Talk:Cannabis (drug)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cannabis (drug) article.
Article policies
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4
Good article Cannabis (drug) was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Archives
Archive index

Taken from Talk:cannabis to explain the existence of this article. Please see this and Talk:Cannabis/Archive 1 Talk:Cannabis/Archive 2 for the sources and discussions of this article. Squiquifox 18:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)




Contents

[edit] Can Marijuana Make You Stupid?

A question many wonder. Does marijuana decrease your intelligence - long term that is? I think the article is in need of the answer, or at least arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.84.36 (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The answer appears to be a definite NO, following a Harvard study.

See: http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/10.11/marijuana.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.32.247 (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a great source. Are there any others? We should include this in the article since most associate marijuana with people of low intelligence. Before doing so, more sources should be found. I think the fact that lawyers, doctors, and scientists smoke marijuana would turn around alot of peoples view about the drug. But in order to keep the article fair and balanced, more sources on marijuana's effect on intelligence should definitely be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.84.36 (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] October 19th, 2007 -- Need major revert!

First of all, if an admin reads this, please semi-protect the page! It's getting nuts over here. Secondly, I just realized there is a lot of vandalism that did not get rolled back. We need either a major revert, or someone to go over the article with a fine-toothed comb. This article is totally screwed-up right now. --Jaysweet 17:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

For example citation #70 is incorrect.

Please don't. A lot of vandalism is by registered users and would not be affected. A lot of good edits are made by unregistered IPusers. The edits of two editors who have now been blocked have been fixed. It got a little crazy for a few minutes when one editor would revert back to a messed up version, but it's all good now. 199.125.109.99 01:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont know what the solution is but this article has some problems. I think it should be wiped or stripped down to it's bones and re-written with some protections on it.

Harris77 (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

== better introduction. == rwar

the introduction to be rewritten so that what the average well-informed person thinks when hearing "marijuana" is shared for those who might not know. Wikipedia is supposed to be written for the GENERAL READER.

At a minimum, the introductory paragraph should state Marijuana with respect to:

  • Popular culture, noting predominance compared with Alcohol, Cigarettes
  • The huge dichotomy between e.g. hippie users, and the federal crackdown on Marijuana.
  • The role in media, esp. as the subject of popular films such as Cheech and Chong.
  • the basic questions: who what where when how why

WHO uses it (demographic information)? WHERE? HOW? WHAT do they do with it, WHAT form do they use marijuana in, WHEN (social events, etc), and importantly WHY.

Basically, anyone reading this talk page can think for a few seconds about what "marijuana" means, and NONE of this is reflected in a balanced way in the introductory paragraph. It's just written in an incompetent way. Also, cannabis is much better-known as marijuana and per wikipedia guidelines should be under that name.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.37.179 (talk • contribs)

The Cheech and Chong promotion is a good example of tobacco industry overdose propaganda masquerading as "marijuana culture". One picture showed the two men carrying what looked like an eight foot long "joint"-- what better way to glamorize the overdose idea.Tokerdesigner (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Editor, please sign your posts with 4 tildas like so: ~~~~. If you wish to rewrite the lead, be bold and to do, keeping in mind what guidelines are for introductory paragraphs. Please see WP:LEAD. The lead should be a concise summary of the article and a stand-alone paragraph. Importantly, with respect to the content you propose, there should be no original research. Anything written should have a source unless included later in the article.--Loodog 17:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
In addition, there are actually five different distinct uses of cannabis as a drug. While they are called kef, dagga, bhang, ganja, hashish (or charas) and marijuana, these are actually five distinctly different uses of cannabis as a drug. While all five have a common plant origin and share the same active ingredient, they vary dramatically in potency and region where used. It would be helpful to provide a better clarification of the differences. 199.125.109.99 23:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slang

Where does slang go? Dictionary? Separate article? 199.125.109.53 14:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

How much slang are we talking about? If we are speaking of a couple hundred words (and, especially, if you wnat to define each of them) I think we might need a sub-article. If you are thinking of a list of fifty to sixty slang terms for cannabis, we can put the list (with three to four columns) in this article. Ursasapien (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Cannabis
  • Marijuana
  • Pot
  • Weed
  • Dope
  • Indo
  • Herb
  • Tree(s)
  • Doobie
  • Shake
  • Chronic
  • Hy(dro)
  • Sticky
  • Shake
  • Bud
  • Haze
  • Reefer
  • Grass
  • Green
  • Mary Jane
  • Ganga
  • Spliff
  • Puff
  • Green
  • Tea
  • Joint
  • Skunk
  • Buddha
  • IPhone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill909087 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Dubage
  • BLUNT!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.236.201 (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disapprove of the inclusion of slang words, they have been removed before and the consensus was they go elsewhere, not in this encyclopedia. There are hundreds of local slang words. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad it was there, actually. If some other article could be made called 'slang for narcotics' or something it'd be useful. I am a writer and having no experience of the slang terms for cannabis being able to use some of these helped me greatly! And where are these 'elsewhere' places? Surely due to the culture they would be somewhat unsavory anyway. -82.45.60.218 (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slang = slur

Many of the slang words, like "dope" (opiate?), "pot" ("hot"?) are pejorative self-fulfilling fallacies, unfair to youngsters interested in learning the truth about Riefer (note reformed spelling). They serve a tobacco industry agenda, which seeks to defame the alternative herb and protect the teetering overdose drug empire.

[edit] Nomenclature should follow appropriate use

The title of the article Cannabis (drug) is itself biased and defamatory. Cannabis is not a drug it is a plant. The Drugs or chemicals in cannabis are known as Cannaboids which has its own wiki page.

[edit] Overdose smoking equipment is obsolete

An editor recently reverted the following lines from the part of the article concerning "smoking":

In general, by using the narrowest possible screened-crater utensil and drawing slowly through a long extension tube, one may protect against wasting THC, eliminate side-stream smoke, and prevent health damage from excessively hot burning (cannabis smoking).

An article such as this one should remind readers that there is an alternative to hot-burning overdose "joint", "blunt" (with addictive nicotine in the cover) and wide-bowl "bongs" and "chillums" sold at head shops-- which destroy THC and produce health effects blamed on the cannabis. You can make your own appropriate-sized utensil for 25-mg. servings out of a quarter-inch (6 mm.) socket wrench, a long flexible tube and a little screen (anti-overdose minitoke utensil). This information should be placed in the article right under Vaporization, which in turn should be placed first ahead of all smoking methods.

The minitoke utensil (or kiseru or midwakh) does burn the material, at higher temperatures than in a vaporizer, but at significantly lower temperatures than in the popularized hurry-up overdose smoking methods mentioned above.

[edit] Traditional but appropriate-- and that's saying something

a. The kiseru, made in Japan for centuries, is a long-stem pipe with a crater small enough to serve 25-mg. tokes if you use a tight-nesting screen. See Wikipedia article "kiseru". Cannabis was legal in Japan for centuries until 1948 when tobacco addict asshole Gen. Douglas MacArthur rewrote the Japanese constitution banning it.
b. The midwakh, made in the middle-east, is shorter-stemmed but you can add a long flexible tube like those found on hookahs. It is returning to popularity in Dubai as smoking prohibitions were recently passed and youngsters try to hide their smoking.

