Talk:National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws

Page move

I can't believe I left out "the". Hyacinth 02:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How so? Rad Racer 03:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=National_Organization_for_Reform_of_Marijuana_Laws&action=history Hyacinth 03:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who moved it. See [1]. They always say "NORML" instead of "The NORML". An exception was one of their pamphlets, which said "About the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws" Rad Racer 04:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Largest cash crop"? Sez who?

The claims that cannabis is currently the largest cash crop in the U.S., and that it's larger than all the others combined, lack citation. I'd also take law enforcement figures about the "street value" of seized illegal substances with a bucket of salt; they like to inflate those numbers, to justify their budgets. --Davecampbell 20:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

this should be changed to "Recent studies show that marijuana is larger than corn and wheat combined." with http://drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/cashcrops.html as a reference

Known notable members

Too much duplication - if a person is on the advisory board or board of directors, they don't need to be duplicated into the "known notables" - it is self-apparent if they are notable AND an advisor/director that they are also a member. --DavidShankBone 21:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As the list was obviously copied and pasted (even leaving in years that individuals served as chairman!), and then later edited and interspersed with other names, I decided to compare the lists under the other headings with the people under this heading. The following names were under the "Other known members" heading ONLY:

• Gatewood Galbraith (Kentucky Politico and Attorney)
• Jack Black
• Eduardo Rodriguez (activist, indie-film maker, writer)
• Michael Pearson (former Oklahoma Chair (1995-2000), politician)
• Rob Robinson (Director NY NORML, Damn Sam Productions, producer, publisher, activist)

Of these, only Galbraith and Black (assuming "Jack Black" refers to the actor) have Wikipedia pages; the others seem to be famous (if that's even the right word) primarily for their activity with NORML, and at any rate are probably not "notable" in the sense of "famous members", which this list should be.

As for Black, I can't find anywhere (that isn't a copy of this Wikipedia article on something like answers.com) that says he's actually a member. NORML's website notes that Tenacious D played a benefit concert for them, but nothing about membership, so I think including him would be questionable. Galbraith appears to be a quasi-famous frequent political loser, and his Wikipedia biography also says nothing about NORML membership (though he has favored legalization in the past) so he probably would be out for those reasons. Thus, the heading would become empty, so I deleted it until it can be re-created with unique and sourced additions only.

If anyone has any comments or arguments regarding this deletion, please post them here (and, even better, copy them to my User talk page so I'll be sure to see them.) Thanks! --SuperNova |T|C| 09:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You did not mention...

...that there has not been a single death attrubuted to marijuana or that marijuana is not chemically adictive. You also did not say anything about the probation haulting marijuana research. Since all gangs sell pot thus the probation increases crime and because the gangs tries to get other people to use it; it increases the use.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Find a valid source and add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.193.80 (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

POV

I have added a POV tag to the article for such reasons as:

• The word "victim" in the introduction is vague and is biased; are those successfully prosecuted by way of law considered "victims of the law?"

• "...a central role..." is unsupportable and should be descriptively rephrased.

• "NORML will support efforts now underway in other states such as California to legalize and tax marijuana" either predicts the future, or resonates as a mission statement of the organization. This needs to be rephrased.

Kst447 (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed the wording for the third item, though the source article is no longer available so I'm not sure if it's correct. As for the first two, though, I'm not sure how to fix.

1. While I can see how using "victims" in this context may be POV, it also seems the least wordy alternative. Something like "NORML and the NORML Foundation support both stakeholders working to reform current laws regarding cannibis prohibition and those being prosecuted under such laws" I think accomplishes the same meaning but is kind of awkward.
2. I'm not sure how "a central role" is unsupportable. It seems currently unsupported but this isn't a POV issue and we can put a fact tag on it. Would "a major role" sound better? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Victims of cannabis prohibition" is clearly POV. I think we can all agree these "victims" were convicted of marijuana offenses, and that is probably the best wording. "Reform" is also POV, plenty of people think "reform" would make marijuana offenses worse, not better. Various things need a cite, most could come from NORML's website. I'll look them up latter. Also, I can't get at the L.A. Times article for the cash crop claim, and it wouldn't hurt to see what the L.A. Times' source was. If it is NORML or another marijuana advocacy group, we should attribute the quote. --Phirazo (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with "legalization" is that the group is technically moving towards decriminalization, which is different. I suppose "alteration of marijuana laws in the United States" would be an adequate use of a synonym but I'm not so sure "reform" is so POV. Even if what NORML proposes is objectionable to a sizeable portion of people, I would be surprised if more than a handful of people believe that the laws are perfect. We still use the phrase "campaign finance reform" even though some might dispute that the current campaign finance system has problems and surely some would disagree that FreedomWorks is moving towards policies that provide "more freedom." — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any of the disputed text in this article, so I question why it is still tagged as POV. However If the word “victim” is POV then I would recommend using the word "casualties" as it is does not have the same connotation of guilt or innocence and therefore would be neutral. I do not at all agree that the term "reform" is POV as that would imply that the current legislation is without errors requiring reform, making it a perfect law, which is an argument that has NO supporting facts on either side of the issue. The question then is which side of the issue would equate to reform and that we will not know until some change to the existing laws has been applied and the effect analyzed. Historically reform in this area of law has been static and increasing penalties and so that side of the argument has been tested and analyzed and found ineffective (which can be supported by citation from agencies and organizations on both sides of the issue). Therefore any change that is different than what has already been tried would be properly referred to as reform. The term "central role" being questioned is splitting hairs as it is purely a descriptive term that is widely used and is not equated with a specific percentage or number, rather it is widely understood to have the same meaning as "a large part" or "a major role". I am new to this discussion but I am left with the feeling that this topic is being needlessly stalled by semantics, and though it may be with the best of intentions, this issue is deserved of a proper and thorough Wikipedia entry . Slarabee (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Vanno

