insane laws and, after living in California for awhile, I can safely say that equating California's and Ohio's laws -- which this map does -- is just plain wrong. -- Stereoisomer 05:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

People in Ontario have a very solid legal defence, please see this for further information Supposed (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

In Ohio, possesion of less than 3.5 ounces is punishable by a $100 fine and suspension of drivers and/or professional license(s). Possesion of drug paraphernalia (e.g. a bowl), however, is punishable by prison time. Okj579 (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nevada -- I think blue is wrong, should be dark red

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think the blue for Nevada is wrong. I was under the impression that possession of any amount of marijuana in Nevada was a felony. This stuck with me because it seems in such stark contrast to Nevada's generally libertarian ethos. --Trovatore 07:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bulgaria - The drug laws changed

The drug laws in my home country have just changed. Here's the url: http://lex.bg/laws/ldoc.php?IDNA=2135534629 and in there "Член 354а" is what concerns us. http://www.pravovadurzhava.com/resources/laws/lawid/51/type/view/index.html is another place with the whole bulgarian criminal code. That's the law since 13 october 2006. The idea of the new law is that in "unimportant cases" (like having a joint) there's only a fine of no more than 1000 leva. It is still quite unclear is this a real change, as "unimportant cases" is undefined or at least I haven't found a definition.

A few years ago the law was like "for small amounts - a fine" but there were judges abusing the "small amounts" in trials for kilograms of heroine (as small amounts was undefined in laws). So the government changed it to the prohibitionistic law. I hope this doesn't happen again.

South Africa

You put South Africa in orange, however, the webehigh pages that you cite indicate that small amounts are only punishable by a fine. Unless there is more authoritative evidence that SA is criminalized, please turn it light blue

Romania

The image falsely lists romania as not enforced , the law strictly forbids the use, possession or selling of MJ or hash. You'll get 3-5 yrs for consumption and 15-17 for drug-dealing. It's highly illegal to smoke/own/sell marijuana in Romania. The legislation is conservative and everything linked to any kind of drug is a criminal offense. There are more and more voices that say the consumption of drugs should not be considered a crminal offense and it's very likely the laws will change in the coming years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mancini (talk • contribs) 20:56, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Lesotho should be orange, not red

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to Laurent Laniel of the OGD, "although cannabis cultivation is widespread in the mountains, and although all residents of the zones in question (and the country at large) are aware of this fact (as are all local, national and international authorities)�in short, although cannabis production is an open secret and enjoys de facto de-criminalisation�it nevertheless remains a very private activity." Sounds like 'illegal but often unenforced' (orange) to me, as opposed to 'illegal' (red). Picaroon (t) 20:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Somalia

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

While the Islamic Courts might have punished marijuana possession they've basically been defeated. While Somalia does have a recognized government it lacks any effective control. Essentially, Somalia does not have a government. Several groups are competing for power. Cannabis can't be illegal if there aren't any laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.215.27 (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

What is meant by decriminalization?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Most of the U.S. states colored as having "decriminalized" cannabis haven't really done so under the normal definition of that term, which is to make cannabis possession an offense punishable by a non-criminal fine (like a speeding ticket) rather than criminal arrest. For example, California has only decriminalized possession for medical purposes; non-medical possession is still a criminal offense. It is true that under Proposition 36, defendants are routinely offered probation and drug treatment in lieu of jail time, but sentencing people to probation is not "decriminalization", especially since there are large categories of people not even eligible for the probation offer. --Delirium 00:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ontario's Status