[edit] Researchers fear Big Tobacco, drag feet on equipment studies

It has been known for decades that a hot-burning overdose cigaret burns at 1500 degrees F (860 C) at the tip when a victim is "puffing" on it. All that's needed now is a study of the temperature when properly sifted herb burns in a quarter-inch enclosed crater while user sucks as slow as possible getting all the smoke (proposed definition of "to toke"). Compare this temperature with bigger diameters-- dime, nickel, quarter etc.-- and with the hot-burning overdose "joint", "blunt", cigaret.
Of course they're afraid if they find out the truth about this and try to publish it, they'll lose funding, accreditation, etc. But if someone does-- and the temperature difference will be dramatic!!-- the Wikipedia article on Cannabis smoking (or whatever title) should hurriedly report it. It is one thing to proudly boast that you are trying to "change the world" (slogan offered to fundgivers but not to editors?) and another thing to hide timidity behind slogans like "Neutral point of view" and "Objectivity" while the No. 1 genocide in world history "rolls" on. (See WHO Feb. 2008 estimate: 5.4 million deaths caused by cigaret smoking.Tokerdesigner (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Health issues

<Alex Rohde> I feel that the information selected to be put into place needs to be considered not only for factual accuracy, but also for relevance. An encyclopedia is meant for public consumption, and the facts both denotatively and connotatively should be perfectly clear. For example, the very second sentence is, "It contained 20 times more ammonia, (a carcinogen), five times more hydrogen cyanide (which can cause heart disease) and nitrous oxides, (which can cause lung damage) than tobacco smoke. [46]" I'll grant this, but when putting something in an encyclopedia you want to ensure the audience will interpret it correctly. According to source 52, it's uncertain whether causes greater decline in respiratory function than cigarettes. I fear that the second sentence may mislead (possibly intentionally) the average reader to think that marijuana does five to twenty times the lung damage that tobacco smoke does.

Why cite the carcinogen levels when these are not a direct reflection of the health effects? The levels of hydrogen cyanide, ammodia, etc. may be relevant to a doctor, but they are not as useful for the mass audience. This is exacerbated by the prominent position of these two sentences.

Secondly, I do not find the wording neutral. Compare this actual first sentence, "While some studies and tests have proven inconclusive,[45] a recent study by the Canadian government found cannabis contained more toxic substances than tobacco smoke," to the effect of reading its converse ("While a recent study by the Canadadian government found...., more studies and tests have proven inconclusive.")

Thirdly, I feel that the all the psychosis statistics should not be in this "Effects" section unless they illustrate causality. For those where causality is established, this fact should be stated.

Fourthly, I think citing the relative increase in probability of getting a mental illness from marijuana use is less important than stating the absolute increase. For example, a 1000% increase in a disease which is 10% normally (i.e. to 100%) is completely diferent than a 1000% incrase from .01% to .1%. Essentially, the risk to an individual depends on the absolute difference in risk between marijuana consumption and not relative differences.

The way to state this would be, "Marijuana consumption increases risk of psychosis from x% to y%."

Finally, </Alex Rohde>

I feel that this information provided in this recent Scientific American article should be added to the Health issues section.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=1C689A0B-E7F2-99DF-3EDEF1E265E6006C&chanID=sa007

Please sign your comments and do not refactor or delete others comments. Ursasapien (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
So you would like a statement to the effect that smoking tobacco and marijuana together is more harmful than smoking marijuana alone? Ursasapien (talk) 08:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is actually not been demonstraited in the research i have seen. In a Cuban longitudinal study they found that people who smoked tobacco and marijuana had lower rates of lung cancer than people who just smoked tobacco. This is probably due to THC's dilating effect on blood vessels thus increasing blood flow to the lungs (the opposite effect of nicotine. Harris77 (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

is the use of italics on the word rumoured really required? also alleged or suggested would be better words as scientist don't create "rumours".--220.253.111.199 (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Added a few scientific journal points here as it was a bit short and lop sided --Hypo Mix (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted your entry regarding the addictive qualities of marijuana, because the article you cite does not mention such a thing, nevermind any other recent study on the addictive qualities of marijuana. There are also other statements in your edits in the Health Issues section that I believe should be revised, but I am not bold enough or well informed enough to do so. DonES (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
yes it was page 1613 "...than tobacco smoking alone, and the effect of both types of smoking was additive.15" and ::"A cannabis dependence syndrome characterised by an inability to abstain from or to control cannabis use."
I didn't make it up heh, could some one reinstate it? i've never done done it before.
Also everything i added to this section was all published in multiple scientific journals, so im not pushing propaganda.--Hypo Mix (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. I added a slightly reworded version. Ursasapien (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Evidently I did not look hard enough. However, there is no mention of addictive qualities of marijuana. Only of the potential for a chemical dependency. I've reworded it(poorly) to reflect that. There are other entries which seem to use "dependence syndrome" and "addictive characteristics" interchangeably. I'm not sure that this is accurate. DonES (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
works for me. yeah i think the articals are saying there is addictive qualities *and* the dependance syndrome, i dont know what the differences are however. --Hypo Mix (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The article never actually uses the term "addictive". I was referring to the wiki article's usage of "addiction". However, the research and semantics regarding psychological and physiological addictions are somewhat inconclusive(as far as I can tell). There's a discussion regarding this and how it applies to marijuana here. In the meantime, until some sort of consistent meaning behind the term "addiction" is established, as well as some more concrete research is done, I'd like to refrain from using it. DonES (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis smoking has not been shown to cause lung cancer, http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer. The active ingredient in cannabis has been shown to decrease the size of lung tumors, http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20070417/marijuana-may-fight-lung-tumors. I do not see any sources given for the statement that cannabis has been linked to lung cancer. This Health Issues section seems biased. Jrod2008 (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree; the statement should probably be reworded. Also, this came out the other day as well. DonES (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
the article says "Cannabis has been associated with lung cancer" not that it causes it (ie: evidence but not overwhelming evidence). (unless some one has already changed it to this, then never mind). Also most chemicals inhaled generally cause cancer to some extent, so evidence of it is probably around.Hypo Mix (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Cannabis smoking is not associated with lung cancer, read the links that were provided. There are indeed chemicals in cannabis smoke that are carcinogins. The THC in marijuana seems to have anti-tumor properties and that is believed to be the reason why cannabis is not associated with cancer. If it were consumed in a manner other than smoking there would be no carcinogens. There are three links above that give valid evidence of this. So it would be appreciated if the propaganda was removed, it looks like a DARE officer wrote this article. Wikipedia should provide information that is supported by evidence, not statements that are contradictory to it, or supported by evidence that is "probably around." Jrod2008 (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
just to clarify I just offered a suggestion not an argument. the below link shows a journal artical that shows smoking pot dosn't cause lung cancer, although it does point out that it may increase the incidence of site specific cancers, but i wont bother championing this as i don't know much about it.Hypo Mix (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
also, deleted the line "Cannabis has been associated with lung cancer" as all of the 4 articles mentioned said the reverse.Hypo Mix (talk) 10:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


