history: re-source all 22 remaining weak-only articles with read sources

Verein Legalize it! — Sort of legal: the small amount of cannabis LegalClarity — Is Weed Legal in Zurich? Rules, Limits and Penalties (August 2026) 1 unchanged

International Drug Policy Consortium — New Zealand narrowly votes no to legalising cannabis in referendum (6 November 2020) 2 unchanged

Ballotpedia — California Proposition 64, Marijuana Legalization (2016) Ballotpedia — Nevada Marijuana Legalization, Question 2 (2016) Ballotpedia — Massachusetts Marijuana Legalization, Question 4 (2016) Ballotpedia — Maine Marijuana Legalization, Question 1 (2016) Ballotpedia — Arizona Marijuana Legalization, Proposition 205 (2016) 1 unchanged

Nordic Alcohol and Drug Policy Network — Sweden, Cannabis country report 2 unchanged

Congressional Research Service — Medical Marijuana: Review and Analysis of Federal and State Policies (RL33211) 1 unchanged

Congressional Research Service — Mandatory Minimum Sentencing of Federal Drug Offenses (R45074) 1 unchanged

The Mercenary Position 1 unchanged

The Mercenary Position 2 unchanged

Alaska Legislature — Committee bill file SJUD16 SB 18 (1989–1990, 16th Legislature) 1 unchanged

legislation.gov.uk — Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Introduction legislation.gov.uk — Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Schedule 2 2 unchanged

Drug Use, Public Debate and Increasing Pressures for a Drug Policy Reform in Finland 1 unchanged

Federal Constitutional Court — BVerfGE 90, 145 (Cannabis decision of 9 March 1994) 2 unchanged

U.S. Supreme Court — Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969) 1 unchanged

Supreme Court of Canada — R. v. Malmo-Levine, 2003 SCC 74 2 unchanged

LankaLaw — Ayurveda Act (Acts Nos. 31 of 1961, 5 of 1962) Asia IP Law — The cannabis industry in the IP arena 1 unchanged

Scientific American — Go Ask Alice: The History of Toklas' Legendary Hashish Fudge (20 April 2015) 1 unchanged

Scientific American — The Science behind the DEA's Long War on Marijuana (19 April 2016) 1 unchanged

Manuscripts, Material Culture, and Ephemera of the Silk Route: Artifacts of Early Twentieth Century Ladakhi Trade Between Central and South Asia 1 unchanged

Altered States: Globalization, Governmentality, and Ganja in the British Caribbean, 1880–1913 2 unchanged

BBC World Service, Witness History — Brazil's Marijuana Summer (1 January 2019) 1 unchanged

Ballotpedia — Washington D.C. Marijuana Legalization, Initiative 71 (November 2014) 2 unchanged

On 25 September 1987 fishermen at Maricá, on the coast of Rio de Janeiro state, pulled 18 sealed tins from the sea. Each held about a kilo and a half of cannabis. They took them to the military police.[@1] Over the following months thousands more came ashore — thousands of tins, each with 1.5 kilos of high-quality marijuana — and Brazil named the season after them: the Verão da Lata, the summer of the tin.[@1,2] ## A cargo thrown overboard The tins came from a ship. According to the account on record … hrew the cargo into the sea, and the ship later put in on the Brazilian coast for repairs.[@1] The investigation and the charges fell on the crew of a vessel named Tunamar, which Americ … nd was then extradited to the United States. The size of the cargo rests on his testimony.[@1] ## How much there was | | Tins | Weight | |---|---|---| | Estimated cargo | more than 13, … 3,650 kg | | Never accounted for | about 10,000 | — | Each tin held between 1 and 1.5 kg.[@1,2] They were found along a very long stretch of coast, from Cabo Frio in Rio de Janeiro state … ates published figures for what their police collected; Santa Catarina and Paraná did not.[@1] The police assumed that the missing tins had been found by civilians, picked up by traffickers, sunk, or carried by the sea to other countries.[@1] ## The rush to the beaches People went to the coast to look for tins. Street sellers bega … e lost cargo, about six times larger than everything the police managed to seize from it.

BBC World Service, Witness History — Brazil's Marijuana Summer (1 January 2019) 1 unchanged

In 1961, the year the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs was signed, Canada replaced its old opium and narcotics statute with the Narcotic Control Act.[@3] The Act implemented the convention, and it stayed Canada's drug law until 1996.[@2,3] Cannabis was one of its "narcotics", next to heroin and cocaine.[@1] ## The offences | Section | Offence | Maximum | |---|---|---| | 3 | Possession | 7 years … offer to do any of them. Giving a drug to another person therefore counted as trafficking.[@1] Possession was lawful only for licensed dealers, pharmacists and practitioners who needed the drug for their profession.[@1] ## Harsh at the top, looser at the bottom Importing carried a minimum of seven years whatever the amount.[@1] For simple possession the Act moved the other way. The earlier law had required at least six months in prison for possession. The 1961 Act set a ceiling and no floor, so a judge could again impose a fine or probation.[@3] ## A law ahead of its problem Cannabis had been on Canada's schedule since [1923](/histor … Between 1946 and 1961 cannabis accounted for about 2% of all drug arrests in the country.[@1] That changed within a few years of the Act. Cases rose to 2,300 in 1968 and to 12,000 in 1 … ocedure in 1969](/history/canada-summary-conviction-1969/) and then to a royal commission.[@2] ## Why the index moved The index moved [Canada](/country/ca/) from 9 to 11 with the [1961 … ger mandatory for possession. Every other segment stays where the earlier law had put it.

Supreme Court of Canada — R. v. Malmo-Levine, 2003 SCC 74 2 unchanged

Until 1934 hashish was a legal export of China. It left Xinjiang by the tens of thousands of kilograms a year, bound for British India, and paid a tariff on the way — part of a legal, high-value drug trade through Ladakh that the British carefully regulated and taxed.[@1,2] ## The trade Xinjiang, in China's far west, was a major producer of hashish in the ninete … [China](/country/cn/): it closed an export route, not a freedom people inside China had.

Manuscripts, Material Culture, and Ephemera of the Silk Route: Artifacts of Early Twentieth Century Ladakhi Trade Between Central and South Asia 1 unchanged

The Comoros' three years of legal cannabis ended the way they began, with a change of government.[@1] ## The reversal Ali Soilih, who had [lifted the ban](/history/comoros-legalisation-1975/) as president, was overthrown and killed in 1978 — executed when Denard's forces invaded to reinstate Abdallah.[@1,2] The government that replaced him reversed his decrees. Cannabis, legal since January 1975, was prohibited again in May 1978.[@1] ## A reform tied to one man The legalisation had been one measure among a revolutionary p … are documented and the detail is not: no text of the law that restored the ban was found.

The Mercenary Position 1 unchanged

For three years in the 1970s cannabis was legal in the Comoros. It is one of the very few cases in the twentieth century of a country lifting its ban outright, decades before Uruguay.[@1,2] ## What is recorded The Comoros, an island state between Madagascar and the African coast … as lifted. By the account the index follows, he did it to win the support of young people — a scholar of the period describes Soilih as a romantic jeans-wearing anarchist who legalized marijuana, banned the veil and championed the political wisdom of youth.[@1,2,3] Cannabis stayed legal from January 1975 to May 1978.[@1,2] ## What is not recorded Almost everything else. The sources read for this article give no … say whether anything replaced the ban or whether it was simply left unenforced by decree.[@1,2] That thinness is itself worth noting. The episode appears in timelines of cannabis law as … and no study of what happened. ## How it ended Soilih was overthrown and killed in 1978 — executed when Denard's forces invaded to reinstate Abdallah.[@3] The new government reversed his decrees and [banned cannabis again](/history/comoros-ban-restored-1978/).[@1,2] ## In the index The index records 1975 as a rise in the [Comoros'](/country/km/) scores a … d be read with that caution: the dates are documented, the content of the freedom is not.

The Mercenary Position 2 unchanged

Finland made using drugs a crime by twelve votes, against the wishes of its own government, and has not changed its mind since.[@2] ## The ban and the vote Cannabis has been [prohibited in Finland](/history/finland-ban-19 … to 80 to make personal use illegal, an outcome that went against the government's position. The matter was close enough that: the bill had not proposed making use an offence, but the Legal Affairs Committee recommended criminalisation, the Commerce Committee backed the government, and the Grand Committee's stance had been settled by sided with criminalisation after drawing lots after a tied vote.[@2] The new rule took effect in 1972.[@1,2] Few countries had gone that far. Most punished possession and left use itself alone.[@1] ## Fines instead of trials In [2001](/history/finland-summary-fines-2001/) the procedure … ct lowered possession, enforcement and use by one point each for [Finland](/country/fi/).

Drug Use, Public Debate and Increasing Pressures for a Drug Policy Reform in Finland 1 unchanged

In December 1971 West Germany replaced its Opium Law of 1929 with a Narcotics Law, the Betäubungsmittelgesetz. The law of 22 December 1971 was republished in a tidied version on 10 January 1972.[@1] It turned a statute about the medical supply of opiates into a criminal law aimed at a new kind of offender, and it more than tripled the maximum sentence.[@1] ## A paper law Until the mid-1960s drug policy was a small corner of German politics. The … the end of the decade. The German encyclopedia's account of the law names three pressures.[@1] - **Abroad:** the international conventions, the Single Convention of 1961 and the Psychotropics Convention of 1971, and the "youth drug problem" as it was perceived in the United States.[@1] - **The press:** from the late 1960s, newspapers gave the impression of a vast "hashish and drug wave" about to roll over the country. The government's own 1970 bill spoke of a marked rise in consuming Indian hemp and its resin hashish, a likely gateway effect drawing young people into the world of narcotics, and a legislature that named protecting youth as its purpose.[@3] - **Politics:** public opinion tied the drug question to the student protest movement, the extra-parliamentary opposition that had formed during the grand coalition of 1966 to 1969.[@1] ## What the law did The new law sorted offenders into types and gave each type its level of sanction. The maximum sentence rose from three years to ten. It rose again, to fifteen, on 1 January 1982.[@1] The law also let the federal government add substances to its schedules by regulation. Tha … y long prison terms, has been contested by constitutional and criminal lawyers ever since.[@1] The permit-and-schedule design itself continued the Geneva system: cannabis and its resin had been under the Opiumgesetz's control since the 1925 agreement, with hashish under its absolute ban, and the new law kept that continuity.[@3] ## The long consequence The 1971 law, in its 1981 version, governed cannabis in Germany f … onstitutional-court-1994/) by requiring prosecutors to drop cases involving small amounts,[@3] and cannabis was taken out of it altogether by the [Cannabis Act of 2024](/history/germany-cannabis-act-2024/).[@2] ## Why the index moved The index moved [Germany](/country/de/) from 24 to 15 with the [19 … years under a law now written for prosecution, and pharmacy sales of cannabis had ended.

Federal Constitutional Court — BVerfGE 90, 145 (Cannabis decision of 9 March 1994) 2 unchanged

On 17 October 2020 New Zealanders voted, alongside a general election, on a single questi … " When the special votes had been counted, 50.7 per cent had said no and 48.4 per cent yes, a gap of 67,662 votes in 2.9 million cast.[@2] No country has come closer to legalising cannabis by popular vote.[@1] ## A promise to the Greens Cannabis had been illegal in New Zealand since [1927](/history … The vote was not legally binding, and a yes would still have needed a vote in parliament.[@2] But voters were asked about a complete draft law, published in May 2020. | The bill would have | | |---|---| | Set the age | 20 to buy or possess [@2] | | Allowed adults to buy | Up to 14 g of dried cannabis a day [@1] | | Allowed home growing | Two plants a person, four a household [@2] | | Limited sales to | Licensed physical shops, no online sales and no advertising [@2] | | Created | A Cannabis Regulatory Authority, with a goal of reducing use over time [@1] | | Taxed | With an excise duty and a harm-reduction levy [@1] | Medicinal cannabis, legal under a [scheme opened in April 2020](/history/new-zealand-me … day, but would not say how she would vote on cannabis, saying she wanted voters to decide.[@1] ## The count The preliminary result, on 30 October, was 53.5 per cent against. After it, … less [reached an eight-year high](/history/new-zealand-possession-charges-2025/) in 2025.

International Drug Policy Consortium — New Zealand narrowly votes no to legalising cannabis in referendum (6 November 2020) 1 unchanged

In Sri Lanka the only legal cannabis is the cannabis the police have already seized.[@3] ## From licence to ban The Dutch criminalised narcotic trafficking on the island in 1675. … ded in 1962, allowed Ayurvedic physicians to obtain opium and cannabis for their medicines: it brought registered practitioners within the Ordinance's practitioner definitions and set up Board-granted certificates issued by the Government Agent.[@1,2] A 1984 amendment exempted lawful extracts and tinctures of the hemp plant from the criminal provisions.[@1] The result is a closed loop: - about 16,000 Ayurvedic practitioners are the only people allowed to sell cannabis;[@3] - their only legal source is the Ayurvedic Drugs Corporation, under the health ministry;[@3] - the corporation gets most of its cannabis from police raids on illegal shipments.[@3] By the time it reaches the practitioners it is often old and of poor quality.[@3] ## Attempts to fix the supply Ministers of indigenous medicine sought limited legalisatio … Sri Lanka](/country/lk/) from 0 to 1, since it opened one narrow legal route to cannabis.

LankaLaw — Ayurveda Act (Acts Nos. 31 of 1961, 5 of 1962) Asia IP Law — The cannabis industry in the IP arena 1 unchanged

In 1993 Sweden raised the penalty for using drugs from a fine to six months in prison.[@1,3] The point was what the higher penalty allowed the police to do.[@1] ## How Sweden got strict Cannabis came under Swedish drug rules [in 1930](/history/sweden … -use-criminalised-1988/) so was having used a drug, in any quantity, punishable by a fine.[@3] ## The six-month rule In Swedish law the police may carry out a body search only when the … on, a person suspected of having taken a drug could be taken in for a urine or blood test.[@1] The tests became routine: about 27,500 were carried out to verify drug use in 2006, besides some 10,000 in traffic and other cases.[@1] ## What it achieved Supporters point to low use: among 16-year-old boys it fell from abou … eaths roughly doubled between 2005 and 2013, taking Sweden from ninth to second in Europe.[@1,2] The Left Party now supports decriminalising private use, as do the youth wings of five of the seven main parties. The government proposed tougher penalties in 2023.[@1,2] The 1993 change moves no score for [Sweden](/country/se/): the 1988 law had already set consumption at its lowest.

Nordic Alcohol and Drug Policy Network — Sweden, Cannabis country report 2 unchanged

Switzerland has not legalised cannabis.[@1] But since JulyJune 2023 a Swiss adult carrying up to ten grams commits no offence, and the police may not take it away.[@2,3] ## How the line was drawn The Narcotics Act of [1951](/history/switzerland-narcotics-act- … history/switzerland-fine-2013/) for less than ten grams with a flat penalty of 100 francs.[@2,3] ## Two rulings The Federal Supreme Court then read that rule closely. In [2017](/history … ches to consumption. Merely possessing under ten grams, without using it, cannot be fined.[@2] In JulyJune 2023 it went a step further. If possession of up to ten grams for one's own use is not punishable, the court held in decision 6B_911/2021, the police have no legal basis to confiscate it. The cannabis stays with its owner.[@2,3] Consumption is still an offence. Someone caught smoking is fined and loses what they have.[@2,3] ## The result A Swiss adult may lawfully hold ten grams that it was unlawful to buy, unla … w to legalise adult use, with three plants at home and non-profit sales, by 14 votes to 9.[@1] In the index the 2023 ruling is recorded for [Switzerland](/country/ch/) without a new score step: it confirmed and completed a freedom the 2017 ruling had already created.

Verein Legalize it! — Sort of legal: the small amount of cannabis LegalClarity — Is Weed Legal in Zurich? Rules, Limits and Penalties (August 2026) 1 unchanged

In 1925 Trinidad and Tobago banned ganja. The colony had spent the previous ten years licensing and taxing it.[@1,2] ## From licence to ban Under the [Ganja Ordinance of 1915](/history/trinidad-ganja-licens … model of Bengal. In 1925 the colonial legislature replaced the licence with a prohibition.[@1,2] The date is not a coincidence of the calendar. In February 1925 the [Geneva convention](/h … around it. The sources read for this article do not record the debate in Trinidad itself.[@2] ## Who it fell on Ganja had come to the islands with indentured workers from India, and its use was associated with them.[@3] Colonial doctors had argued since the 1880s that it filled the asylum with Indian patients, — ganja was cited in colonial lunatic-asylum reports and in the disturbances at the 1884 Hosay festival — a claim that officials in [Mauritius](/history/mauritius-officials-find-no-harm-1894/) and the [Indian Hemp Drugs Commission](/history/india-hemp-drugs-commission-1894/) had found little evidence for.[@3] ## Ninety-four years The ban outlasted the empire that imposed it. It was carried into th … 925 ordinance took Trinidad from a licensed system to prohibition, a fall on every score.

Altered States: Globalization, Governmentality, and Ganja in the British Caribbean, 1880–1913 2 unchanged

The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 came into force on 1 July 1973[@4] and is still the law that governs cannabis in the United Kingdom. For cannabis it was, narrowly, a relaxation: the maximum sentence for possession was halved, from ten years to five.[@1] ## The report behind it In 1967 the Home Office's Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence s … and the law socially damaging, and the sub-committee decided to report on cannabis first.[@2] The Wootton Report, dated 1968 and published in January 1969, concluded that long-term use … mount "should not normally be regarded as a serious crime to be punished by imprisonment".[@2] The Home Secretary, James Callaghan, told Parliament the committee had been "over-influenced" by the legalisation lobby. A year later he introduced the consolidating bill that became the 1971 Act.[@1,2] ## What the Act did The Act consolidated the earlier drug laws into a single scheme. - Controlled drugs are sorted into three classes, A, B and C, and penalties for possession and supply are graded by class.[@1] - Cannabis and cannabis resin were placed in Class B.[@5] - A drug can be moved between classes by order, after the government has consulted a new statutory body, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.[@1] - The Home Secretary licenses lawful production and supply.[@1] The halved maximum for possession is the one Wootton recommendation that reached the statute book.[@1,2] Possession stayed a crime that could be punished with prison, and the Act kept the police … 2004](/history/uk-class-c-2004/) and back to Class B in [2009](/history/uk-class-b-2009/).[@3]

legislation.gov.uk — Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Introduction legislation.gov.uk — Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Schedule 2 3 unchanged

On 27 October 1986 the United States brought back the mandatory prison sentence for drug crimes. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act undid the choice Congress had made in 1970, when it repealed the fixed minimums of the 1950s.[@1,3] ## Two deaths and an election The law is also called the Len Bias Law. Bias died a cocaine-related death on 19 June 1986, and Don Rogers another eight days later. Crack cocaine had recently appeared in American cities.[@1] The Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill, told the Democratic leadership to draft an omnibus … d the Republican Senate each pushed stricter proposals, with midterm elections weeks away.[@1] ## What it contained | | | |---|---| | Mandatory minimum sentences | new ones for drugs, … elines, it greatly increased the number of drug offences that carried a mandatory minimum.[@1,3] For cannabis the fixed terms applied to large-scale distribution, with the statute's higher and lower tiers reaching 1,000 and 100 kilograms of marijuana.[@3] ## What followed Two years later a second Anti-Drug Abuse Act authorised the death penalt … third serious conviction, where a serious drug offence could count among the earlier ones.[@1,2] The hundred-to-one difference between crack and powder cocaine stood until 2010, when the Fair Sentencing Act reduced it to eighteen to one.[@3] ## Why the index moved The [act](/history/us-anti-drug-abuse-act-1986/) lowered the [Unit … which is why the fall is small, and arrests for marijuana rose for the next two decades.

Congressional Research Service — Mandatory Minimum Sentencing of Federal Drug Offenses (R45074) 2 unchanged

Voters in Washington, DC approved Initiative 71 on 4 November 2014 with 64.87 per cent of the vote, and it took effect at 12:01 a.m. on 26 February 2015.[@1,3] Adults aged 21 and over could possess and grow cannabis. They could also, in the measure's … to "enact any law, rule, or regulation to legalize" recreational use of Schedule I drugs.[@1,3] Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton said negotiators had deliberately left out the words "carry … was renewed in later budgets, so the District could never license or tax a cannabis shop.[@1] ## The gift economy A law that allowed gifts but banned sales produced its own trade. Bus … without paying the fees and taxes of licensed medical dispensaries. It failed by one vote.[@2] The District's later rules for [medical-cannabis licensing](/history/us-dc-medical-licensi … ted States](/country/us/), its history is context: it does not change the national score.

Ballotpedia — Washington D.C. Marijuana Legalization, Initiative 71 (November 2014) 2 unchanged

In 1988 the United States drug agency's own judge examined whether marijuana belonged among the most dangerous drugs. He ruled that it did not.[@2] His agency overruled him.[@2] ## Sixteen years to a hearing Marijuana was placed in Schedule I of the [Controlled Subst … itioned to have it moved to Schedule II, which would have allowed doctors to prescribe it.[@2] The agency refused even to consider the petition. It took three court orders, in 1974, 1977 and 1980, to make the government process it and carry out the scientific and medical evaluation the law requires.[@1] Hearings finally opened in the summer of 1986 and lasted about two years.[@1,2] ## The ruling On 6 September 1988 the Drug Enforcement Administration's chief administrat … ijuana, he wrote, was > one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.[@2] It did not meet the criteria for Schedule I, and the Act required that it be moved to Schedule II, which would recognise its medicinal value and let doctors prescribe it.[@2] ## The answer The ruling was a recommendation to the agency's administrator, John Lawn, w … clearest case of the evidence being heard, in the forum the law provided, and set aside.

Congressional Research Service — Medical Marijuana: Review and Analysis of Federal and State Policies (RL33211) 1 unchanged

Two years after the United States taxed marijuana out of legal existence, the mayor of New York asked doctors to find out whether what Congress had been told was true. Their answer, in 1944, — from the first official body to question prohibition in America — was that most of it was not.[@1,2] ## The commission Fiorello La Guardia, a strong opponent of the [Marihuana Tax Act](/hist … e prepared its report, which was published in 1944 after more than five years of research.[@1,2] ## What it found The report set out thirteen conclusions about marijuana in New York. Amo … cs, called the report "unscientific" and denounced the mayor, the Academy and the doctors.[@2] He ordered that no further marijuana research proceed without his personal permission, and had the American Medical Association prepare a study reflecting the government's position.[@1] Nothing in the law changed. Congress added mandatory minimum sentences in [1951](/history/ … ex lists the report for context; it moved no score for the [United States](/country/us/).

Scientific American — The Science behind the DEA's Long War on Marijuana (19 April 2016) 1 unchanged

The law that began federal cannabis prohibition in the United States was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1969.[@2] The man who brought the case was the country's best-known advocate of psychedelic drugs.[@1] ## The arrest On 22 December 1965 Timothy Leary was driving back into the United States w … a silver snuff box with some marijuana and three partly smoked cigarettes on his daughter.[@1,2] He was charged under the [Marihuana Tax Act](/history/us-marihuana-tax-act-1937/) of 1937.[@2] ## The trap in the law The Act did not forbid marijuana. It taxed it. Anyone acquiring cannabis was supposed to register, obtain an order form and pay a tax, and it was failing to do so that was the federal offence.[@2] Leary's argument was that the scheme could not be obeyed without confessing. To comply, he … omeone acquiring marijuana without being registered, and so hand over evidence of a crime.[@2] ## The ruling The case was argued in December 1968 and decided on 19 May 1969. Justice Jo … d of self-incrimination, contrary to the Fifth Amendment. Leary's conviction was reversed.[@2] The fiction that had made the Act possible in 1937, that it was a revenue measure and not a ban, was the thing that undid it.[@1,2] ## What replaced it The ruling left federal law with a hole in it, though every state sti … change for the better: the new Act abolished the mandatory minimum sentences of the 1950s.[@1] The index lists the ruling for context. Between May 1969 and October 1970 a person's position under state law did not change, so it moved no score for the [United States](/country/us/).

U.S. Supreme Court — Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969) 1 unchanged

On 8 November 2016, the day Donald Trump was elected president, voters in four American states approved legal cannabis for adults.[@1,2,3,4] Colorado and Washington had gone first in [2012](/history/us-colorado-washington-2012/), Oregon and Alaska followed in 2014. The 2016 votes mattered more than either, because one of the four states was California. Arizona rejected a similar question the same day.[@5] ## Four votes | State | Measure | Yes | Notes | |---|---|---|---| | California | Proposition 64 | 57.1% | law from 9 November 2016; shops from January 2018 [@1] | | Nevada | Question 2 | 54.5% | one ounce legal from 1 January 2017; shops from 1 July 2017 [@2] | | Massachusetts | Question 4 | 53.67% | the legislature delayed shops; the first opened on 20 Novembershop licensing to July 2018 [@3] | | Maine | Question 1 | 50.3% | 381,768 to 377,773 after a partial; recount abandoned in December; law from 30 January 2017, retail postponed [@4] | Maine's margin, under 54,000 votes, ismade it the narrowestclosest of any successful legalisation measure in the countryfour.[@1,2,3,4] ## California California had been first with medical cannabis in 1996 and had rejected legalisation at the ballot in 1972 and again in 2010. Possession had been a civil infraction there since 2010.[@1] Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, made possession of up to an ounce lawful and set up a taxed and licensed market. A commission chaired by, following the recommendations of the state's Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy, whose supporters included the lieutenant governor, Gavin Newsom, had drawn up recommendations for it the year before.[@1] The measure did not clear old records by itself. People with earlier convictions had to petition to have a sentence shortened or a felony reduced. Commentators at the time also warned that a legal industry owned largely by white entrepreneurs could leave the illegal market, and the arrests that go withserving sentences for things it, disproportionately among people of colour made legal became eligible for resentencing.[@1] ## Nevada Nevada's vote reversed the state's own history: until 2001 it had been the only state where possessing any amount of cannabis was a felony,[@6] and its voters had rejected legalisation in 2002 and 2006.[@2] Question 2 allowed an ounce for adults over 21 and six plants at home, but only for people living more than 25 miles from a dispensary.[@2,6] ## What did not change Federal law. Cannabis remained a Schedule I substance under the Co … ith legal cannabis. Most of the states that are legal today followed in the decade after.

Ballotpedia — California Proposition 64, Marijuana Legalization (2016) Ballotpedia — Nevada Marijuana Legalization, Question 2 (2016) Ballotpedia — Massachusetts Marijuana Legalization, Question 4 (2016) Ballotpedia — Maine Marijuana Legalization, Question 1 (2016) Ballotpedia — Arizona Marijuana Legalization, Proposition 205 (2016) Wikipedia — 2016 California Proposition 64 Wikipedia — 2016 Maine Question 1 Wikipedia — 2016 Massachusetts Question 4 Wikipedia — Legal history of cannabis in the United States 1 unchanged

One court in the United States has ever found a constitutional right to have cannabis at home.[@1,2,3] It sits in Alaska, and its ruling of 1975 has outlived every attempt to undo it.[@1] ## A lawyer gets himself arrested Irwin Ravin was an attorney. To challenge the law he ar … cket while carrying marijuana. He said later that the fight had always been about privacy.[@1] ## The ruling The Alaska Supreme Court decided *Ravin v. State* in May 1975, unanimously, in an opinion by Justice Rabinowitz.[@1] It held that the privacy clause of the Alaska constitution, article I section 22, protects an adult's use and possession of a small amount of marijuana in the home for personal use — the legislature's own files describe the privacy right as prevailing over the state's interest.[@1,3] The burden was on the state. It "must demonstrate a need based on proof that the public health or welfare will in fact suffer", the court said, and "mere scientific doubts will not suffice". Alaska lawmakers later called this the Ravin burden: without an adequate justification for intruding on the home, the ban could not stand.[@1,3] It is the first, and so far the only, decision by a state or federal court to recognise a constitutional privacy right covering cannabis.[@1] ## Voters and legislators push back | Year | Event | |---|---| | 1990 | Voters approve an … ry/georgia-constitutional-court-2018/) and [Argentina](/history/argentina-arriola-2009/).

Alaska Legislature — Committee bill file SJUD16 SB 18 (1989–1990, 16th Legislature) 2 unchanged

The most famous cannabis recipe in English was printed in a respectable cookbook in 1954, and American readers did not get to see it.[@1,2] ## The book Alice B. Toklas published *The Alice B. Toklas Cook Book* in 1954. Among its recipes was one for "Haschich Fudge", a mixture of spices, nuts, fruit and cannabis.[@2] Toklas presented it without alarm. She called it "the food of paradise", said it was "easy … o pieces were quite enough. She later said the recipe had come from her friend Brion Gysin, who had sent it in spelling cannabis "canibus" without her realising what it was.[@2] ## The cut The recipe was removed from the first American edition. It appeared in later ones. The omission did nothing to keep it quiet: the fudge caused controversy in the press, — Time reviewed it in October 1954 — and the recipe became a sensation in its own right.[@1,2] ## Afterlife By the 1960s the fudge belonged to the counterculture, and Toklas's name was attached for good to cannabis baked into sweets. The 1968 film *I Love You, Alice B. Toklas* took its title from it.[@1,2] ## Where the law stood In 1954 cannabis in the [United States](/country/us/) was governed … the history because it shows how early, and how casually, cannabis as food entered print.

Scientific American — Go Ask Alice: The History of Toklas' Legendary Hashish Fudge (20 April 2015) 1 unchanged