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Never, in the 20 years that I have lived, has Cannabis been legal in Ontario, the oddly coloured "Blue" province on the map. It's been illegal, except from 2004 - 2006, wherein it was decriminalized within the province. The Federal Government, early 2006, removed that amendment to the Drug Schedule policy. For once, your cites are outdated and wrong. The current policy is as follows: Within Ontario, possession and all subsequent charges (transporting, intent to distribute) are illegal. On the streets, depending on the area in which you live (Rural Ontario is quite lenient, whereas areas such as the Detroit-Windsor corridor, and the Golden Horseshoe (Niagara - Hamilton - "Greater Toronto Area" - Oshawa) are more enforced. The surrounding areas moreso than the core (The core of the GTA is the city of Toronto, not including the Etobicoke or Scarborough regions). Common misconceptions: 1) A rather large portion of Ontarians do use cannabis, but this does NOT make it legal. 2) Decriminalization is defined, at least here, as being rudimentarally enforced, with each offense taken into consideration at multiple levels: first, the street - the officer which "arrests" you MAY let you off with a warning. second, the courts - It's been seen that smaller amounts within court are either thrown out, or subsequently dealt with through the "Alternative Measures" program, constituting of the obligatory quota for a certain amount of hours spent doing community service. In a short of words, decriminalization takes the focus off casual pot smokers, being lenient towards the amount carried. This does not mean if you're carrying 10 dollars worth, you'll be fine. It means, you MAY have a funny story to tell to your buddy's the next day. In most cases, it should be noted, you'll end up with a non-criminal fine. Fix it - Fix it now, and fix it badly. Thank you 74.12.4.49 23:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Joe CaronReply

The map lists small amounts of canabis as being legal in Ontario because, currently, small amounts of cannabis are legal in Ontario. Or, at least, are not illegal. This is a result of a court case during July of this year in which the laws regarding possession of small amounts of cannabis were struck down as unconstitutional, thereby rendering possession of small amounts of cannabis quite legal. --131.104.254.224 23:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

While that may be the result of the court case, were the subsequent laws altered as well? 142.150.29.207 16:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Joe CaronReply

I agree with the person who posted on November 1st, for he seems to possess some knowledge of the legal system and the effects of striking down a law as unconstitutional. To Joe: there have been no subsequent laws that have been passed regarding the legality of cannabis, and as it stands, the previous provisions governing the possession of cannabis have been struck down and are therefore no longer of effect (until Parliament brings into force laws that comply with the constitution). As it stands, without a law, the acts are legal. Possession of cannabis in Ontario is legal, for now... :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.252.95 (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Right, it's blue because of the court case, not because of any actual law. It's defacto legal right now, so to speak. There were two cases - R v. Long in July 07 where the ruling originally came from, and R. v. Bodnar/Hall/Spasic in October 07 where a judge cited the original ruling when dismissing charges. The subsequent ruling further emphasiszed that even though there is an appeal underway, the three couldn't be convicted of the charge, because - and I quote - "no law has been broken." The first case is on its way to the Court of Appeal, and if they agree with Justice Borenstein's ruling the effect will be that police will not even be able to arrest. There are interesting times, that's for sure! Snickerdo (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Having consulted with a crown attorney within Ontario as recently as January 31st on this very subject I can assure you that the judges ruling has been overturned and the laws have been reinstated. I disagree with the ruling being overturned myself but that is not of importance. Unfortunately cannabis is currently illegal in Ontario. 65.93.100.194 (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your friend, the so-called crown attorney, is full of hogwash. Something as big as this would have made the national headlines, and most certainly www.thepotlawhasfallen.ca. You can assure us all you want, but we have references and sources and your buddy the CA has provided you with absolutely nothing, therefore it this so-called overturning doesn't exist. Last I read, the appeal hasn't even been scheduled for a hearing yet so there's no way it could be overturned out of thin air. Even as recently as this past month have cases been withdrawn on the grounds that they are not violating law - one on February 8 in Kitchener, and one on January 16 in London. Looks like your buddy the CA should lay off the weed himself! Snickerdo (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Argentina

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I live in Buenos Aires and here marijuana is not decriminalized at all. There's no amount for personal use nor nothing. In some cities in the country maybe the police lets it be unenforced but it is not the situation in the bigest cities. Anyway it is illegal, it can be punished with jail and it is a federal issue so the provinces are not allowed to make their own changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.55.80.106 (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I second this as well. No references, but a couple of friends got busted because they had a joint in their possession. They have been released after less than 24 hours, but still they got arrested. --Baka toroi (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

