# Talk:Brownie Mary

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)

Need to integrate the hospital volunteerism per Pogash into the 1992 arrest coverage
Expand 1992 publicized trial, representation by Tony Serra, verdict
In progress...
Expand referendum work, secretive nature of recipe (still hasn't been released)
Doing (recipe never published)... Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Source Nevada resident
Expand Bossard incident per Sloman (1998) and other sources
Potential BLP issue, so I've left this out for now. I should revisit it, however. Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Source her unusual appearance which rarely changed and contributed to her iconic nature—polyester pantsuit, shirt and vest with buttons, large glasses, grandmotherly figure
Doing... Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Describe the shamanic symbolism of the larger than life figure per Palmer (2008)
Add image
Doing... Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
In progress, see below section.
Need secondary sources for "she was named a "Living Saint" in 1994 at the San Francisco Saints Alive Benefit" and "the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence named her a saint" and "Mary was also included in the Sisters' Nuns of the Above AIDS Memorial Quilt for her work with and advocating for people with AIDS".
See: Harper, Jim, 2006, Identity Crisis: How Identification Is Overused and Misunderstood,  Washington, DC: Cato Institute. 225.[1]
Doing... Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Add tobacco addiction.  Likely that her chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was from smoking tobacco, not cannabis.
Per Werner (2001), the concept of cannabis buyers clubs arose out of the illicit buyers clubs established for untested AIDS drugs in the 1980s, spurred by the failure of the Reagan administration's intransigence  in recognizing the epidemic, the failure of the FDA to fast track new drugs, and the initial failure of the NIH and Public Health Service to fund research.  The origins of  AIDS activism (and with it cannabis activism espoused by Mary and Peron) arose out of the failure of the government to take the disease seriously and to act proactively.  The failure of the Reagan administration to deal with the AIDS crisis can be traced to their ideological stance against homosexuality and their emphasis on the value of fiscal conservatism over and above the value of public health and safety.  Therefore, the conservative response to the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s directly led to the campaign to legalize cannabis for medical purposes in the 1990s, and to the current climate of decriminalization and legalization in the 2000s.  The unintended consequences of the government using federal drug laws and the criminal justice system to prevent and block AIDS patients from gaining access to medical cannabis was, ironically, the single motivating factor for medical cannabis activism in local communities, and the decriminalization and legalization movements by the states.
San Francisco defense lawyer J. David Nick represented her in 1992?
Per sources, mention book collaboration with Peron, note the fact that they sold it at CBC
Expand CBC, building name, Prop P and 215.

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

Brownie Mary was Grand Marshal of the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade in 1997, not 1996.  This error is commonly found outside of sources about the parade from subsequent years.  Sources about the parade from 1997 clarify this error.  The source of the error, surprisingly enough, appears to be Dennis Peron.
The name and death date of her daughter varies by source.  I've used the one as transcribed in the High Times interview.
For example, Pimsleur (1999) refers to her only daughter "Peggy" as "Jenny".
Birth date variously cited as 1955 or 1952.  She was said to have died at age 22.
Her birth date varies by source.  Per the above.
Dates of arrests, sentencing, and charges vary depending on the source.  Whenever possible, I've attempted to use the original source and compare dates to determine where the error occurred, eliminating the typo source if at all possible.
Reed (1999) mistakenly lists her 1982 arrest as 1984.
Local news stories about her 1992 arrest were syndicated around the country.  Many appear with different titles and content, but can be traced to their original sources.
Sources like Woo (1999) say that "she gained national attention with her 1992 arrest", however, her first two arrests were also printed in newspapers around the country.  The 1992 arrest was different because it was carried by cable news around the nation and the world.
Woo probably meant that she gained increased national and new international attention.  The 1992 arrest led to her appearance on many different TV shows, such Maury Povich and Good Morning America, but her previous arrests in the 1980s brought her to national attention. Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Gonzales (1999) confuses a description of her third arrest as her second.
Update: Gonzales confused a description of her first arrest as her second.  In any case, his description is still wrong. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Adams (1992) made a similar error to Woo, erroneously calling her third arrest her second.
Grim (2009) erroneously writes that she was arrested in 1990 instead of 1992.
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)

....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: 

Basic biographical statement.......
.....and .....next basic biographical statement..... then a comma....... (why a comma?)
.....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!)
.....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)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)
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)


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

"Cafe Flore" is spelled differently in the caption and in the article text (with and without the accent mark).
Done. Corrected article title. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
"They delivered a letter" -- pronoun is a little unclear here --is this Mary and ACT UP/DC doing this together?
Yes, I believe that Mary and the group demonstrated together.  However, I have no objection to alternate wording of your choice. Physically delivering the letter is a symbolic gesture, as the target of their letter (Mason) did not meet with them or appear at the demonstration.  Mary (Rathbun) is an integral part of this symbolic act, since 1) she was physically present at the press conference where it occured and 2) her presence was directly relevant to the delivery of the letter. I'll quote  the source here for you to review: "Over 70 members of ACT UP/DC...delivered a letter September 21, 1992, demanding expanded access to marijuana for people with AIDS to the director of the U.S. Public Health Service, James Mason, and asked for his resignation if the demands were not met.  The demonstrators also served brownies in support of Mary Rathbun, 70, known as "Brownie" Mary, who was arrested in March 1992 for supplying AIDS patients with marijuana brownies. Rathbun attended the demonstration to protest the U.S. government's policies concerning the medical uses of marijuana. "Your policy and statements have demonstrated that you are more concerned about safe political positions than practical medical decisions," said the letter to Mason. "You have turned seriously ill patients into criminals, betrayed your country's public health and broken your Hippocratic oath." Mason cancelled the government's compassionate use program in 1991, saying, "If it's perceived that the Public Health Service is going around giving marijuana to folks, there would be a perception that this stuff can't be so bad." Mason also said there was no evidence that marijuana helps people with AIDS (PWAs), and that PWAs using the drug "might be less likely to practice safe ... sexual behavior." At a press conference outside the Department of Health and Human Services building, Rathbun called 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", she said. Rathbun currently faces arraignment on felony possession charges." Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
" sixteen more states have since passed similar legislation" -- is this statistic up-to-date? In any case, I'd suggest adding an "As of [Date], sixteen more states had passed..."
Changed to "many other states" for now.  The laws are changing so fast it is difficult to get a stable update. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
"However, scientific research suggests that cannabis and its cannabinoid derivatives are useful in treating a variety of diseases." -- I feel like we're getting into WP:SYNTH territory here; sources that don't appear to mention Brownie Mary are being deployed to rebut the FDA.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I will look. Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
"that the notability of her actions" -- is "notability" the correct word here? Seems like "nobility" would be a better fit.
Done. You corrected an error from a quote transcription.  The correct word is "nobility".[2] Viriditas (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, meant to take that off the list after I found that one in Google Books. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
"after a great deal of bureaucratic red tape" -- sounds a bit editorializing--what's the language in the original source about this?
-- Khazar2 (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
It's definitively not editorializing. It is sourced to Abrams, Donald L. (April–June 1998). "Medical Marijuana: Tribulations and Trials." Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 30 (2): 163–169. If you feel that my three word paraphrasing of this journal article is a problem, I would be willing to revisit it, however I believe it is probably the tamest formulation in use. It is firmly established that the government "inhibited cannabis research and therapeutics"[3] through the use of the laws in question and placed "politics before science"[4] through the deliberate creation of a legal maze of bureaucratic red tape to prevent scientists from testing and proving the therapeutic potential of cannabis.  Again, I'm willing to revisit the source(s) and come up with improved wording, but it seems to me that saying there was "a great deal of bureaucratic red tape" is the most charitable description of the problem possible. Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Note: the Institute of Medicine referred to this "bureaucratic red tape" in 1999 as "Donald Abrams's difficulty in obtaining research funding and marijuana from NIDA".[5]  They also noted that "Cannabinoids in the plant are automatically placed in the most restrictive schedule of the Controlled Substances Act, and this is a substantial deterrent to development. Not only is the plant itself subject to the same scheduling strictures as are individual plant cannabinoids, but development of marijuana also is encumbered by a constellation of scientific, regulatory, and commercial impediments to availability."[6] Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
"A great deal of bureaucratic red tape" has connotations of pointless government interference, and if your only source for that is Abrams himself, it's probably better to rephrase. The "difficulty in obtaining research funding and marijuana" that NAP describes seems like a much better option for neutrality. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
What makes you think the current wording isn't neutral? "A great deal of bureaucratic red tape" does not imply pointless interference; certain elements of the government did not want scientists to show that cannabis had therapeutic benefits and they did not want to reschedule the drug.  It's a very odd political position to take since the only two interest groups who maintain that position are 1) drug dealers who benefit from the profits of the illegal drug trade, and 2) the prison industry.  In any event, this government interference has been covered by many sources besides Abrams:
Dr. Abrams had originally sought to study marijuana and AIDS wasting syndrome in 1994.  Even though his proposal was FDA-approved, it was blocked by government bureaucrats, who refused to allow him access either to NIDA's own ample supplies of marijuana or to imported supplies from the Netherlands...Eventually, Dr. Abrams was permitted to proceed with a small pilot study, on the condition that he not examine the efficacy, but only the safety of marijuana in HIV patients.[7]
And...
...research into possible medical applications of cannabis remains banned by the U.S. government (Green, 2002)...the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has adopted the curious position that since it will recognize no legitimate medical use for marijuana, there is no need to look for any possible medical applications...an administrative law judge ruled in 1988 that marijuana should be reclassified as a Schedule II substance...The DEA overruled its own judge and determined that marijuana would remain a Schedule I substance...Thus, in spite of evidence suggesting that at least some of the chemicals in marijuana might have medicinal value, all attempts at careful systematic research into this area have been blocked by the DEA...the federal government continues to use bureaucratic mechanisms to block these efforts (Sadock & Sadock, 2003).[8]
Therefore, it appears that the wording of "a great deal of bureaucratic red tape" is well sourced and supported.  I'm willing, of course, to consider your advice and rewrite it, but again, what makes you believe the current wording lacks neturality? Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
"Red tape" is an unneeded pejorative, and different from some of the supporting quotations you offer here (which appear to argue that the federal government deliberately blocked the study, or simply considered rejecting it). A few definitions:
"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)
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)
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) 

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"does not currently recognize" -- replace with an "as of [Date]" per WP:RELTIME -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Maybe, but I think removing "currently" or moving the statement to the introduction of her arrests/medical necessity defense might solve the problem, as well as addrewsing your previous criticisms.  In other words, Brownie Mary was arrested because of the law.  I'm thinking this might be the way forward. Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Done.  Deleted it. Viriditas (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"In addition to cancelling Compassionate IND, Mason made controversial comments about the program, claiming, among other things, that people with AIDS who used cannabis "might be less likely to practice safe ... sexual behavior."" -- change "claiming" per WP:WTA; perhaps "arguing"? -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I will revisit this tomorrow and change the wording to something more appropriate. Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Changed to "arguing" for the moment per reviewer.  I found other sources so I may change it again. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not a necessary action point for this review, but I thought this [9] should probably be restored; since Mary's so often described as grandmotherly, adding this point is useful clarity. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Have you asked the other editor to comment?  That would help, as I have no real opinion on the matter. If you want to add it back, great; if the other editor wants to remove it, fine. Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)


### 2nd Opinion
I noticed that this article's review has been stalled for about a week and I see it is listed at WP:GAN as requesting a second opinion.  But, from the discussion above, it looks like the second opinion is no longer needed?  If it's no longer needed, can the status be taken off of "second opinion", or if one is still requested, can the thing needing the second opinion be clarified?  Thanks... Zad68 17:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)


### 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):

"popularly known as Brownie Mary": puffery
"Popularly known as Brownie Mary" refers to the practice of using the legal name first followed by the pseudonym.  This is outlined in  Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Pseudonyms, stage names and common names.  I don't know where you got the idea that the word "popular" is a form of puffery in this instance, but it is not.  Referring to the pseudonym in this way originates from the encyclopedic print style of the 20th century and is in wide, accepted use.  Now, if a misguided individual has spearheaded a campaign to remove "popularly known as" from all encyclopedia articles on Wikipedia that is news to me.  While there are certainly replacement alternatives ("better known as" for one) I'm hesitant to change something for no good reason. Viriditas (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Remove popularly. Stick to facts --Senra (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Is it not a fact that she was popularly known as Brownie Mary?  Do you object to featured articles like Ba Cut using the phrase?  I would like to know how it could be puffery or how it could deviate from a fact?  If you are old enough to remember print encylopedias (or to read them online or in libraries) then you would know that the phrase is an established style of encyclopedic prose.  Other variations in use include "commonly known as" ( for example I. M. Pei) or "best known as" or "better known as", all of which are synonymous with "popularly known as", but differ in style.  If you feel strongly about this, then feel free to change it to something you prefer, but I don't see anything wrong with the current wording (and our featured articles use this phrasing). Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I will not be editing the article. I view the lead as critically important to set the tone of the rest of the article. Do not antagonise your audience with the first word. MOS:LEAD says "... to invite reading more the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate". The title of the article is Brownie Mary for goodness sake. Remove this word giving "Mary Jane Rathbun (December 22, 1922 – April 10, 1999), known as Brownie Mary, ...". I suspect that, as this article approaches FAC, the word might reappear at some point --Senra (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
"Her mother, a conservative Irish Catholic, named her 'Mary Jane'": Irrelevant characterisation
I would disagree, as it appears relevant to her background and upbringing and is a commentary on the irony of her name.  Journalist Larry D. Hatfield (one of many sources) writes: "Ms. Rathbun was born in Minnesota, named Mary Jane by her unwitting, conservative, Irish Catholic mother. That coincidence vastly amused her, according to Bittner. "Given my background and reputation and my adopted name," Brownie Mary told Bittner recently, "my poor old mother is surely turning cartwheels in her grave. It serves her right."[10]  What do you recommend? Viriditas (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
stet as sourced (as I said, my AGF on sources) --Senra (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
What is USO in "... a USO dance"? See MOS:ABBR
Done. Changed to  United Service Organization (USO). Viriditas (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
"However, cannabis had been illegal in the United States since 1937": Do you mean has rather than had? Is cannabis legal in the United States now?
The context of that paragraph refers to the past tense, specifically, the AIDS epidemic in the early 1990s.  This was a time when multiple studies had demonstrated that cannabis might provide some relief for people suffering from AIDS.  However, at that time in the 1990s, cannabis had already been illegal in the United States for fifty years. It would seem very odd to switch to the present tense while talking about the past. Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Then we disagree so modify the sentence. Perhaps "However, At that time, cannabis had been illegal in the United States since 1937."? I feel the article is too biased in favour of cannabis. The sentence as it stands implies that cannabis is legal in the United States now. Is it? --Senra (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
"Mason made controversial comments about the program": is this reasonable characterisation? Who says his comments were controversial?
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)
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)
"Grandmotherly visage": really? This word mainly means of the face whilst one of the sources talks about her face and housecoat; too obscure a word and some meanings are now obsolete. Such characterisations need careful treatment. Consider directly quoting one or more sources instead. By the way. I 'get it' that this characterisation is important for this article. To me it explains the apparent tolerance of the authorities
"Grandmotherly visage" is a common phrase used in U.S. English.  It is possible that the phrase is not used in your home country.  As for the characterization, I've fully explained this up above using multiple source examples at 09:43, 15 January 2013 (search for that timestamp). Your reading of it is not exactly correct.  It has much less to do with the tolerance of the authorities and more to do with the popularity of her cause with the public, who are able to easily warm up to a grandmother, even if she has handing out cannabis-laced brownies to sick people.  She literally acted like a grandmother to the sick people she took care of (she called them her "kids") and she was perceived as a grandmother by the public. I'm certainly open to alternative phrasings. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Is "Grandmotherly visage" an idiom or cliché then? It is certainly not a UK expression. Once again, are you writing for a US audience or a global audience? Consider "Looking like 'anyone's grandmother' she became the public face of the American medical cannabis movement in the early 1990s, winning support and sympathy for themovementtheir cause" and sourcing the quote to the NPR (1992) report --Senra (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
"On December 7, 1982, Rathbun was walking down Market Street ... She was taken to the city jail and held on multiple counts of possession and violation of her probation": What was the result? The first and third arrests are well described but the result of this arrest leaves readers wondering? Was she subsequently jailed? Bailed? Fined?
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)
Done. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The order within the entire arrests section seems odd. We learn she had three arrests. The media interest is described then each of her three arrests are detailed. Consider weaving the media interest into each arrest or (probably better) putting such interest as a separate paragraph at the end of this section
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)
Looking at this again, I've decided to move much of it into the legacy section. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
"Rathbun worked as a waitress for much of her life. [...] She purchased baking supplies for her brownies out of her monthly $650 Social Security check": Hatfield (1999) seems to be the source for the first part; Woo (1999) the source for the second part. Do these two statements contradict each other?
I'm not seeing any contradiction.  How would they contradict each other?  Do you know how much a waitress makes in the U.S. and how much it costs to bake the amount of brownies that she did? Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
May I remind you I am trying to help here. Firstly, I am not aware of how much a waitress makes in the US. Secondly, I am not important. What is important is writing prose that is understandable to the global readership; some of whom may be earning less than $650 per month. Please rewrite to explain how "working for much of her life" yet appearing to be entitled to a "monthly $650 social security check" makes sense --Senra (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
She worked as a waitress for much of her life.  This is documented in the early life section.  However, this article is mainly about the end of her life, during the late 1980s and early 1990s when she was receiving SS checks and was not working as a waitress. That's what SS implies.  In any case, it does not look like she worked as a waitress after the age of 55. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Early in the article we have " While working as a waitress ... she earn extra money selling cannabis-laced brownies; ... she became known ... for selling "magical brownies" ... for several dollars each". Was she claiming social security then? Later we read "Rathbun worked as a waitress for much of her life. ... She purchased baking supplies for her brownies out of her monthly $650 Social Security check". Both these conflict with your above "... during the late 1980s and early 1990s when she was receiving SS checks and was not working as a waitress". This issue needs treating consistently throughout the article (waitress occurs five times in the article, including in the infobox) and the specific issue of waitress and social security needs addressing --Senra (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't see any contradiction.  If she received SS, then it was probably around 1987 when she turned 65.  The time period you are referring to is in the 1970s. In any case where is this alleged contradiction? Why does it matter if she was a waitress and collecting SS and earning exta money? I'm really not following you. None of these things are mutually exclusive. Can you explain how this is a contradiction? Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
In Personal Life we read "Rathbun worked as a waitress for much of her life. ... She purchased baking supplies for her brownies out of her monthly $650 Social Security check". Only the first sentence is qualified—much of her life. Without further qualification, the reader assumes she was claiming Social Security for much of her life. In the earlier San Francisco section we read "While working as a waitress ... she earn [sic] extra money selling cannabis-laced brownies; ...". So what is correct? There is an implication that for much of her life she claimed social security and earned extra money selling brownies and worked as a waitress. However, I am wrong because "earned extra money selling brownies" was qualified; not clearly, but perhaps in the period from the early 1970s up to 1977? So, in the unqualified period when she "purchased baking supplies for her brownies out of her monthly $650 Social Security check", did she sell those brownies or did she give them away? Hint: she probably sold them. Is it legal to claim Social Security and earn money too? Hint: probably yes if declared and no if not? How long did she work as a waitress? Hint: up to age 55?. When did she start claiming Social Security? Hint: after age 65? Did she always sell her brownies? Hint: possibly. If so say so. If none of this can be sourced then it needs to be fixed to match existing sources or removed [For the record, Social Security carries a negative stigma in the UK; women over 60 can claim a pension, not Social Security (SS)] --Senra (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
"Scientific research suggests that cannabis and its cannabinoid derivatives are useful in treating a variety of diseases": Non neutral. Useful in treating and variety make this statement too bold. The note cited says promising treatment and therapeutic benefits. The note also says selected types of specific diseases, not a variety of: "selected pain syndromes caused by injury or diseases of the nervous system, and possibly for painful muscle plasticity due to multiple sclerosis" and "HIV wasting and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting". Say what the sources say not what you want them to say :) The notes in the article do not say, for example "... and its cannabinoid derivatives" though I accept the sources might say this. Consider (a more neutral?): "Recent research is indicating that cannabis may be beneficial in treating some specific diseases"
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)
Dablinks shows no dabs
Checklinks shows one dead link
--Senra (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I am currently addressing these issues. Viriditas (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Noted. For my part, I will attempt to address your responses quickly. My thoughts are now turning to overall balance. I am not familiar with the subject area so please help me here. Query: is there a third legacy? Have I read that some States have partially legalised cannabis? If so, are there sources that link such actions with the subject of this article? --Senra (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Consider adding Cannabis in the United States to the see also section. Readers who are not familiar with the apparent prevalence of marijuana in the US would benefit from such direction. I note that Cannabis in the United States links to Legal history of cannabis in the United States and Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States. I also note that none of those articles mention the subject of this article --Senra (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
Done. Added link. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
ACT UP/DC. Is this different to ACT UP? If she was a member of ACT UP in New York in the 1990s, why would she join ACT UP/DC? There is ambiguity. (To me at least) join can mean become a member or attend a rally. I think you may mean "In September 1992, Rathbun attended an ACT UP/DC protest in Washington, D.C., ..." --Senra (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Again, I'm not following your continuing objections.  The article doesn't say she was a member of ACT UP nor does it say that she joined the group.  It says she joined a protest.  There is nothing ambiguous here.  Joining and participating in a protest are somewhat different than simply attending the protest, as the prose makes very clear. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
At the beginning of Activism we are introduced to AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT‑UP). Later, without explanation we read she "joined ACT UP/DC". Is this the same organisation or has she joined a different one? Do you mean "attended ACT UP/DC ...". I am just looking for consistency in the article. Further, a brief search reveals confusion too. Our article uses both ACT UP and ACT‑UP but seems to favour the former; NYT 2012 used Act Up; Actupny.org uses ACT UP; Actupny.com is internally inconsistent using ACT UP, ACT UP/NY and ACT UP NY (never ACT‑UP); ACT UP Philly uses ACT UP. I cannot find an active Washington DC branch but the Washington Peace Centre appear to call it ACT‑UP Washington DC and an archive calls it ACT UP/DC. I would recommend ACT UP throughout making this article internally consistent and generally consistent with our ACT UP article. Use attended to avoid implying she became a member of the group which I understand from ACT UP web sites is possible --Senra (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
I was sincerely trying to pass this article quickly but the vociferous differences of opinion here may that unlikely now. I still see issues so I am going to leave this for a few days to see if those issues get resolved before passing or failing this article --Senra (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)


### Result
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This will be updated as issues above are resolved
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
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
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Mainly covers her later life
B. Focused: 
Fairly focused
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Concern over controversial and last sentence
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
No instability noted during the review
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
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
I meant the report out of UCSD. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


### 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".  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."
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)

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

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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://cannabismd.org/reports/abrams3.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721231833/http://www.psychedelic.info/index_2_eng.html to http://www.psychedelic.info/index_2_eng.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)