I think you should clarify that Dr. Donald Tashkin study proves how marijuana doesn't increase chances of lung cancer at all. A whole interview with the doctor is on youtube, just type "marijuana lung cancer study" or you can find the article at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0002491F-755F-1473-B55F83414B7F0000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.98.56 (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it should be noted that cannabis doesn't raise the risk of developing lung cancer or head and neck cancers. Also, why doesn't the article list the beneficial effects of cannabis?I know they shouldn't be listed in the health issues section, but the article seems incomplete without listing the reasons cannabis is used in the first place. I know someone will probably argue that its use shouldn't be encouraged, but the article should be unbiased. Jrod2008 (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the entire summary for health issues should be deleted and left with only the link to the Health issues and the effects of cannabis page. DonES (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

WHO WROTE THIS SECTION!!!!! this is one of the most biased and inaccurate sections I have read on wikipedia. I am very disappointed. for example who ever added this statement:

""A 1987 Swedish study claiming a link between cannabis use and schizophrenia was criticized for not differentiating between cannabis use and the use of other narcotics, and its results have not been verified by other studies."""

is obviously trying to mislead the public or has no understanding of science. "HAS NOW BEEN VERIFIED by other studies" means that it couldn't be replicated a critically important part of a scientific finding. If particular findings of one study can't be replicated it means the first study was flawed and it's results Void.

That's not necessarily true. For something where there is large political interest one must be very careful how to interpert studies. One needs to look at the methods in which all studies are examined carefully. A comparable example is when the link between salt and hypertension. When the link was first discovered members of the salt industry worked tirlessly to rubbish any research found thereby hindering any progress being made. Only about 40 years after the first proper links were made governments started implementing it into health recommendations. This main reason for the delay was due to pressure from the salt industry. Be careful when you say about verified by other studies and replicated. They are slightly different things. New verification of results may be due to mew experimental techniques, so replication may not even apply. - Medos (talk • contribs) 11:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You just need 100% of all young men 17 years old in smaller country (50 000 men 17 years old) and examen them for 2 days and repeat this with 50 0000 new 17 year old men for a number of years. Not so easy to do that. --08:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Dala11a (talk)

Good GOD! we need to improve this page Harris77 (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Aggression and violent outbursts can occur with benzodiazepines when they are combined with cannabis." Is there any evidence supporting this claim? Tookerfish (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Flunitrazepam is a well known type of benzodiazepines and known for interacting with other drugs. Dala11a--08:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dala11a (talk • contribs)
The comment about Flunitrazepam adds very little to this. In the grand scale of things the list of major interactions from benzdiazepines is not that great or substantial. Warfarin and cimetidine are much better examples of interacting drugs. Odd picking Rohypnol though as diazepam is by far the more prescribed drug and has very similar interactions with drugs. The comment is merely vague. I could have replaced it with warfarin and it would have been as beneficial - Medos (talk • contribs) 11:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unlock?

Why can't I edit this page, even after registering and logging in? There are many sections that can be improved or corrected. For example, the paragraph that deals with correlations between cannabis use and psychosis seems to contradict the page on health issues and the effects of cannabis, and the page cited for a 2% increased risk does not mention a 2% increase anywhere in the article. It seems to suggest that there is a consensus on the link between cannabis and psychosis, when in fact there are several conflicting studies that have come to opposite conclusions (I think the "health effects" page previously mentioned does a far better job covering this topic). BlackHoleSon (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page. It was semi-protected, which "disables editing from anonymous users and registered accounts less than four days old", explaining why you could not edit. Give it your best shot now. — Scientizzle 03:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is off. As far as I'm aware, the only consensus formed in the psychological/psychiatric community is that there is a correlation between psychosis and cannabis, not that cannabis causes psychosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.30.80 (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "in its herbal form"

This was discussed a year or two ago, but it needs to be re-addressed again. I strenuously object to the suggestion that marijuana only refers to cannabis "in its herbal form." Although (like ganja) the term is not used in every part of the world, it refers to the dried buds and leaves and to the drug cannabis in general; it is employed in both formal and informal speech. To use just two examples:

  • a publication by the US military describes hashish as a "Concentrated form of marijuana by compressing marijuana resins into small blocks."[1].
  • A academic research center describes "marijuana" as a drug that comes in various forms, not as a specific form of cannabis. [2]

On 19 October 2007, I edited[3] the lead sentence to read as follows:

Cannabis, also known as marijuana[1] or ganja,[2] is a psychoactive product

The inline reference I included links to the Compact Oxford Dictionary which defines marijuana simply as "Cannabis."

This lasted untouched for about six weeks. Then...

  • Squeakbox, while attempting to undo vandalism, reverted the lead sentence as follows[4]:
Cannabis, known as marijuana[1] or ganja[2] in its herbal form and hashish in its resinous form,[3]
  • OrangeMike (unintentionally?) reverted the sentence to the same, while attempting to undo vandalism.[5]

I'm unsure whether these editors are denying that marijuana and cannabis are synonyms, but if someone wishes to revert the lead sentence, I'd appreciate it if they'd explain their reasoning. Thanks. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

We are not interested in what marijuana refers to, perhaps that might be appropriote on a disambig page at marijuana but this is the article about the drug cannabis. This possible ref shows that in common usage oft he term in a major English speaking country hashish is referred to as cannabis and not as marijuana. I certainly do not wish to see denied that marijuana is cannabis buit for English people they are not synonymous. But as long as we have a separate article on hashish (which i opose as I think it should be merged here) it needs to be in the opening so as to not confuse non Northern American readers, and specifically readers in Europe, North Africa and Asia who perceive hash as cannabis and not as marijuana. I hope you are not implying that hashish is not the drug cannabis, and given that it is it needs to be mentioned in the opening. Thanks, SqueakBox

The latest ref I added clearly indicates that cannabis is perceived int eh UK as either resin or in its herbal form [6].

Customs estimate that up to 80% of cannabis resin entering the UK originates from Morocco and most smuggled supplies in its herbal form come from Jamaica.