The status of Iceland

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

User:CL8 recently moved Iceland in the Decriminalized category from the Confirmed illegal category, I'm curious as to why, just today a 26 year old man was sentenced to 2 months in prison for driving under the influence of THC and being in posession of just over a gram of mixed tobacco/hashish. People most certainly are arrested routinely for posession of illicit drugs in Iceland and they do go to jail for it. Perhaps this confusion arises because the Icelandic penal system is set up so that you can often pay large fines instead of spending time (I've heard around 2000$ USD for posession of small amounts of pot is routine). --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've uploaded a new version which marks Iceland as having cannabis criminalized. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The fact that he only got 2 months for driving under the influence of hash and was in possession of hashish, makes it decriminalized. In the USA you would be looking at a much longer sentence and probably about the same amount of money in fines. You also have to take into consideration that we are transferring the Icelandic currency over to dollars and the Krona is at a much higher value then the dollar. so it might seem like the fines are high, but in reality it is about the same you would pay in the states after having to go through the legal system. Also he probably got that 2 month prison sentence for driving under the influence, rather then for possession of the drug. I'm sure if he had been caught at home or walking outside, all he would be look at, is a fine. but after reading that a man got caught with 142 grams of marijuana and he only received a fine, makes it decriminalized.

after reading the article again, the guy who got jail time also had previous problems with the law(drug related, of course)

Looks like people on here are not understanding what decriminalized means, so here is the definition

decriminalize

Main Entry:

   de·crim·i·nal·ize Listen to the pronunciation of decriminalize

Pronunciation:

   \(ˌ)dē-ˈkri-mə-nə-ˌlīz, -ˈkrim-nəl-\

Function:

   transitive verb

Date:

to remove or reduce the criminal classification or status of; especially : to repeal a strict ban on while keeping under some form of regulation (decriminalize the possession of marijuana)

US laws, rehash

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see this has been rehashed several times. At the risk of upping the approbium, I have often found that if something is raised many times, then there's often a problem with a page. In this case, I would hardly call decriminalization for very small amounts of marijuana to be over "decriminalization". What's more, several of the US states that have been marked decriminalized in fact had ballot measures fail to make them legal. At very best, these should be marked "decriminalized in certain circumstances" or "decriminalized for small amounts". What's more, if you look at the map at [7], you will find that this map (provided by a self-proclaimed pro-marijuana group, and open to bias) has marked the same states. But if you click on individual states which are marked decriminalized, you will see it is legal in only rare circumstances. Take, for instance, Nevada: [8]; it is legal only less than one ounce, and at that for medical purposes. I would hardly call that decriminalized. With all due respect, I believe this is a clear case of weasel wording, and needs to be remedied. I would fix it now, but I can't figure out the font used, nor how to make more colors on this low color bitmap. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I believe the description of the map is quite clear when it says that it is marking areas decriminalized or legalized for small amounts only. Snickerdo (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Denmark

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Currently the map lists possession of small amounts of cannabis in Denmark to be decriminalized. This is not true. Possession of cannabis has been illegal for a long time. However in 1969 a circular from the national chief of police to the prosecutors ordered that first-time offenders possessing only small amounts of cannabis for personal use should only receive a warning. This circular was overturned in 2004 by the government and today people caught with small amounts will receive a fine. Denmark's status on the map should thus be changed to "confirmed illegal".--★ Regicollis ^T^·^C 15:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I concur. Cannabis is illegal in Denmark as stated in the article. Denmark, therefore, should be red, just as the rest of the Nordic countries. I do not know which rules apply in Greenland and The Faroe Islands. -188.183.47.162 (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Further discussion continues at the Commons image talk page

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see:

commons:File talk:World-cannabis-laws.png

--Timeshifter (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Poland new policy of drugs

