Talk:List of British politicians who have acknowledged cannabis use

ABC order

Resolved

Thanks for starting this list! It makes a nice companion piece to List of United States politicians who admit to cannabis use. I am trying to go through the article to format the references used, work on spacing, add alt text, etc. One recommendation I would make it to list the politicians in alphabetical order by default (you can cut and paste entries in ascending order)--you can see how it is done on the American list. Then, viewers will see the list sorted by name by default, and they can choose to sort based on other column heading if they wish. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

While interesting, the article as it stands comes close to advocacy 109.79.3.110 (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Image illustrating this article

This article is about recreational use of cannabis, not about 19th century painters or retting hemp. The images illustrating this article should illustrate politicians and the recreational use of cannabis - smoking a joint is amongst the most common way to smoke weed.

When someone puts in the effort to improve an article, what you do not do is revert it arbitrarily without discussion. Especially not twice.

The 19th century painting is a terrible illustration for this article. If you can find one better than feel free to suggest one. But please do not keep reverting without discussion. Stroller (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the image of a joint being smoked is particularly helpful to those reading this article/list. It seems very arbitrary. Is there an image most relevant? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the image should show what the article is about. Thus the ideal picture would be a politician enjoying weed, but if we don't have one of those a person smoking weed seems very suitable. I don't think that's arbitrary at all, and am confused by this disagreement.

The 19th century painting of a pastoral scene seems far more random to me, as you can't really see that it's anything to do with cannabis without looking at it closely and knowing both that hemp is related to weed, and something about hemp production.

I did spend quite a few minutes looking through wikipedia commons, and I didn't find a wide selection of useful images. There are some photos of bud and leaf in the commons:cannabis category, but I thought that they lack context which would inform someone totally unfamiliar with the subject.

I chose the image I did because it's someone obviously taking narcotics; I would think that smoking dried leaf is probably universally recognisable, as is wrapping dried leaf in thin paper to do so. Even a child can recognise what a cigarette is.

I also found c:File:Nama Woman Smoking Kalahari Desert Namibia Luca Galuzzi 2004.JPG but rejected it because I assume the subject isn't a politician. So the anonymity of a photo that doesn't show the smoker's whole face seems better.

I also looked at Cannabis smoking equipment and had considered c:File:Marijuana and pipe.jpg. I'm certainly amenable to using something like that instead.

I apologise for writing so verbosely. I'm just confused as to what would be better criteria for an image to introduce the subject. Stroller (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit wikipedia by all means but I suggest you stick to subjects that you have a little knowledge already. Cannabis is NOT a narcotic. Also, these politicians stated, that their experiments were during their less mature years (?) – so they most likely used cannabis resin, since cannabis leave were not available until very recently in Europe . For non smokers, resin was also better for making hash cakes. Weed is a US term and on WP we strive to avoid Wikipedia:Systemic bias. The 19th century painting of retting hemp helps to give the reader (in what ever part of the world he resides in) a geographical feel. An image of smoking a joint give it a soapbox flavor -to my mind. The article should remain as natural as possible. By all means search for a better image (or even take one yourself). Until then, I hope you will understand why I have reverted your edit again as it does nothing to improve the article.--Aspro (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps no image is needed? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that no image 'is' needed. No article really 'needs' an image and this article certainly doesn’t need an image of someone smoking a joint. Perhaps we could take this to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cannabis for a broader consensus?--Aspro (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's the pot calling the kettle black. I'm sorry I used the words "weed" and "narcotic" generically, but before the availability of skunk in Britain, everyone smoked hash in tobacco joints. Perhaps you should read up on a little recent weed history, bro, since you weren't around to experience it yourself (as some of us were). Brownies were quite uncommon, and those who didn't smoke tobacco regularly just accepted it in the joints they shared. Enjoying owning this page, I will leave it for you to fuck up as selfishly as you wish. Stroller (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hash is blocks of resin and not leaves – as I said. So thanks for agreeing with me. As is often said: If you can remember anything about the 1960's, you weren't really there.--Aspro (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Aspro and Strolls: You are both entitled to your opinions, but let's stay on topic here. Regarding the image, I propose we just not have an image in the lead. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not really an opinion that I was reading a news article, and looked something up on wikipedia, and as soon as I arrived on this site I found a bright red notification that my edits had been reverted again because Aspro doesn't like the image and couldn't be bothered to talk about it.

I think both my previous replies were considered and courteous - I tried to be thoughtful and understanding, and tried to explain myself as best as I could. It's a slap in the face to have one's contributions disregarded like that.

The notion that a Brit using cannabis 20 or 30 years ago was more likely to bake hash brownies than roll a spliff is just laughable though.

Aspro is welcome to his ignorance, but disrespectfully reverting people's edits just to rub their faces in it (in what, I'm not exactly sure) drives genuine contributors away from wikipedia. Stroller (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop putting words into my mouth! I pointed out that for people that don't like taking fire effluent (smoke) into their lungs - they chose hash cakes (brownies is so down market and working class). The article is about politicians and your image does not show a politician. So a more neutral image indicating the long history of cannabis cultivation (which the Crown once demanded in the British Isles) is more appropriate. P.S. The root of Ignorance is to ignore. I have a large library, not only this subject but other medical matters. Therefore, me thinks, you have got pot, kettle (and the old witch who stirs the cauldron with her paddle) in the wrong order. Maybe you just lived on the fringe in those ancient times. ;¬) --Aspro (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't "put words in your mouth" - I have simply disproved every "good reason" you've given here. You have removed this image with insults instead discussion simply because you don't like it. An image of someone smoking a joint is perfectly neutral - it would be far more honest of you to say "I own this page, it's my turf and you're not welcome here". Stroller (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nicola Sturgeon election infobox 3.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Article has clearly been vandalised to hide politicians use of canabis

This is disingenuous to full debate. 90.255.201.250 (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)