Hope this clears up that herbal form is not my invention but a common UK English term. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox, your comments deeply confuse me, and I'd appreciate hearing from some other editors besides you. We most certainly are interested in what marijuana refers to, especially if the lead sentence of this article asserts that cannabis is also known as marijuana and ganja. That is precisely the issue at hand.
Your concerns about hashish are unwarranted, as the opening sentence does not explicitly claim marijuana is hashish; it only says cannabis is known as marijuana, which it is for a large number of English speakers.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
And I disagree that hashish needs to mentioned in the first sentence because it is but one form of cannabis. Marijuana is not merely a form of cannabis; it is cannabis. So the first sentence should tell readers what cannabis is. Then, later on, we can describe what the different preparations are..--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Its lack in the opening (ie cannabis resin), is glaring, and that is all I am concerned with really, the opening does not have to claim marijuana is hashish in order for this term to be included and I really think the discussion about whether marijuana includes hashish and the argument about the inclusion of hashish in the opening are entirely separate issues. Marijuana is synonymous with cannabis only for North Americans and Australasians (in the English speaking world) and that precisely because hashish is far more of an exotic substance both for users and their police enforcers in those places whereas in the places alluded to above resin is far more commonly used (albeit weed is showing a resurgence in Northern Europe due to artificial growing techniques). What we need to remember is that this article is about cannabis as a drug and not about the word marijuana. As I said before there is likely an argument to create a disambig page at Marijuana which could hopefully solve this issue though merging hashish into this article would also be hugely helpful, IMO. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason to combine this article with the hashish article. They are distinctly separate, and should not be combined into one article. 199.125.109.50 (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hashish is a form of cannabis so we either should merge hashish or have an article on the equally notable form of it, marijuana or weed. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oral Consumption of Marijuana

Going with the popular culture thing as stated in near the top of this page, I think that various methods of consuming marijuana (brownies,cookies, etc.) should be discussed. What think the rest of the potheads and just-curious who are looking up the Marijuana page? --Grammar Watchdog 05:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah as a pothead of sorts. I honestly don't think anyone cares. This is more for those who aren't informed on the subject.--Coffeegirlyme (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

With Cannabis being so prevalent amongst young adults, I would figure that more important detail would be included with the effects/symptoms. Appetite increases (aka the "munchies), hallucinations (being associated with separate stimuli), and heightened sexual drive were nowhere to be found...and if so, even with vague detail.

I believe that slang is slightly important for this article. Although not every term, the most common ones such as "bud," "green," "pot," "weed," etc. should definitely be included as one can imagine researchers looking for such information.

Aside from a slew of obnoxious slang terms; The more information, the merrier. It is unfortunate, however, that this page is a victim of constant vandalism. But for an article about something that is used by teenagers, expect it. I do not plan on adding or changing any information on this page. G.Egebrecht 06:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't use primarily by teenagers.Coffeegirlyme (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree they should definitely address the symptoms etc... I have ended up hallucinating several times and once had serious memory loss and left the apartment door open all night and I was alone. I think that's pretty dangerous and worthy of note. 03:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Exmoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.170.172 (talk)

We have a phrase for that kind of research.--Loodog (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terrible NPOV

This article, along with the sub-articles on the health effects, continue to be dominated by a pro-cannabis lobby and in my opinion, are an example of the worst of Wikipedia. Citations that show marijuana is harmful are quickly reverted back. Any information from NIDA and other government agencies are removed. The majority of scientific evidence clearly shows marijuana is harmful, especially when ingested in a combustible form. The notion that the inhaling of any combustible plant product, which would include the inhaling of carbon monoxide, is somehow trivially harmful is the epitome of junk science. One day, somebody will clean up this article. I however, am tired of fighting this. There are plenty of articles of on-line that show the truth, such as http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/marijuana/index.html that people can find. As long as this page continues to show its blatant pro-cannabis POV, it stands as evidence why Wikipedia will never be taken seriously as a source of accurate information. --Darth Borehd (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC) I agree it is rather obvious smoking thc and inhaling CO is not healthy for you. However, living in LA and NYC is worse for your lungs; the way things are phrased in this article do not address relative importance and context. Eating cheeseburgers is harmful, if you eat 10 and do it daily; one shouldn't address the harm considerations without talking about the impact of dose and frequency as the main variables leading to potential harm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.138.228 (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Cannabis has negative side effects. It's fun, but most people who do it can't deal with it not being *good*. But you're going to get primarily pot users watching this page so...--Loodog (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Add some of those refs you say keep getting reverted. I'll keep an eye on POV-pushers. I'd love to see a more balanced approach.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
As well as the lung cancer risk, it also, at least in strains in the UK such as skunk (drug) increases the likelihood of serious mental health problems.Merkinsmum 20:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
whitehousedrugpolicy.gov is a website for the US federal government, an organization that is explicitly anti-cannabis, so of course the information you find there will point to cannabis use being harmful. That doesn't mean that all of the information on that website is necessarily false, but it does mean that it should come from a different source. I see no reason to use a non-peer reviewed, non-scientific source to retrieve scientific information about a topic for which peer-reviewed scientific sources, which are explicitly preferred by Wikipedia's verifiability policies, are readily available. If those anti-cannabis claims are "the truth" and there are "plenty of articles online" that express them, then you should have no trouble at all finding well respected, peer-reviewed scientific studies to support them. Ketsuekigata (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Using whitehousedrugpolicy.gov is a great idea as it is completely unbiased (sarcasm). [edited note: The wise would be prudent to carefully consider any site at a ".gov" domain extension to be 'unbiased'.], totally unlike wikipedia and its shameful editing by the "Pro Cannabis Lobby". Take the following paragraphs from your link for example.

"Of an estimated 106 million emergency department (ED) visits in the U.S. during 2004, the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) estimates that 1,997,993 were drug-related. DAWN data indicate that marijuana was involved in 215,665 ED visits. DAWN also collects information on deaths involving drug abuse that were identified and submitted by 128 death investigation jurisdictions in 42 metropolitan areas across the United States. Cannabis ranked among the 10 most common drugs in 16 cities, including Detroit (74 deaths), Dallas (65), and Kansas City (63). Marijuana is very often reported in combination with other substances; in metropolitan areas that reported any marijuana in drug abuse deaths, an average of 79 percent of those deaths involved marijuana and at least one other substance.

Anyone who has taken an introductory psychology course could figure out that statistics are being manipulated to imply the danger and lethality (?) of marijuana to the public. It is common practice in the ED to screen for alcohol and other drugs of abuse in trauma patients . They were not brought in for "Marijuana poisoning". A huge number of people is presented as arriving in the ED in relation to maijuana. Joe Average says: Look! Marijuana caused these folks to go to the emergency room. Rule number one of statistics: Correlation does not prove causation. Using the pages own statistics that 14.8 million americans have used marijuana in the last month, they would test postitive in an emergency room trauma situation. And 215,665/14.8 million =.01457 or 1.4% of this population has visited the emergency room in the span of one year, which is not abnormal. Compare it to some government statistics on emergency room visits (http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/health.html) stating that 113.9 million americans visited the emergency room in 2003. Take 215,665/113,900,000=.00189. So, in summary, of all american emergency room trauma visits 0.2% of patients tested positive for marijuana. I wonder what the relative percentage is for alcohol, let me find out. Ah, about 7.6 million ER visits are related to alcohol (http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2004/alcohol-causes-flood-of-er.html), or, suffice it to say, catastrophically higher.

The bit linking marijuana to deaths is also quite a stretch. I am not the coroner in detroit, dallas, and kansas city, but i would bet you my last dollar that THC overdose was not on any of those death certificates. So, in metropolitan areas that report drug abuse deaths, 79 percent of those deaths involved marijuana. First, if you are intending to die of drug overdoses you probably spend most of your last day putting whatever you can in your body. I would like to know what percentage of these overdoses smoked a cigarette or drank alchohol in a recent period of time. The article does not even state that the overdosers had recently smoked marijuana at the time of death, just that it was in their system and showed up on a postmortem drug test. That basically means nil.