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Poland introduced legislation to terminate the prosecution for possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use. The law introduces the possibility when a person has negligible amounts of drugs for personal use and is not a dealer. De facto, Poland decriminalized a small amount of the drugs. So change it on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misiek889 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

italy

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

decriminalized??? the map is wrong. growing a plant in italy gives you from 6 up to 20 years of jail. if you shoot a policeman is less seriuos. check it out on it.WP. --79.51.183.99 (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

United Kingdom

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If the police catch people with cannabis it is confiscated so therefore I would say its confirmed Illegal C. 22468 (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Australia

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hate to rain on the crop, but at best Australia - all of it - is "Illegal, but rarely enforced". Dealers can and will face jail time. Users tend to get cautioned several times before facing small fines. NONE of your surviving references support anything different, and the .gov page no longer exists. I would bet a weeks pay against a gram that it never supported saying "decriminalized" either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.213.194 (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Egypt

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

From what I've seen, cannabis laws in Egypt are very rarely enforced, certainly not for personal use, and the police generally don't pursue dealers, either. An individual caught with hashish would only be charged if the police wanted him/her for something else. Lockesdonkey (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Map, Connecticut and the US

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On the map, Connecticut is incorrectly placed as red. However, pot has been decriminalized there. Furthermore, it seems for all of the US it would be better to put the states in orange as opposed to red, as cannabis laws are rarely enforced except against distributors.

http://blog.norml.org/2011/06/07/connecticut-lawmakers-vote-to-decriminalize-adult-marijuana-possession/

http://the420times.com/2011/06/ct-senate-passes-bill-to-decriminalize-small-amounts-of-marijuana/

http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2011/06/after-marijuana-decriminalizat.html

Thanks.LedRush (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Canada

Is there any proof that cannabis laws are "often unenforced" in Canada? Hundreds are busted everyday for it, and you can now be sentenced to over a year for growing a few plants. I wouldn't call that "often unenforced."

The color should be changed to red, confirmed illegal.

Luxembourg

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Luxembourg should be red (confirmed illegal): http://www.sante.public.lu/fr/rester-bonne-sante/047-drogues-illicites-dependances/010-effets-risques/cannabis/index.html The prohibition of use of cannabis in public is actively enforced. Could someone change it? 158.64.77.102 (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Can you legally use it at home? If not, is that law actively enforced?LedRush (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

italy

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

as said in the article, cannabis in italy is illegal. the map is not correct in that --79.32.45.140 (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The fact that these countries' laws don't punish possession for personal use does NOT mean it's descriminalized! Specially because there is now law quantifying how much is "personal use". Possession of marijuana in these countries is ILEGAL.

Posession for personal use in Uruguay is legal since April 26, 2011Legality of cannabis in Uruguay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.43.155 (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Federal vs State law

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If the federal law declares Marijuana as illegal, but the state declares it as legal, it is still illegal as Federal law supersedes state law. Is it then misleading to color the states Washington and Colorado as "Legal" when in fact, it is illegal in all states due to federal law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.99.194 (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well it's certainly not completely legal, but I think it would fall into the category of essentially legal, which is also represented by blue. In the two states, posession and consumption is still illegal under federal law, but President Obama has decided not to go after recreational users in the two states following the ballot initiatives, stating "It does not make sense from a prioritization point of view for us to focus on recreational drug users in a state that has already said under state law that is legal" ([9]). In this case the President's decision not to enforce a law makes it not de jure but de facto, or essentially, legal. That being said, if it turns out that the federal government is still going after recreational use in some non-trivial way in the two states, then I would be open to, say, coloring the two states with blue and red stripes, symbolizing the coexistence of legality and illegalty. Come to think of it, perhaps the decriminalized states should be orange and red stripes, if the federal government is applying criminal penalties on those states that only have civil penalties (decriminalized). I might look into that. Trinitresque (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

North Korea colored blue...

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

...now, that's a good one. In communist North Korea, where basically everything is forbidden, is cannabis legal? I DON'T THINK SO. NO COMMUNIST COUNTRIES HAVE EVER LEGALIZED DRUGS. And even thou maybe their laws don't spesific mentions cannabis, it's guaranteed outlawed together with all other drugs. And if you're a tourist how should you smoke? All tourists are literary followed the entire stay by a government tourist guide. (I've seen it on TV).