The below copied from User talk:Aeusoes1#NORML I've edited again reference to Kellogg's. Sorry for not being clear the first time. The Vanno poll referenced by Business Insider is ridiculous and I'm not sure how a periodical picked it up. If you go to Vanno's poll of Kellogg's reputation, http://vanno.com/company/kellogg?page=1 (sorry, registration required), you'll see the silliness of it all. Vanno posts news stories and then assesses a negative content or a positive one. Then people vote whether they agree or not. Well, one of the index stories that was posted was by the Huffington Post. Then the Huffington Post turned around and wrote another story about how people agreed with their story in an online voting website, except they don't mention that one of the posted index articles was by... The Huffington Post. This is like saying Joe Schmoe kills kittens, and then turning around and claiming that "people have been saying Joe Schmoe kills kittens". I hate this type of dissembling and fraud. Oh yeah... how many people have voted on this so far? 112. Great. Put two college fraternities together and I have a social movement. Idiotic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.186.213 (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC) The above copied from User talk:Aeusoes1#NORML

I see what you're saying, but the edit you've recently provided is still problematic in two ways. It is an attempt to make an OR point using primary source data and it's not immediately clear where you get those numbers. I think we should find a source that provides this criticism rather than volley it ourselves. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are a number of problems with the edit and I certainly wish that the specifics of the poll were more easily available, or that Vanno's methodology were clearer. The fact that Vanno requires registration before you can see the data makes sourcing a pain in the butt. Regardless, I'm happy with it the way it stands (I'm the original editor to that part). It doesn't make a particular point other than to show that 100 or so people voted to downgrae Hde Kellogg. Readers can themselves infer that 100 negative reviews does not exactly mean Kellogg is now a pariah. I feel it's important that people see the specifics of the source data for the Huffington Post and Business Insider. It will give people a proper sense of scale in deciding whether Kellogg's brand reputation was actually hurt by the photos/boycott. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.162.254 (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not happy with it. As it stands, if readers don't get the implication you're going for (as I said above, an OR venture in itself) then it seems like an inconsequential factoid. It's not immediately clear what it means or why it's there. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Word. Well, in the letter of wikipedia editing law, I imagine that the poll numbers I cited had to go for a number of reasons, not least of which is that the vote tallies in said polls are always changing. You'll note that I threw in the adjective "small" before the word poll in the edit. I did this for two reasons. Number one, it's true. A sample of about 100 people (like in the Vanno poll) will give a margin of error of nearly 10 percent. This is rather large and therefore has to be considered a small sample group. Number two (which should really be number one, since this is my main reason for putting it in), the Vanno poll is mendacious and the fact that it has been repeated by the Huffington Post et al. makes it no less so. I feel it is fraudulent because it is clearly evident that Kellogg's brand has not been hurt in the slightest by the incident. Their overall sales increased last quarter, even though this was the quarter when the Phelps incident took place, and more importantly, even in the face of a recession. Note: "Sales in the company's core cereal business rose 6% over the same period last year. Retail snacks, meanwhile, which includes peanut butter, saw its sales increase only 2%." In fact, why not put in the article that Kellogg's sales increased in spite of (or perhaps because of) the Phelps incident? But yes, ultimately we need sources for our data, so the part I had in there goes. If you also wanna kill the "small" part, do that too, but perhaps leave the link to the Vanno website, so people can actually see the data. Oh yeah, and what does OR venture mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.162.254 (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I also said that they decided to not renew Phelps' contract as opposed to dropping him. In point of fact, that is correct.75.42.162.254 (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Stephen

With "OR venture" I was referring to our WP:OR policy, but your last post gives me an idea. Perhaps we can word the second paragraph as follows

Although Kellogg's profits did not suffer in the first quarter of 2009, consumer ratings polls at Vanno have been cited as indicating that Kellogg's reputation has suffered. Specifically, a small poll of Kellogg's brand reputation at Vanno showed a drop from its previous rank of 9 to 83 after Kellogg decided not to renew its contract with Michael Phelps. It's not clear whether or not NORML's boycott played a significant role in this decline.

This seems to accomplish all we're trying to do, with an accurate portrayal of the facts with minimal POV. What do you think? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 16:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! Nice to do business with you, and thanks for the small wikipedia education.75.42.162.254 (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Stephen

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090501193103/http://vanno.com:80/company/kellogg to http://vanno.com/company/kellogg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080629010015/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/local/la-me-pot18dec18,0,1249845,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines to http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pot18dec18,0,1249845,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)