Another great piece of info from the "Health Effects" section:

In one study, researchers compared marijuana smoking and nonsmoking 12th-graders' scores on standardized tests of verbal and mathematical skills. Although all of the students had scored equally well in 4th grade, those who were heavy marijuana smokers, i.e., those who used marijuana seven or more times per week, scored significantly lower in 12th grade than nonsmokers.

There is no magic behind this study. Did you know any peers that got drunk 7 times a week when you were in high school? They were called something... it's coming back to me... yes. Delinquents. I don't think test score comparisons between an average school child and one that has such a disturbed home life and disinterest in education that they become intoxicated 7 times a week is relevant at all to marijuana's effects on memory and learning. You would be hard pressed to convince me these children have the same study habits, opportunities, and support structure as the average schoolchild. The study they are referencing was most likely not controlled for socioeconomic or other variables but who knows as there is no proper link to the study on the page.

In closing, putting all these ridiculous statistics under the heading "Health effects" is deliberately meant to misinform, i challenge anyone to dispute me on this.

Lastly, i would like to disagree with you that there is such clear cut evidence that marijuana is so dangerous. I am tired of beating the dead horse that it is nigh impossible to overdose on thc but it deserves mention. In psychopharmacolgy in undergrad I learned a great deal about marijuana and a theme in the lectures kept coming up that certain studies that were not reproducible were cited again and again as definitive papers on the subject of marijuana's toxic effects. For anyone interested, the text "Psychopharmacology: Drugs, the Brain and Behavior" by Meyer and Quenzer has a lot of good info on marijuana.

24.88.103.234 (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Timothy

Totally pawwned..! thanks for the analysis :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diza (talk • contribs) 13:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
That was great, I'm glad someone put the anti-cannabis propaganda pushers in their places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrod2008 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criminalization Internationally

Although there is reference to other countries, such as Canada, I feel that other countries should be added to the article. True there are other countries, like Asia, but these are references to crack-downs on cannabis. What I would like to see in this section is reference to the reforms that are happening in Britain and Mexico.

By going to http://www.mjlegal.org/news.html you will find many reforms in progress in the United States and internationally. Two examples of note are how in Britain the police have stopped arresting users and have actually found a decrease in the amount of THC consumption. Also in Mexico, the Congress approved a bill decriminalizing marijuana and the only reason it did not pass is that the president shot it down due to fear of U.S. leaders.--Jason at A&M (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

One reason decriminalization lowers use is that users aren't afraid to possess a miniature utensil, whereas where you are in danger of having your utensil confiscated or used as prosecution evidence against you the obvious thing is to settle for the hot-burning overdose joint which is easy to hide and easy to dispose of in a hurry.

[edit] Effects

This drug, like any other must have more effects besides the possible increase in chance of psychosis. E.g., vomiting, confusion, increased appititte, halucinations, and etc.

134.129.156.36 (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

We actually have an entire article on its effects, Health issues and effects of cannabis. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lupus and cannabis

anyone heard of cannabis helping lupus and why would it be a good choise? or why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.229.87 (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Crohn's Disease is believed to be an autoimmune disease too, and apparently marijuana helps (Google Michelle Rainey). So there might be a slim chance it will do some good for lupus patients as well. I suggest you find an open-minded immunologist and ask. --GSchjetne (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable "Research" from Canada

The new "health issues" highlighted recently by the Canadian study seem to be somewhat weak. I looked at the actual "research paper" and it seems to me it's nothing more than a summary of old research done over the past 20 years with no new studies and nothing more recent than 8 years ago (2000) cited in the "paper". Most of these studies were later proven to be based on EXTREMELY biased groups or faulty studies in the first place. While I respect anyone doing research, the fact that it's an illicit drug in most countries prevents actual research from being done and hence, there wasn't any new findings as far as I know in the article. Due to the dubious nature of the sources of the drug, there is very little factual research into the plants properties or how the use of the NATURAL drug can affect the human body. Basically, the same argument that has been brought up when the actual research was done on the test subjects, which comes down to "No shit, the crap you got on the corner from a dealer isn't "pure" and could be laced with ammonia or various other cancer causing crap? It was probably stuck under his sink with a crapload of chemicals."

I don't think the "paper" is peer reviewed either. Most of the article seems to be taking quotes directly from the BBC article on "Cannibis has more toxins" (yah third party sources!) which is a bad summary of what I think is a bad paper.

I could be entirely wrong, so someone who does some more homework on this please feel free to chime in :) --Moocats (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's Health Canada as reported by the BBC news. This is scholarly and published. Would you provide the address of the actual research paper?--Loodog (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I also came across the article from Health Canada in the BBC news which is why I came here. I thought about past research and looked for some tell-tale clues as to similar statements being made in this line of "new" research. Most of the quotes inserted into the article are directly taken from either the BBC news article (and this IS supposed to a scientific section of the article right?) and the summary report made by Health Canada of a summary report done by the British Lung Foundation of the ACTUAL report in "Chemical Research in Toxicology" which I can't access unless you happen to subscribe or want to buy it. See what I mean here? An article about a summary of a summary of the actual research article? Looking through the new info, I can't help but see exact rip outs of the news article, not the actual report, and the article was based on a summary of a summary with no bibliographic resources earlier than 2000 (unless you count the 2001 image of a cannabis leaf). So PLEASE have this checked over for accuracy before implementing it as fact. Here are the links from the backtracking:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7150274.stm - News Article
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3039-cannabis-smoking-more-harmful-than-tobacco.html - EXTREMELY similar article...from 2002 based on what appears to be the same info
http://www.lunguk.org/media-and-campaigning/media-centre/latestpressreleases/BLFcallsforincreasedawarenessofdangerscannabisposetolungs.htm - British Lung Foundation "increased awareness" campaign based on a summary report(summary #1)
http://www.lunguk.org/NR/rdonlyres/94E8B464-B0D3-4E35-A759-79558CF9B89C/0/A_Smoking_Gun.pdf - The BLF summary report of the actual journal (summary #2, not actual research)
http://pubs.acs.org/journals/crtoec/index.html - Chemical Research in Toxicology (the site for the actual research paper)
While news may appear easy to copy, and are often remedially accurate, wikipedia doesn't report on the daily findings of the news unless it's a news based section right? We'd put up a link to the actual source article and relevant information thereof? --Moocats (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
As we have reliable sources surely the critical issue is how we present this material. We should present it as a valid point of view and not as the truth. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
In addition, most of this new information appears to directly conflict with similar articles from similar sites like this one-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm
In case it comes across wrong, I'm not trying to start a confrontation, just trying to make sure the facts are correct before displaying them :) I will make no such attempt to actually alter the main page, I'll leave that to the general consensus of the article :) -Moocats (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I dont see any sign of confrontation. In a dispute (not necessarily between editors, a content dispute) both or all sides should be given space to be presented, and while I think this info is too controversial to be presented without the clearly available opposing views I would support its inclusion as a point of view. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Certainly from the BBC article what is questionable is research alleging cannabis smoke is more dangerous because people hold "in the lungs for a longer period" and in comparison this appears to at least be credible research. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
squeakbox, that is a bit odd, and its actually an interesting point. I had always thought that holding the smoke in was a myth dispelled long ago, and that THC is absorbed instantly, and holding in the smoke is actually whats dangerous, so it could be a criticism, but someone recently deleted my criticism regarding the fact that its a misleading number considering how much more smoke a tobacco user would use not only in that smoke session, but having many more smoke sessions (many report only requiring a few hits). If you read the article, its actually a criticism right out of it.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogma5 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nitpicking

Under the New breeding and cultivation techniques section, I found some problems:

"Smoking of cannabis with higher THC concentrations leads to an increase of the occurrence of effects, particularly among younger or inexperienced cannabis smokers, who do not adapt their smoking to the higher THC.[42]" So to paraphrase, taking higher concentrations of a substance leads to increased effects, especially to those with no experience. The entirety of this statement falls under the realm of logic and basic causal relationships. The very next sentence: "Smoking of cannabis with higher THC concentrations was associated with a dose-related increase of physical effects" Again, this offers nothing that isn't already in the article.

"What was well observed in the Dutch study was that the effects based from a single dose—the smoking of one piece of a joint for 20–25 minutes—lasted for more than eight hours... This means that even when individuals have the impression that their state has returned to baseline and that they can smoke another piece of joint, the effect of the first joint may be still present." The smoking of an entire joint rarely lasts more than 10 minutes. Smoking a "piece of joint" for 20-25 minutes is not only an exercise in poor English, it is highly unlikely; a whole joint would burn itself half-out in approximately the same amount of time.

Smoking a hot-burning joint destroys a major part of the THC and the reward is an overdose of carbon monoxide.

The very next sentence is a semi-quotation with a bad conjugation: "Another study showed that 15 mg THC result in no learning whatsoever occurring over a three-trial selective reminding task at two hours. In several tasks, delta(9)-THC increased both speed and error rates, reflecting “riskier” speed–accuracy trade-offs.[43]" This would be better off simply quoting the article it references: "The higher dose [15mg] of delta(9)-THC resulted in no learning whatsoever occurring over a three-trial selective reminding task at 2 h [two hours]. Working memory was generally unaffected by delta(9)-THC." As mentioned before in this discussion, I'd take any reference from the .gov domain with a grain of salt, as they have a tremendous potential bias. The article itself is unnervingly brief and its claim that "no learning whatsoever" takes place seems like a truism that most reputable scientist at least would try to re-word or avoid all together.

Lastly, I'd like to point out that these statements mostly do not belong in the Breeding and cultivation section, and would fit better under "Health issues".

Now, problems I have with the "Health issues" section:

"Whilst some studies and tests have proven inconclusive,[citation needed][45]..." I'd prefer Whilst to be While, but that is not very important. However, [citation needed] preceding the actual citation is slightly more disconcerting.

"It contained 20 times more ammonia, (a carcinogen) and five times more of hydrogen cyanide (which can cause heart disease) and of nitrogen oxides, (which can cause lung damage) than tobacco smoke.[46]|title=Cannabis smoke 'has more toxins'}}</ref>" The reference [46] no longer exists. This section along with its broken reference tag should be removed. Also, when comparing tobacco smoke to cannabis smoke, it should be noted that it is NOT comparing cannabis to cigarettes and their glorious additives.

In the Methods of consumption section, under the Smoking subsection: "The most common methods of smoking cannabis involve the use of implements such as bongs and smoking pipes, or rolling joints or blunts[2]." If this is really a reference, it needs to be fixed. That simple of a statement wouldn't normally require one though.

If you have an accepted account and agree with me, please make the changes (if appropriate). --Vocationalzero (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] more nitpicking

Under "Relationships with Other Drugs" under "Effects" it is stated "Not shown is the mean social harm score, which rated ninth, in a tie with Amphetamine.". I followed the external link to the study presented right before this claim and found no mention of the "social harm" metric nor of where Marijuana, Amphetamine, or any other drug ranks on it. I would like to see this statement cited or removed if a citation cannot be found. Thank you. Moman2 (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marijuana users risk airway damage

"Alfred respiratory specialists are investigating [with respiratory specialists in Brussels] new ways to identify airway damage from marijuana smoking which is difficult to detect using standard lung function tests. The move comes after a study uncovered a disturbing trend of early onset emphysema in mariujana smokers compared with tobacco smokers. In a study released recently in the Respiratory journal, researches from The Alfred and Monash University found that regular mariujana smokers were presenting with emphysema 25 years earlier on average than tobacco smokers. Led by The Alfred's Head of General Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Associate Professor Matthew Naughton, the study found that patients aged between 28 and 50 presented with symptoms ranging from breathlessness to chest infection and all were marijuana smokers. "There are very few groups around the world looking at the impact of marijuana on areas such as lungs which is surprising given its prevalence in today's society", he said. From Alfred Matters, Summer Edition, December 2007/January 2008, Issue 82 - Regular news bulletin for the staff of The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.106.81 (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It would help if you linked an article for verification. Does this study take into account that many cannabis smokers might also smoke cigarettes in addition? The reverse is obviously not true for the other group studied, which could have greatly impacted results. Also, correlation still does not prove causation. Vocationalzero (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess this is a link[7]Dala11a (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I recently read an article claiming the same thing which specifically stated that there was no link between pure cannabis users and emphysema Bigoldhippy (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we have a link for that to, please, Bigoldhippy. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Does "regular marijuana smokers" (above) mean those who smoke hot-burning overdose "joints"? Marijuana almost never undergoes the "curing" process that makes commercial cigaret tobacco mild and easy to inhale overdoses of, with all the carbon monoxide etc. If the emphysema problem alluded to exists at all, it is easily solved by (a) using a vaporizer or (b) almost as good-- a narrow-crater slow-burning "semivaporizer" utensil (any one-hitter, minitoke, kiseru or midwakh.Tokerdesigner (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VERY biassed, where's the Psychonautic part?

This article is so mainstream it makes me puke. There isn't ANYTHING here about the psychoactive properties of marihuana, properties which are the main CAUSE of the recreational use since prehistory. somehow this article seems to state everything besides the obvious reason. --84.108.2.225 (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with this remark, it seems to be the only one that is talking about the 800 pound Gorilla.
This article feels almost censored, with it's acute lack of psychonautic details. people have been using it since pre-history, but the WHY of the experience is simply not present!
People like to get high, because of the altered state of consciousness, which may include:
not planning of the future, living in the present, deeper experience of music and color, shorter spanning thoughts, non-regular pattern recognition, non-regular meta-contemplation and association..and more --Procrastinating@talk2me 13:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I look forward to you guys editing with reliable, verifiable sources. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
We used to have a list of effects and feelings experienced when high. No matter how much we trimmed, the list always seemed to grow bloatedly. We elected to remove it completely. The kind of thing you're looking for can be found under "experiences" on erowid, but wikipedia really didn't work out to be suitable for people's drug trips. I'd like to remove the neutrality tag if this is resolved.--Loodog (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overdose and other sketchy links

I've noticed some of the external links are sketchy at best, not verifiable or reliable. For starters one is called veryimportantpotheads.com and doesn't appear to have anything educational on it.

Also I found this odd page which talks about frequent marijuana overdose. I'm no doctor but THC overdose is close to impossible but this site explains how frequent it is and the symptoms etc. I think someone should review this and a discussion be made on whether this is at all viable information. I for one am very sure that Marijuana overdose is unheard of because it would require such a large amount straight into the bloodstream with an IV system. I'll post the link in a jiffy. TostitosAreGross (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm back and here is the link, [8]. In fact I highly recommend that editors review the external links as many of them are fairly irrelevant. I didn't want to take the links out without further discussion but the VIP potheads thing almost merits removal. TostitosAreGross (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, what the tobacco-subsidized media loves to present as a danger of "marijuana overdose" is really an overdose of carbon monoxide and other toxins caused by burning riefer in a hot-burning overdose "joint" which destroys THC (and when mixed with tobacco or wrapped in a cigar-skin helps get kids hooked on tobacco, which is what Big Tobackgo reallywants). Get a vaporizer!Tokerdesigner (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to make mention of this as well guys. Someone please look into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.227.141 (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the entire health section should be a point of view as the studies there are ALL based on studies which are sketchy at best. There are no studies I know of where they base the results off government controlled (not street junk) and grown marijuana. All the studies were done YEARS ago and the only info we have is the biased reporting groups (Lung Cancer association? Really?) who said they "analyzed" the data which gets filtered down a dozen times before it reaches the news, at which point somehow this makes it onto the page. I would never use this page as a jump off point for research unless you were just looking for people who already agreed with a pre-founded conclusion. This coming from someone who has never even used an illicit drug. Take it as you will, but the people who seem to have taken an interest in this page should really look more critically at the edits and research before making fact what is third party information at best. -Moocats (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've studied marijuana and the effects it has on the brain in some of my psychology classes. As far as I know, there is only a "theoretical" limit for THC ingestion (based on studies of lab rats) and the the amount is so high that if you were to smoke enough to OD you would more likely die of asphyxiation first. Similarly to ingestion through food, you would make yourself vomit long before you consumed enough to OD. I'm dumping the OD link. It's just wrong. --Wolfrider (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course one might OD being sick while asleep, and there is no question new users do sonmetimes get sick (I haven't forgotten my own experience) but without some reliable source that a coroner determined somebody had died from ingesting cannabis we are best off not even mentioning the issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone?

Who thinks we should protect this page from new or unregistered editors, to stop vandalism?

Someone dedicated to making your day a little bit better! (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure it warrants it right now, no anon has edited since November 5, I have seen it far worse. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I found this article VERY biased and when i tried to check out the citations i was left with dead ends (dead links). I think this article should be protected from unregistered editors and reworked.

Harris77 (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Any dead refs should be removed and the related text that was supported by it should either be removed or given a {{Fact}} tag.--Loodog (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it funny that this article talks about marijuana overdose. There are studies that have been done that show THC has no toxicity and is actually a neurotransmitter not a toxin or drug. THC has its own specific receptor in the brain.(abrad755) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrad755 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Types?

Why is there nothing in this article about the different "types" of marijuana? For example: Mids, Beasters, Dank, Sylvia, Green Flame, etc.

Those I mentioned are simply the ones I know of, and even then there may be other names for them that are less "Slangy".

I'm pretty sure Sylvia (Or however it is spelled) is another plant entirely, but I havn't been able to find much out about it. -72.241.1.123 (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

--- Maybe you mean "Salvia", a potent legal herbal psychedelic? 24.180.125.118 (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well you've named mainly brands of plants or just particular strains. There is very little difference between these plants and generally they have different ratio's of psychoactive chemicals: resulting in a different high.

There is only 1 species of Cannabis "Cannabis Sativa" with four subspecies: Sativa, Afganica, Ruderalis and Indica. These subspecies are plants of the same species (they can breed with each other) but who are significantly different because they've spread to different regions with different selection pressures (resulting in different forms of adaptation)

The health effects of the different types would be very very similar if not identical, so I dont believe it warrants sections.

Harris77 (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Salvia divinorum

This is described as a species of sage with psychotropic powers, apparently different from Salvia officinalis, the garden-variety sage used in turkey stuffing. Because one (1) 18-year-old boy committed suicide allegedly after using Salvia divinorum there are bills pending in certain states to outlaw it, but legal hot-burning overdose nicotine cigarets go on selling despite a genocide rating of 440,000 per year (US) and 5.4 million per year worldwide (WHO estimate, Feb. 2008).Tokerdesigner (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More editing issues

I had to reread this multiple times to actually figure out what it meant:

"The production of cannabis for drug use remains illegal throughout most of the world through for ex. International Opium Convention of 1925, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, . . ."

Should read something like:

"The production of cannabis for drug use remains illegal throughout most of the world, through, for example, the International Opium Convention of 1925, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, . . ."

If someone with the requisite privileges could fix this, it would be much appreciated!

24.19.26.221 (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marijuana Vending Machines

Something should be added about this recent ground breaking news, don't you think?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7212778.stm http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/01/hot-button-medi.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.165.220 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting development, but not really suitable to this article. It's a tad specific. This article functions as an overview of everything related to cannabis in all parts of the world. This might be more relevant in Legality of cannabis.--Loodog (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Berkeley Marijuana Sanctuary

Someone should add this news:

"Berkeley a sanctuary for medicinal marijuana" http://www.mapinc.org/norml/v08/n107/a06.htm?134

According to <a href="http://www.mapinc.org/norml/v08/n107/a06.htm?134">mapinc.org</a>, "Berkeley City Council members unanimously approved a resolution last night to declare Berkeley a sanctuary for medicinal marijuana in the event of federal interference with dispensaries."

My reply is the same as the above. It's a tad specific, particularly location-wise for a summary article about all issues relating to cannabis. This also would be better fit to Legality of cannabis.--Loodog (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sales and Market info?

Does anyone have any figures on how many bags of pot for personal use are bought in different countries in the world each year? MobyDikc (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Someone please remove the "greenades" reference

Not a registered user, so I can't make this edit. The reference near the bottom of the page to "greenades" links to a PR-Wire news release. It's pretty clearly bogus. First of all, it references the marijuana in question possibly being fatal to young people that might obtain it. Marijuana is not fatal to anyone in those doses. Second, it contains a lot of clear fearmongering, and appears to be a news release written by a commercial drug treatment company. These types of warnings about new ways that drugs are being distributed are usually urban legends. Unless someone can find a better source for the idea that "greenades" really exist, it should be removed from the page. 74.131.128.254 (talk) Anon, Feb, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 22:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Replace reference with "Greenades" (Marijuana Gumballs) in Howard County, Maryland Note - the amount of THC was not determined, so saying it could be fatal to toddlers, or anyone is totally bogus. This reference [9] can also be used, which gives a little bit more background. However, in general it seems like a highly isolated incident, although someone did take the trouble to print up the wrappers. I'm more inclined to think it was all a prank by a 17 year old.[10] 199.125.109.50 (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Removed it entirely. Besides the fact that it was wrapped in a gumball, there's nothing that distinguishes this from general oral ingestion, which is already mentioned. Zetawoof(ζ) 12:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to the Slang terms for Marijuana

Hey, could a registered user add a couple of nicknames for Marijuana in the section for it? The two I'm referring to, and was shocked to not see already, was "bud" and "smoke". Where I'm from, in the heartland of the United States, these two terms are used almost exclusively. (i.e. "Where's the bud at!?" or "Know where to get any smoke?".