Bjarnulf, Oslo

PS. Please change the coloring from blue to red, because it's guaranteed forbidden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.88.240 (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nope you are wrong. Cannabis is legal in North Korea. 115.70.34.82 (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Incorrect information for New Jersey

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The image shows New Jersey (In the United States) as "decriminalized", but it is not. See Legality of cannabis by US state, which should have the appropriate sources. I stumbled upon this when I was trying to find information while in a debate about the subject with someone. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs) (Report a Vandal)} 22:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Mexico incorrect

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In 2009, Mexico decriminalized possession of up to 5g of cannabis plant material. see here As such I will change this image. 115.70.34.82 (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Okay, so apparently I can't do that due to permissions issues. It would be nice if someone else could. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revoran (talk • contribs) 04:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

"Illegal but often unenforced" - what does this even mean?

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I see that there is a whole slew of countries with the tenuous label of "often unenforced" indicated on the map with what would appear to be some degree of certainty. What?

The sources certainly don't justify such broad assumptions. For example, Botswana's status as "often unenforced" seems to be based on a single article which actually makes no reference to the level of enforcement. It basically just says that a lot of people smoke pot without any comment on the rate of enforcement.

Furthermore, I think that, even if rates of enforcement were known for the countries in question, it would still be a largely irrelevant statistic to include on the map. Essentially it would be telling people how likely they were to be caught, and not reflect the actual state of the law regarding the subject, which is an altogether more important (and much less subjective!) thing to take into account when making what essentially amounts to a map of a substance's legality. For example, is enforcement just crappy because they don't have the money to pursue it, or is there a conscious decision to avoid prosecution?

I think that unless this issue can be satisfactorily resolved, the category ought to be removed from the map due to its nebulousness and impossibility to verify reliably. ZigSaw 08:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Bangladesh

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The source listed above for Bangladesh has moved. It is here now: Web High Dhaka, Bangladesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.79.153 (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Bangladesh should be pink, not blue, according to the government source. Kaldari (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Philippines

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Are you sure about Philippines? They have quite tough drug laws there. Better modify that misleading mark as cannabis being decriminalized there. --49.146.220.11 (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Netherlands

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see the blue colour of the Netherlands on the map. This is not correct. In contrary to worldwide opinions, cannabis is NOT legal in Holland, it's tolerated and decriminalised up to 5 plants for personal use (no selling, transporting), 5 grams and under condition of no nuisance. I am not able to change this map, but I suggest someone does. This policy has been hardened by considerating the growing conditions: indoor growing under artificial light will be considered professional and not personal. Source: Official site of the Dutch governement http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/drugs/gedoogbeleid-softdrugs-en-coffeeshops — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.134.156.31 (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's still as good as legal. Government licensed coffeeshops sell Cannabis openly and 'lawfully'. The fact those coffee-shops are licensed by local or national government makes the lawful sale de-facto legal. It's 'essentially' (or rather 'de-facto') legal for the purposes of this image. :) 94.6.162.118 (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Vermont Has Decriminalized

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Vermont decriminalized marijuana last year. Map should reflect this change. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/vermont-decriminalizes-possession-small-amounts-pot-article-1.1365354 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripleclean (talk • contribs) 17:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

'Essentially legal'

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Shouldn't it say 'Legal / De-facto legal', rather than 'Legal / Essentially Legal'..? Just so it looks a bit smarter? :) 94.6.162.118 (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Georgia

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

please update the map on Georgia. consumption is legal from today [10] [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.232.112.102 (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Chile, Colombia, South Africa

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

These countries should be orange (Chile and Colombia) or red (South Africa) according to Legality of cannabis and the main articles (Cannabis in Chile, Cannabis in Colombia, Cannabis in South Africa). --Gbuvn (talk) 08:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic