Good articleBrownie Mary has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 12, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
March 10, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 10, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the arrest of Brownie Mary led to one of the first clinical trials studying the effects of cannabinoids in HIV-infected adults?
Current status: Good article

Issues[edit]

I'm working on completing the inline sourcing within the next 48-72 hours and completing a final expansion. Viriditas (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errata[edit]

Some sources contain errors copied from wire services. Here are some corrections with better sources in the process of being added:

Note: if at all possible, the original story is used as a citation. In some cases, it is not clear which was the original or the syndicated story, resulting in variations on article titles and different types of articles depending on the material included by the editor. Viriditas (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Writing good English....[edit]

....this is how not to: Rathbun was raised in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and attended Catholic school, and at the age of 13 she was involved in an altercation with a nun who caned her; Rathbun fought back.

What is the problem with it? It goes like this:

  1. Basic biographical statement.......
  2. .....and .....next basic biographical statement..... then a comma....... (why a comma?)
  3. .....and .....a significant, non-basic event of her youth....... stated in the form of an entire sentence, with a clause and two finite verbs (i.e. a complete and "complex" sentence in its own right), but joined on with an "and" as if it was the natural outcome of a) being raised in Minneapolis, b) being Catholic. (Well, maybe it was!)
  4. .....semi-colon...... a second complete sentence, joined to three "and, and" bits but only relating to one of them. In fact, it relates very closely to one of the three bit of that messy sentence, and should be linked to that bit, and none of the others.

It's quite easy to fix. Turn your important event into a stand-alone sentence, not a tag. Then join the bit after the semi-colon in some way that contributes to the sense of the sentence.

My advice with regards to semi-colons is to leave them alone unless they are truly necessary. They have a place in lists in which descriptions are given: At the party John, the fireman; Pete, the plumber; Harry, the undertaker;........"

Otherwise, they are used to join statements that are "equal" and "balanced". The notion of "balance" is the important one. The two parts may be in conflict, but they must "fit". Once you have created a sentence that already has commas and "ands", then you cannot effectively use a semi-colon. Examples:

Mary's parents wanted her to join the family business; Mary wanted a career in journalism.
Black-backed penguins always have white bellies; white-bellied penguins always have black backs.

Amandajm (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raised by Yoda, I was. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming links[edit]

Unresolved

Note: not enough relevant incoming links to this article. Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked to see if this was resolved. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needs image[edit]

Unresolved

No free images available. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image request sent to Maureen Hurley. Waiting to hear back from her... Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very light copy edit[edit]

I performed a very light copy edit to this article. Changed one word to reprehensibility for example. Please check the page history to review my minor edits. Thanks! Quill and Pen (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying, but those are quotes from actual people. We don't copy edit quotes unless we are changing the paraphrasing in a deliberate manner. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I somehow missed the quotation marks, too busy reading the material, otherwise I would have left it alone. I am sorry. Quill and Pen (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry, we've all made that error at some point. I know I have. If you would like to have another go at it, please be my guest. The article could use your help. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Brownie Mary/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 21:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. I'll do a close readthrough of the article in the next few days, noting any initial issues, and then go to the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial readthrough

On a first pass, this looks like solid work, only a few issues that need to be addressed:

I can see how you see that, but both points of view are supported by enough sources that mention both Brownie Mary and the government. For example, the old 1992 source discussed above (AIDS Weekly, September 28, 1992) says "What we have in marijuana is a safe, effective treatment for PWAs," said Greg Scott, member of ACT UP/DC. "The government is hypocritically pushing a less desirable prescription drug. Yet another example of AIDS profiteering." Demonstrators passed out a number of studies that have substantiated the medical value of marijuana, as well as the 1988 ruling of Drug Enforcement Agency Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young finding marijuana medically valuable. "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man," said Young. "By any measure of rational analysis, marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care." The current (as of 2012) statement in the article that says "scientific research suggests that cannabis and its cannabinoid derivatives are useful in treating a variety of diseases" appears to be well sourced and directly relevant to the biography. Brownie Mary was targteted because the government maintained that cannabis did not have medicinal value. Through anecdotal evidence alone, Brownie Mary maintained that it did have medicinal value, and her arrests generated interest in the health sciences community who then got a grant to study cannabis and HIV. It's the primary point of the biography and it is supported in the literature. In other words, how can this be synthesis, or rather, what is it synthesizing? Viriditas (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there are a lot of sources that discuss this issue in relation to Brownie Mary because it is a key point in her biography. She successfully used the "medical necessity" defense at her trial and established the legitimacy of medical cannabis at both the local and state level. So, while this might not be synthesis, it seems reasonable to request additional sources if this isn't clear to the reviewer or the reader, but it is impossible to separate these two facts from the biographical narrative. That the "U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not currently recognize any medicinal use of cannabis, and it remains classified under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act as a drug that has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" is an essential historical fact necessary to explain not just the prosecution of Brownie Mary (how else can you explain her arrests?) but also to highlight the discrepancy between what one part of the government was saying while other parts disagreed (Francis L. Young up above). There are so many sources about Brownie Mary discussing this in the current article and outside of it, I'm not sure where to start. Here are two sources for illustration:

...in Sonoma County...prosecutors hpave filed marijuana possession and transportation charges against Mary Rathbun, 70. Rathbun has been baking pot-packed brownies for AIDS patients for nine years...Defense lawyer Tony Serra says that at Rathbun's preliminary hearing in Santa Rosa today, he'll argue that marijuana is uniquely beneficial to AIDS patients because it's the only drug that stimulates their appetites while also inducing sleep and relieving nausea and depression. California's official attitude toward recreational marijuana is harsh. Under state law, marijuana cultivation, possession for sale and transportation are serious crimes, and the state has been cooperating with federal and local law enforcement since 1983 to eradicate every plant it can find. But medicinal pot may be another matter. California is one of 35 states with statutes encouraging research in that field research blocked by the federal government's control over legal supplies, said Kevin Zeese, counsel to the Washington, D.C.-based Drug Policy Foundation. Zeese's group is working through the federal courts to overturn a federal ban on use of marijuana for AIDS, cancer and other diseases. (Cooper, Claire, November 13, 1992, "Ban on Medicinal Pot Under Fire", Sacramento Bee, p. A1)

Here's another, more general article:

Cannabis derivatives were used by some doctors in the 19th century as painkillers, but by the time Congress adopted the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, marijuana was purely a recreational drug. It was placed on Schedule I, the most tightly-controlled category, reserved for drugs said to have a high potential for abuse and no medical value...There is, however, at least anecdotal evidence that marijuana relieves some side effects of chemotherapy as well as certain symptoms of AIDS, glaucoma and multiple sclerosis. Similar claims have been made about migraines, paralysis and various other ailments...Among the leading advocates are Harvard University psychiatrist Lester Grinspoon and attorney James B. Bakalar, who have written extensively about patients who use marijuana for pain relief and to restore appetites spoiled by AIDS or chemotherapy. "It is time for physicians to acknowledge more openly that the present classification is scientifically, legally and morally wrong," they wrote in a commentary for the Journal of the American Medical Association, citing their own survey findings that 44 percent of oncologists plus many other doctors routinely suggest marijuana to their patients...Elsewhere, marijuana users have tried with mixed results to mount a legal defense of medical necessity, arguing in criminal court that they can't be convicted of marijuana possession because they use it as medicine. Trippet tried to use that defense in Sonoma County before pleading guilty and serving an eight-month jail sentence in 1992. And in a widely publicized case that same year, prosecutors dismissed charges against "Brownie Mary" Rathbun after a judge said she could use a medical-necessity defense after she was arrested in Cazadero while baking a batch marijuana brownies for distribution to AIDS patients. (Sweeney, James W., July 7, 1996, "The Politics of Pot", The Press Democrat, p. A1)

Further the historical fact that "scientific research suggests that cannabis and its cannabinoid derivatives are useful in treating a variety of diseases" is, as of 2012, is hardly controversial in medicine and is already sourced and connected to Brownie Mary as I explained above. Her initial anecdotal observations and subsequent arrests led to increased interest and research, so the connection is important. I'm not seeing any synthesis here. Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What appears to me synthesis is connecting Brownie Mary and a 2010 report that doesn't appear to mention her; connecting these two in posthumous support of Brownie Mary's position seems to me a clear example of SYNTH. My suggestion would be to stick with sources that discuss Brownie Mary and not go further afield into the medical marijuana debate than those sources do. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are speaking past each other. I just explained that this isn't synthesis (it doesn't reach a conclusion not found in the sources nor is it original research. This is common knowledge.). It does support Brownie Mary's position, but as I just demonstrated, her position has been supported in this way in the sources from the beginning. The only difference here is that the source is updated and new. I will attempt to review the sources again and clear this up for you, but I'm not seeing a problem here. The law is the law and the scientific evidence is the evidence. Mentioning these two things is not synthesis, and they are discussed in the majority of the sources already. Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: per my comments dated 09:31, 6 January towards the bottom of the page, I think I've figured out a way forward. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that paragraph again, I'm also not sure I'm comfortable with "many other states have since passed similar legislation", for similar reasons -- do we have a source connecting that to Brownie Mary? (If we do, no problem, but the article doesn't currently give one.) It would probably be enough to just state that California was the first state to pass this legislation; this shows the precedent this measure helped to set without implying further impact that may or not be connected with her work. Thanks for your work on these! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will look. Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-- Khazar2 (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"excessive formality and routine required before official action can be taken" (dictionary.com)
"official routine or procedure marked by excessive complexity which results in delay or inaction" (Merriam Webster)
"Red tape is excessive regulation or rigid conformity to formal rules that is considered redundant or bureaucratic and hinders or prevents action or decision-making ... Red tape generally includes filling out paperwork, obtaining licenses, having multiple people or committees approve a decision and various low-level rules that make conducting one's affairs slower, more difficult, or both" (Wikipedia)
Even more than the specific language, though, the key point here is that you can't slam one side of a debate and call it fact without providing a secondary source--which the article currently doesn't. This is Wikipedia 101 per the policies on reliable sources, and I'm surprised it's turned into such a sticking point for this review. Why not just add a secondary source? My suggestion would be to add a secondary source and summarize its language without adding pejorative idiom. An alternative would be to include the exact language of one of the above sources (primary or secondary) criticizing the govt. and clearly attribute the opinion in-text. Using the secondary source you first proposed above, with a flat statement that Abrams had difficulty getting NIDA to support the research, seems quite reasonable to me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I don't think we actually have two sides of a debate here, so we may be talking past each other. We have the medical establishment saying yes, cannabis is useful, yes we would like to prescribe it to our patients who find it useful, and more importantly, yes we would like to research it. Then we have government bureaucrats motivated by political ideology telling these physicians, no it isn't useful, no your patients can't use it, and we will arrest your patients for using it, you for prescribing it, and you are forbidden from doing research. This isn't two sides at all, this is documented government interference with science, and that opinion is supported by the secondary sources up above. Finally, I don't see how "bureaucratic red tape" is pejorative when it accurately describes the event. The government decided to terminate the compassionate use program at the height of the AIDS epidemic when patients needed it most. This cruel and callous action was not supported by the public they represented nor by the majority of physicians or the medical establishment. They also setup deliberate roadblocks to prevent researchers from studying the drug. This is all a matter of historical record and part of the sources, so I'm not seeing it as a violation of any policy or guideline. Again, I'm willing to work with you on this, but you're going to need to meet me halfway. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you see as "halfway" here? I've proposed several possible solutions in this thread short of removing this material, including your finding a source with this language and attributing it clearly, or finding a source with alternative language and mirroring that language. To me, this was already an attempt to meet you halfway, since I should have just told you to cut side criticism of the federal government that you couldn't be bothered to source, and stick to the facts about Brownie Mary herself. We've been back and forth about this for a few days now, and you still appear adamant that you have to include this criticism not directly related to Mary's life, to use language of your own, and to include no secondary sources about it in the article; no changes have been made. To me, that suggests we've reached an impasse, and my first inclination was to simply fail this nomination for sourcing and neutrality reasons.

All that said, you're a more experienced GA reviewer than I am, and I could well be wrong. (It happens pretty much daily, in fact.) Out of deference to that, I'll mark this for a second opinion and let another reviewer make the final pass/fail decision. Though we've disagreed on some particular points here, I respect your work on this one a lot--thanks for the time you've put into this interesting biography! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 24 hours, not "several days" so your perception of time involved here is significantly different than my own, more so considering I've barely been online and busy with work during that 24 hours. Further, this is not unsourced criticism as you claim, it's an accurate paraphrase of the cited source and is supported by multiple secondary sources as I've shown above. Since you take exception with this wording, I've said I'm willing to consider alternatives, but your objections aren't based on anything tangible. That there was bureaucratic red tape standing in the way of Abrams' research is not in dispute. However, for some unknown reason you've disputed this as POV. I think a bit of attribution and a revisit of the relevant sources can solve this problem. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my local time I worked on it and got your responses Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, so it felt like several days; I realize that may not translate easily into Wikipedia hours depending on your time zone. Sorry if I mischaracterized. The point I meant to emphasize is that we've gone back and forth about this several times, and we're quickly moving further from a solution, not closer. I've offered alternatives, I've agreed I could be wrong and asked for a second opinion, and still you're hammering instead of recognizing any of these efforts to seek compromise. That right there tells me that we've passed the point where we'll be able to collaborate well to finish off this review. I respect your work on this article, and respect your deep convictions on this issue (which I happen to share), but it's not a good use of my Wikipedia hours to go ten rounds with you on this when an outside reviewer can quickly settle the issue.
To try to explain one last time: you continue to talk as if the statement already has a reliable source in the article; at this point, I'm starting to wonder if we have different versions in our browsers somehow. I can only see Abrams himself, and a footnote within a footnote of some congressional testimony (another primary source). The article presents Abrams' views as fact without in-text attribution, despite his article being a primary source on an obviously controversial subject. You seem deeply opposed to the idea that a secondary source should be added and its language used, an easy solution that I proposed several times above; it seems to me that this should be Wikipedia 101. If your language is truly interchangeable with the source language, what's the problem with the source language? Even if you personally feel there's no difference, why should we change it in a way that another reader could perceive as different? (I'm a reader, and I do see these as different, so this isn't a hypothetical.) Despite your odd claim above that it's not, the phrase "bureaucratic red tape" is obviously pejorative ("a word or phrase that has negative connotations or that is intended to disparage or belittle"), and it doesn't matter if you think it's a deserved pejorative; criticisms and judgments like that should be clearly attributed both in-text and in a footnote.
Again, though, I'm fine with deferring to a second opinion on this-- if another reviewer feels the article doesn't need a secondary source for this statement, I won't object. Though we've disagreed, I wish you best with bringing this the rest of the way to GA status, whether that takes a little more work or no changes at all. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already provided two secondary sources up above in this discussion. You keep saying this is a "pejorative" and a "criticism" of the government, but I'm afraid I don't see it that way. This is a matter of historical record (for example, the entire incident is covered by Werner 2001 which is already in use throughout the article). It's very possible you aren't familiar with that record (nor is the reader), so I must take responsibility for providing better sourcing and attribution. Can the wording be changed, and should it be changed? I'm looking into it. When I get home tonight, I will attempt to trace the original sources or at least find some more for further review, revision, and additional attribution. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed per the suggestion of the reviewer. Sorry, but I'm on Hawaiian time, and that means this kind of thing takes time. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the change (if not the sarcastic edit summary); I'm still going to let another reviewer take this the rest of the way, though, just to get a fresh start to this one. I'm unwatching, so ping me if I'm needed. Best of luck getting this to GA--your work is much appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you appreciated the change, however, I changed it against my better judgment and that will not happen again. In fact, I'm thinking of seriously restoring the "bureaucratic red tape" statement as it is fully supported by multiple sources in the article (as I have already demonstrated) and additional sources that I have not yet added, such as Martin A. Lee's Smoke Signals: A Social History of Marijuana, p. 230. This is part of the historical record and is neither pejorative nor a criticism as you have falsely claimed. I don't care what second opinion you defer to, wrong is wrong. Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks--refactoring this to the 1990s as context and background for Mary's arrest makes much more sense than taking us through to the present day. I'm still not persuaded that we need "Scientific research suggests that cannabis and its cannabinoid derivatives are useful in treating a variety of diseases" at the end of this article, however; it's redundant with the scientific background for Mary's actions given above, and the explanation of Abrams' work given here. Adding this general statement as a capstone feels like an attempt to score one last point for the medical marijuana argument generally, especially given the article's lack of representation for any opposing views. (The single opposition figure mentioned in this article is described as widely protested, and his views are clearly discredited with the word "claim"; see action point below.)
  • What I'd suggest instead is moving some of the information on Abrams' conclusions into the text; this is more clearly covered in Mary-related sources, and reaches the same conclusions, without requiring the article to take a general stand on the usefulness of medical mj. Does that make sense? -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer it in the current section where it is now. I had previously experimented with it in different parts of the article and it works best here. As for the stand on the usefulness of medical cannabis, that is the current, established opinion of medical professionals, backed by solid studies, not the opinion of government bureaucrats. I think that is an important difference. I'm willing to work more on this with you, so please consider this an open task for the moment. Thanks for your patience. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at this again, I believe it is accurate and supported by the sources. Perhaps you didn't notice that the majority of sources about Brownie Mary's legal defense appeal to medical necessity, which in turn, appeals to "testimony in favor of using the illegal drug for medicine", testimony that was offered by medical practitioners among others. The difference here is that now there is newer evidence which goes far beyond testimony. The fact that Brownie Mary was one of the people who paved the way for this research is supported by Abrams and others. And while I will certainly look into adding additional source notes for clarity (even though they are already in the article) the only other objection you've raised is that the article lacks an opposing view. I think the three arrests, the quote by James O. Mason, and the bureaucratic red tape from NIDA clearly represent the opposing view, but I can certainly add more. Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would NOT include what she isn't since that would or could be a huge list. You maybe peeked my interest by saying that she was so often described as grandmotherly. That MIGHT be enough of a hook to include this material if put in that context, but I certainly need alot more conviencing. --Malerooster (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you because that context is quite different than the one in use by the sources. "Grandmotherly" here does not literally refer to one who has grandchildren as Khazar2 reads it but rather to her relationship to strangers who she helps and her looks. For one example, on July 24, 1992, the Associated Press reported that lab worker Sidney Torres at SFGH commented that Brownie Mary was "...very much loved. She's like a surrogate grandmother for everyone. She's overwhelmingly caring." Torres was talking about how "Rathbun often distributes drug-free baked goods in the ward". So this is not a literal use of the term grandmother but rather a description of her actions. However, that is only one use by the sources. Another use is a description of her appearance. For only one example, NPR reported in 1992 that "With her gray hair and pink housecoat, she could be anyone's grandmother..." Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Opinion

  • The article still needs a final review; I think my comments above have mostly or all been addressed, but it wasn't a comprehensive list. I've pulled out at this point per WP:RGA: "A reviewer involved in a contentious discussion should consider withdrawing, so that a less-involved editor can make the final assessment and decision on the Good article criteria." I know Viriditas sharply disagreed with my decision to withdraw, but I think it's easier here to just get a final evaluation and up/down decision from an uninvolved editor. I realize it means a bit of delay, though, and I apologize for that. Thanks, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In this version of the article, note 7 seems to consist of two long quotations; other similarly long quotations occur in notes 44, 45 and (arguably) 20. Our essay on Copyrighted material and fair use (linked from our MOS:QUOTE guideline) points out that "... copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, and a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information". Are these identified quotations too long? The same essay also states "The quotation must be useful and aid understanding of the subject; irrelevant quotations should be removed". These particular quotations occur in the notes section so there is an implication that they may be irrelevant to the subject of the article. Otherwise they would appear in the body. Right? --Senra (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Struck. Not part of GA criteria --Senra (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion by Senra

I am willing to finish this review. I like the article and was in the process of applying ((GAList2)) but during a more thorough read I found some issues as follows (NB Assuming good faith for all sources):

  • There's nothing wrong with the lead and there's nothing wrong with the title. Mary was not "known" as Brownie Mary. Her family, friends, acquaintances, and authorities all referred to her as "Mary". She was, however, "popularly known as Brownie Mary" in the media, so the statement is entirely accurate and there's nothing wrong with it. Further, there's no "puffery" or purple prose of any kind. The phrase is reflective of an established, encyclopedic style reflected by numerous articles (including FA's) and print sources. Your reason for removing the term or changing it isn't based on any known guideline or policy. Viriditas (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pogash, 1992, p. 168: "Some called her the cookie lady. Some called her by her real name: Mary Rathbun. Mostly, people just called her Mary, although she also answered to the name Brownie Mary, left over from the days when she sold Alice B. Toklas Brownies to friends and finally, to an undercover cop." And, Associated Press, 1992b, p. B4: "Rathbun...was dubbed Brownie Mary after she was arrested in 1981 for selling marijuana brownies." She was dubbed "Brownie Mary" by the media, the popular media. Viriditas (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But, it doesn't imply that at all. Are you aware that cannabis was legal and widely prescribed for medicinal purposes before 1937? Are you also aware that the American Medical Association objected to the prohibition of cannabis in 1937? Can you explain how the article is "too biased in favour of cannabis"? As for this paragraph, I'm not seeing any problem, but I agree that it can be rewritten for clarity. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statements were highly controversial in the context of the overall controversy, which the Associated Press (and many other sources) called a "controversy". I will attempt to clarify this. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: controversy is defined as "disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated." According to an Associated Press wire article, "The nation's Public Health Service has quietly made the controversial decision not to provide marijuana for medical purposes to any additional AIDS, cancer, glaucoma or other patients." (Spokane Chronicle, Mar 10, 1992). Although Mason gave many reasons for this decision (all of which have been debunked as anti-science nonsense), the controversial reason addressed at the protest (and in this article) is summarized by JAMA as "[the fear] that AIDS patients, crazed on marijuana, would be more likely to practise unsafe sex." (Cotton 1992) This statement was a new variation on the old American reefer madness propaganda. The ridiculous notion that people dying from AIDS were practicing unsafe sex due to marijuana was seen by health providrers and drug policy academics and activists as the height of ignorance and absurdity. The Washington Post framed these specific controversial comments as one that has "outraged AIDS activists". In response to these controversial comments, Peron said, "Let's get real - marijuana doesn't make you a sexual maniac...The guy is coming from a homophobic point of view. He's obviously never smoked [marijuana]". Rathbun also responded, calling "Mason's position cruel and politically motivated. Let him follow me around for two days as I visit my kids in the wards, and then see where he stands on this". Mason's arguments also led to an internal, inter-agency dispute, with members of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy calling Mason's threat to cut sick people off from marijuana unfair, immoral, and unjust. Dr. Mark Kleiman, an associate professor of public policy at Harvard University, called the Public Health Service position on the matter gibberish, misleading, unpersuasive, and one that "completely concede[s] the case" for access to medical cannabis. Now, if that isn't the very definition of controversy, then tell me what is. Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a cliche. I'll take another look at the wording later tonight but I'm not seeing a problem with this usage. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I was able to find out is that she was held in jail until the DA dropped the charges. There's a sordid, embarrassing backstory involving the police officer who arrested her that would detract from the subject of the biographical article, and quite possibly violate BLP, so I did not followup on that angle. I would be happy to add that she was held on charges until the DA dropped the case. Viriditas (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't odd. It's an introductory paragraph summarizing the arrests followed by subsequent paragraphs detailing the arrests. You may be confused because there are no subsections separating the descriptions, but those are not needed. I'll take another look. Viriditas (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at this again, I've decided to move much of it into the legacy section. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the prose can be improved, but your objections make little to no sense. You say that one problem is that "the reader assumes she was claiming Social Security for much of her life". How could that be possible when you cannot claim SS until you've reached your retirement age? Therefore, there is no implication nor could there possibly be any implication that she was claiming Social Security for much of her life, nor can I quite figure out why you think that. Not only do your objections make no sense, they have nothing to do with this review nor this article. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having looked into this again, I'm not seeing any contradiction. The sources say she worked as waitress for 50 years (likely for International House of Pancakes up until the early 1980s). However, she qualified for Social Security by late 1988 and was likely receiving it by that time. The New York Times reports in 1996, her "source of income is Social Security checks". Again, there is no contradiction between her working as a waitress until the late 1980s and receiving SS checks. Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please go beyond executive summaries. The evidence from the sources in question show that cannabis is useful in the treatment of a variety of diseases. In these particular sources from three years ago, the sources show that "cannabis was effective in reducing pain in HIV-related peripheral neuropathy...reduced spasticity and pain in patients with multiple sclerosis..were efficacious in reducing neuropathic pain of diverse causes" (neuropathic pain of different origins such as physical trauma to nerve bundles, spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, diabetes)...and reduced carbon monoxide levels were obtained using the safer vaporization delivery system. Useful and effective for a variety of diseases. Viriditas (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Senra (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am currently addressing these issues. Viriditas (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relevant link is medical cannabis in the United States, which I agree should be added to the body of the article. "See also" sections aren't necessary or helpful, but I would be willing to add it as a placeholder to remind me to add the link. As for whether "other articles" discuss this subject, with all due respect, that's a poor argument. Most of the articles in this topic series are incomplete and hardly accurate. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct about the stray dashes, so I removed them per your observation. However, the rest of the section is entirely consistent and follows the sources. At the beginning of the section we find Peron speaking to ACT UP in New York about cannabis. Later, we find Mary joining an ACT UP protest in DC, evidently run by their chapter. She did not attend ACT UP/DC, she attended the demonstration held by ACT UP/DC "to protest the U.S. government's policies concerning the medical uses of marijuana" and she joined the protesters (who distributed brownies in her honor to support her) and she joined the press conference where she spoke and was interviewed with the group. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no difference of opinion. You are simply and completely wrong. Feel free to pass or fail, IDGAF. Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And finally, this article supports what I've been saying. Just because the DEA pressured the FDA to place politics above science doesn't make this article biased. Scientific evidence takes precedence over political ideology. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This will be updated as issues above are resolved

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Not entirely concise; some grammar; inconsistently presented facts (e.g. Waitress/SS)
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch,fiction, and lists:
    Words to watch
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    AGF on sources (though have checked a few)
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    Sources all look reliable; One dead link
    C. No original research:
    AGF on WP:OR but looks OK
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Mainly covers her later life
    B. Focused:
    Fairly focused
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Concern over controversial and last sentence
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    No instability noted during the review
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Only one image which is correctly licensed
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Weak but acceptable relevance
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

--Senra (talk) 03:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The review seems to have stalled, and it looks like everything actionable has been addressed, so I'm closing. Wizardman 05:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coatrackery[edit]

Viriditas has restored some material which I removed. This looks to me like pure coatrackery.

The FDA material is this section sort of borderline-relevant in my view, but since the article in part seemed to be about an attempt to influence US policies it was at least defensibly relevant in a section entitled "Legacy". I wouldn't though argue with its removal.

But - "howevering" the FDA stuff, in what is meant to be a biographical article, with medical material that makes no mention whatsoever of "Brownie Mary" is just using Mary as a coatrack to hang view on - especially since the note sneaks in stuff like "we now have reasonable evidence that cannabis is a promising treatment in selected pain syndromes caused by injury or diseases of the nervous system, and possibly for painful muscle plasticity due to multiple sclerosis", which is rather out of sync with the better-sourced medical content in our main cannabis articles. Is there any source linking Mary with these pronouncements made about cannabis nearly a decade after she had died? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you have a lot of different issues to discuss. Since my time is limited, I'm afraid I will only have enough free time to address one at a time. First, you've claimed the FDA content is "borderline-relevant". How is that possible when the FDA is mentioned in almost every source about Brownie Mary? In one of many obituaries published when she died, Reuters wrote: "Mrs. Rathbun was arrested several times for distributing her pot brownies, and lent her little old lady image to the medical marijuana movement gaining strength in San Francisco. That movement eventually led to California's first-in-the-U.S. state initiative in 1996 which legalized medical use of marijuana, under certain conditions, for treating symptoms of AIDS, cancer and other serious illnesses. While the U.S. government has sought to quash California's state law, similar initiatives were passed by voters in six more states in 1998 -- increasing pressure on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to consider removing marijuana from the "Schedule I" list of the most dangerous narcotics." That's one small mention in a minor obit, there are many more. Werner 2001 puts it all in context. Brownie Mary inspired the resurgence of the scientific study of cannabis in the United States, which led her as well as researchers to fight against the legal and political roadblocks setup by the FDA and DEA. Her successful battle to pass prop. 215 led to the funding of the IOM study itself. As for the other material, how is a footnoted statement from the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR) at the University of California out of sync with anything? In 2010, CMCR wrote, "we now have reasonable evidence that cannabis is a promising treatment in selected pain syndromes caused by injury or diseases of the nervous system, and possibly for painful muscle plasticity due to multiple sclerosis." Does this contradict anything in the contemporary literature? In any case, I agree that it probably doesn't belong here, so I removed it. Viriditas (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The FDA in general may have relevance, but the relevance of a 2006 FDA press release to a woman who had been dead 7 years, and which does not mention her, is borderline isn't it? Or is there some good source that connects the FDA's stated 2006 position with Mary? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The argument here has nothing to do with the type of publication used. The position cited in 2006 is the same position they had prior to the 1999 IOM report. Throughout the literature on Brownie Mary, the FDA (and their authorities) say cannabis has no recognized medicinal use and remains classified under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. After all, why was she arrested three times and why did she spend the latter part of her life campaigning for medical use? Because the FDA and DEA wouldn't allow sick people to use it. The fact that they continue to make this claim after Brownie Mary showed it had anecdotal benefits for sick people, and after those anecdotal benefits were tested scientifically, and after the IOM reviewed the evidence and acknowledged the benefits, is entirely relevant. If you like, I would be happy to expand the relevance ASAP and revisit the issue tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I notice in the review abovr it was said that this material was non-neutral and some neutral wording was proposed: a proposal you didn't accept. I hope you can see why there's a problem here which needs sorting out (which would be a better use of your time than ranting and casting aspersions on my Talk page). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you are talking about in regards to non-neutrality, so you will have to be very specific. Contrary to what you claim, it appears that the concerns with non-neutrality were directly addressed and the material was removed from the article even though this material is well sourced throughout the cannabis literature.[11] I don't see any problem that needs sorting out, and I haven't ranted or casted any aspersions on your talk page. I merely noted that you didn't review the sources you deleted and I commented on your edits while paraphrasing Werner 2001. Again, there is nothing "coatrackery" about the FDA and IOM material. Brownie Mary is notable as a cannabis activist who claimed cannabis helped AIDS patients, contrary to the claims put forward by the FDA and DEA, a position which informs law enforcement and criminal prosecution. She's also notable for arguing the medical necessity defense in a court of law. In her 1992 case, Tony Serra, her defense lawyer, argued that cannabis helped stimulate the appetites of people with AIDS, helped them sleep, and relieved nausea and depression, a position confirmed by the IOM in a study funded as a reaction to the legislation she helped pass. In a direct response to Brownie Mary's actions and in her defense, the City of San Francisco passed an ordinance discouraging arrests for medical cannabis and recognizing its medical effectiveness. Throughout the Brownie Mary literature, we are told that the federal government doesn't recognize the medical effectiveness of cannabis (Adams 1992; DeRienzo 1992, etc.), and this is explained in the context of her medical necessity defense. The original version of the article made this clear, but it was erroneously changed to conform to the opinions of other editors who didn't understand the subject. I will make an attempt to restore the original context. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's really very simply. If there is to be a "Legacy" section it needs to be the legacy as described in RS, not the legacy as originally synthesized by Viriditas. Having sources which far post-date Mary's death and which make no mention of her tell us we've got problems here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been explained to you above that this is not synthesis but directly connected to her medical necessity defense highlighted as her legacy in that section by those sources. The government's position has not changed, so citing it in a 1992 article about Brownie Mary (Adams 1992; DeRienzo 1992, etc.), or in 2006 from the horse's mouth is irrelevant. On the other hand, for a good example of synthesis, look no farther than your edits to March Against Monsanto, which defends using sources that have nothing to do with the subject of the march, many of which were published before the march ever occurred.[12] By your own definition of synthesis, you have a "problem" there. You've even argued for and defended it simply because it promotes a singular POV not found in the sources about the topic.[13] That's synthesis! Meanwhile, on this article, as I already explained above, the FDA and IOM material is directly related to Brownie Mary and does not synthesize or promote any position. When journalists like Jane Meredith Adams of the Dallas Morning News write in an article about Brownie Mary that the federal government "classifies the natural weed as a drug with no proven medical effectiveness, making it impossible for doctors to prescribe it" and when she writes that the U.S. public health service responded to Brownie Mary's publicity by restating "its belief that marijuana is not an effective drug" we know there is nothing being synthesized. Why is this important? Because, as the sources explain, doctors can't legally prescribe Schedule I drugs, and scientists have difficulty studying it. Brownie Mary challenged this directly by ignoring the law and claiming medical necessity. Nothing is being synthesized. The Economist article on Brownie Mary discusses the fact that even after her death "possession of marijuana remains prohibited, and this law takes precedence over state law". And guess what? The FDA's position on cannabis for medical use is based on its status as a Schedule I substance. According to the FDA itself, Schedule I substances listed on the CSA are administered by the DEA, and the FDA supports the classification because it believes cannabis has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment, and a lack of accepted safety. Never mind the fact that this opinion is contradicted by scientific evidence and authorities like the Institute of Medicine, the current position of the FDA has not changed. It is the same position taken by then director of the U.S. Public Health Service, James Mason, in 1992, as cited in the article. And the Institute of Medicine study is covered in Werner's 2001 journal article as well as other sources, and relates directly to the discussion of the efficacy of medical cannabis for AIDS patients. All of this is covered on singular sources about the subject, with the most recent being Lee's Smoke Signals (2013). You haven't challenged the veracity of any of this material. You claimed it was synthesized to promote a position, yet that "position' was paraphrased accurately in the New York Times source about medical cannabis, not by me. Then you claimed that it had nothing to do with Brownie Mary, yet the government claim that cannabis has no medical benefit is found in most of the sources about Brownie Mary and the notable legal defense she mounted in the courts directly attacks this position, as does her political activism detailed in this article. So nothing is synthesized and everything is relevant to the subject. Perhaps you could respond by demonstrating the irrelevancy and synthesis that you claim promotes a position. Don't forget to tell me what this position is. You seem to be arguing that the position of the FDA and the results of the IOM study have nothing to do with Brownie Mary, is that correct? Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to know how a source is "directly connected" to Mary when it makes no mention of her. I disagree with your characterization of my edits elsewhere (nice whataboutery, BTW) but if you think they're so bad that's no reason for you to make bad edits too, now is it. What's the process for getting this GA reviewed? if you're not going to fix it we're going to need more eyes. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished mentioning half a dozen sources that directly mention her. I mentioned your edits defending synthesis on March Against Monsanto because you seem to think it is normal and OK to cite sources that have nothing to do with a subject yet you say it is not OK here. In any case, I asked you a direct question and I did not receive a reply, but you changed the subject once again. That seems to be the pattern of your style of discussion. Again, are you arguing that the position of the FDA and the results of the IOM study have nothing to do with Brownie Mary? Do you agree that that the government's claim that cannabis has no medical benefit is directly related to this topic as cited in the sources above? And as for her legacy, sources have already indicated why the government's opinion is important. Pick one at random, say Saxon, NYT, 1999: "Her campaigns and arrests helped build support for the 1996 California State initiative that made the use of marijuana conditionally legal. The measure allowed use with a doctor's consent for patients suffering from AIDS, cancer and certain other serious conditions whose symptoms are said to be alleviated by the drug. But the law has led to numerous skirmishes between advocates of marijuana and local and the Federal authorities who say that a voter initiative cannot override a Federal ban on marijuana." Who are the federal authorities? The FDA and the DEA. In terms of cannabis, the FDA is the "sole government entity responsible for ensuring the safety and efficacy of new prescription and over-the-counter drugs". In order to have access to legal medical cannabis, the FDA must approve it. I can't "fix" anything until you specifically explain what is wrong with it. I've asked you direct question after direct question and I've received no answers, only a shifting of goalposts and a general tendency to engage in holding articles hostage. So again, are you arguing that the position of the FDA and the results of the IOM study have nothing to do with Brownie Mary? If so, how can you argue that position when the FDA is a federal authority that can approve cannabis as a medicine, the same federal authority that is discussed in the articles about Brownie Mary? I count at least five sources alone (there are more) that talk about Brownie Mary and cannabis as a Schedule I drug. Are you seriously proposing that we remove the statement "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not currently recognize any medicinal use of cannabis and it remains classified under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act" when it is that very fact that made Brownie Mary and led her to break the law? In what world does that make any sense? The sources in the article already discuss this. Sweeney 1996: "Congress adopted the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, marijuana was purely a recreational drug. It was placed on Schedule I, the most tightly-controlled category, reserved for drugs said to have a high potential for abuse and no medical value." Do you think that might have something to do with why she was arrested and fought so hard for medical cannabis? And, how can you object to the Institute of Medicine report which was funded in January 1997 in direct response to Brownie Mary's Proposition 215 in November 1996, just months after it passed? Are you seriously arguing that the federal positions on the status of medical cannabis is not relevant to this topic? Are you seriously arguing that the federal position on the efficacy of cannabis, a position cited throughout the Brownie Mary literature and a position that Brownie Mary directly disputes through her activism and notable court case claiming medical necessity, is not relevant? It's already sourced in the article, multiple times. As for the IOM report, it's relevance is clearly established as a legacy, since without her work on 215, the review of the scientific evidence would never have occurred. Not only that, but the relevance of its findings, that cannabis is effective for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting, is discussed throughout this article and forms the core of Brownie Mary's claims. How could this not be relevant? Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My view doesn't matter. We need sources. The sentence "However, the FDA's position contradicts the findings published by the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academies" is neither sourced nor not sourced as relevant in the article. Looks like coatracking to me; and sneaking a 2010 report from the CENTER FOR MEDICINAL CANNABIS RESEARCH into the reference so we can see (what Wikipedia calls in her own voice) "a review of the science to date" is really very naughty indeed. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Let's review, you've appealed to an essay (not a policy nor a guideline) on WP:COATRACK. You've attempted to interpret an essay (not a policy nor a guideline) to claim that the position of federal authorities and scientific reports are not relevant to this topic. According to this essay you cite (not a policy nor a guideline), the notion that cannabis remains an illegal drug whose medical efficacy is questioned by one government agency while acknowledged by another is a "cover for a tangentially related biased subject". May I ask what that subject is? Do the sources about Brownie Mary in this article discuss the fact that federal authorities dispute the legalization of cannabis by the states? Yes. Do the sources about Brownie Mary discuss the fact that cannabis remains a Schedule I drug with "no medical value"? Yes. Do the sources about the Institute of Medicine report tie its legacy directly to the prop. 215 initiative that Brownie Mary worked on? Yes. Does the fact that the IOM found that cannabis is effective for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting have anything to do with Brownie Mary's campaign to bake brownies for AIDS patients suffering from nausea, vomiting and AIDS wasting? Yes. So, where is this synthesis? Please describe it. Please specify it in a precise manner so that I can remove it. And there is nothing "sneaky" about citing the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research in a footnote, nor is there anything "naughty" about it. You apparently do not even know what the organization was doing. Your interpretation of an essay as a justification for your "view" is strange indeed. When it was funded, the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research was one of the leading research organizations in the world studying the therapeutic use of cannabis, a field that Brownie Mary helped inspire. The group used the Institute of Medicine report to look at potential therapeutic effects and produced the first U.S. clinical trials of smoked cannabis in two decades. I cannot begin to even imagine what is "naughty" about having this as a footnote, but I'm sure you will invent something. I've already demonstrated that this isn't synthesis, so unless you can, there's nothing more to do other than to properly improve the source coverage and context of the material so that people like yourself won't get confused in the future. You have not responded to any of my questions or my points. At best you've made a bizarre comment about a 2010 report from a respected research institution (a report that was added to the article in 2011, after it was published) which was used to support the accurate statement about the research to date at the time. Seriously, you don't even seem to understand what you are talking about. When it was added, it was "a review of the science to date", in its own words. You just seem to be making shit up and flinging shit hoping something sticks. Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You linked to the essay not me (actually it's rather fun: the "wongo juice" example is pertinent here). Coatrack is a handy term for what's evident here, which is a species of POV-pushing. You ask: "Do the sources about the Institute of Medicine report tie its legacy directly to the prop. 215 initiative that Brownie Mary worked on?" But as far as I can see this is not clear in the article. What is the source that makes this "direct" tie? And what source ties this to Mary? Pointing to a self-published report that is irrelevant to Mary is all part of the POV-pushing. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no POV-pushing. Everything you've attacked is factually and historically accurate, so you haven't even touched upon any accuracy or verification issues. The IOM report is part of the legacy of the passing of 215, as that's why it was funded and published. The secondary literature (and the report itself) are very clear on this. Calling the IOM report "self-published" is way off. That's not how we use the term. It's a widely cited government report, as well as a reliable source on the subject, and it is notable enough for its own article under the title Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base (1999). Non-historical self-published works are generally not notable reliable sources. We reserve the term "self-published" for sources described under WP:SELFPUBLISH. This is a report funded by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, written by the Institute of Medicine and published by the National Academies Press.[14] Versions of it have also been widely published by other reliable sources.[15] The report had 3 editors from the IOM, 11 principal investigators and advisers from 11 separate universities and 11 staff members whose work was subject to an additional 14 independent reviewers. This is not a "self-published source" as we use the term. Viriditas (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the report out of UCSD. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary holding area

I have temporarily removed this passage here until I can find the time to make the sourcing explicit (From Brownie Mary sources already in the article) and in context (medical necessity dispute, government opposition, IOM report published in response to 215). Content follows:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not currently recognize any medicinal use of cannabis and it remains classified under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. According to the FDA, "smoked marijuana has no currently accepted or proven medical use in the United States and is not an approved medical treatment".[1] However, the FDA's position contradicts the findings published by the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academies. The Institute of Medicine published a review of the evidence in 1999 and found that cannabis was "moderately well suited for particular conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting."[2]

The fact that medical use of cannabis is not recognized by the government is already sourced in the article (as shown in the above discussion). The fact that it remains classified as a Schedule I with no accepted medical use is already sourced in the article. The legacy of 215 led directly to the funding of the IOM report just months after voters approved it. And while this is also already sourced, it needs to be made explicit due to the concerns of a confused reader. Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Inter-Agency Advisory Regarding Claims That Smoked Marijuana Is a Medicine". U.S. Food and Drug Administration. April 20, 2006.
  2. ^ Harris, Gardiner (2006, April 21). "F.D.A. Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana". The New York Times; According to the American College of Physicians (2008), the therapeutic benefits of cannabis for "HIV wasting and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting" are well documented. See the CMCR Legislative Report (2010) for a review of the science to date.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brownie Mary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Categories