I know that the entry alludes to the fact that there are many others, but I seriously think at the very least the term "bud" should be second only to "weed" and "pot", as I hear it more than any other slang term for Marijuana. Many of the other terms listed on the page I very rarely hear, and some I've never heard in my life, so I suppose they are regional. It's my belief that "smoke" and "bud" are much more common than some others mentioned. 98.20.213.0 (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't, we could take up the whole article space with people's slang terms. Why bud? sounds very American to me and colloquial terms are not helpful, and I think your beliefs re this are unreliable. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please dont add slang terms to this page. Maybe in a more mj "culture" type article.mike (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Historians and etymologists"

I was curious about the comment that "historians and etymologists" have claimed that cannabis was used as a religious sacrament by ancient Jews and early Christians (in "History").

I followed the footnote to find that it led to an article about an article written by some guy and published in "High Times."

There was no indication who the guy was or what credentials he hs. Googling him, he's apparently a mirijuana advocate, whose interest in history and etymology is limited to that context.

While the statement apparently has some validity, it could use a better source and footnote.

205.143.204.110 (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)JOHN2510

It is fully sourced in Spiritual use of cannabis. —Viriditas | Talk 13:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's absolutely true; people have been smoking weed for a VERY long time, including in religious ceremonies. This explains why we have THC receptors in our brains; that's just how we evolved. Marijuana is natural, folks.--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Lovely tag: "Marijuana is natural." So are lead, arsenic, and cyanide. Not everything natural is good for you. Not to mention etymology is the study of linguistic history, not religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.8.225.99 (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cannabis and MS

In February 2008, researchers at the University of Toronto published a study that reported that people who had used marijuana to alleviate the symptoms of MS had more cognitive problems and a higher incidence of depression and anxiety. [1]

This article explains why this study is basically meaningless. This study consisted of an interview of ten cannabis smokers who had MS, a group of test subjects who were already cognitively impaired,[11] with a disease that causes "mild visual acuity disturbances", which "could adversely affect performance on this test, according to the researchers". "As such, it is possible that some of the cognitive problems experienced by cannabis users in our study were attributable to impaired visual acuity." More importantly, "An alternate explanation may be that some patients with psychological problems...begin [to] smoke cannabis as a means of self-medication".Dr. Virginia Devonshire, director of the University of British Columbia MS clinic, called the study interesting, but agreed there were too few participants to draw a strong conclusion on the possible negative effects of marijuana....The study was funded by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which also provided a fellowship to Dr. Ghaffar. Dr. Ghaffar has received honoraria from Cerebrio. Dr. Feinstein has received lecture honoraria from Berlex Canada, Serono Canada, Serono USA, Teva Neuroscience, and Avanir Pharmaceuticals."[12] According to New Scientist, "the researchers found that pot-smokers were more likely to have psychiatric issues overall such as anxiety or depression but no more likely to have a diagnosis for a specific mental illness than those with MS who did not smoke marijuana. Nor did they fare worse on the cognitive test. They were, however, significantly slower on the symbol-digit matching test. The study is preliminary, stresses Feinstein..." Until there is a second study that consists of more than just an interview of ten people with MS, that essentially demonstrates nothing, I can see no reason to include it in this article. It's also very clear from the research in this area and from the physicians who prescribe cannabis, that the benefits outweigh the risks. Missing from this study is a discussion of the legal, prescription drugs used to treat MS, whose known adverse effects cause anxiety, and the fact that people with MS often have depression. —Viriditas | Talk 14:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you please do not replace the study.mike (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Bulbous has added it back in without responding to the talk page discussion. A preliminary interview of ten people whose results have not been replicated, have not been cited in any other paper, and whose results were mostly inconclusive, is not important enough for this page. There are many studies of many drugs; this "interview" does not even pass the threshold for inclusion. I recommend that Bulbous read up on why some studies are included while others are not, starting with guidelines for using scientific studies that can be found in most biomedical textbooks. This particular "study" does not even meet the most basic requirements. —Viriditas | Talk 06:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This edit has been properly sourced. If you want to provide additional wording to include a rebuttal, go right ahead. But there is no justification for removing it. Bulbous (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
As I explained on your talk page, just because material is "properly sourced" does not in anyway justify its inclusion in any article. You seem to have a basic, fundamental misunderstanding about guidelines for inclusion. This is especially stringent when it comes to science and medicine, as the popular press often gets these things wrong. In any case, there is absolutely no evidence that this "study" (an interview) of ten people is in any way notable or relevant. In fact, the authors of the study admit that the data has not been replicated (the hallmark of notability) and a second study is needed to confirm. If you read the links I added above, you'll notice that the conclusion is associative and the popular media didn't even represent the results accurately. I suggest you actually read the study and tell us why it is important to include it in this article. Please do not add it back into the article again until you can prove why it should be in this article. —Viriditas | Talk 15:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to battle with guidelines that exist solely in your head. If you want to "educate" me on why material should or should not be excluded, then please point me to a policy that supports the exclusion of this material. It passes WP:NOTE. If you personally disagree with the study, interpretation, or results, feel free to do so by including material of your own. You seem to misinterpret the edit. It doesn't say that Cannabis causes cognitive problems in people with MS. It merely reports what the CBC News published. It's a statement of fact, not a study itself. Bulbous (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Things to consider (from the study)
  • MS by itself, causes neuropsychological impairment in 40 to 65 per cent of patients (Amato et al. J Neurol Sci 2006;245:41-46), Effects of MS includes impaired attention and slowness of information processing, problems with episodic memory, executive functioning, and real world decision making (Ghaffar et al. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2007;20:278-285)
  • Higher proportion of control subjects were on disease-modifying treatments
  • More cannabis users were on antidepressants
  • The relationship between disease-modifying treatments and cognition is open to question
  • Data suggests that MS patients taking antidepressants are not more impaired on tests
  • Etiologic inferences applied to cannabis use and more impaired cognition are not as clear as the relationship between cannabis and psychopathology. Association does not necessarily equate with causality.
  • Finding of higher lifetime rates of psychiatric diagnoses in cannabis users is not necessarily a consequence of illicit drug use
  • Alternate explanation: Some patients with psychological problems smoke cannabis to self-medicate
  • Data does not point one way or the other
  • More research is needed (preferably longitudinal)
  • Limitations: small sample size of current cannabis users, and reliance on patient self-reports on cannabis use in the absence of urine toxicology data to confirm.
  • Replication needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viriditas (talk • contribs) 16:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Claiming cannabis causes cognitive problems is clearly controversial, and I seem to have been here before with Bulbous re similar issues. I suggest we do not include this material as failing notability. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not claiming that cannabis causes cognitive difficulties, no matter how empirically obvious that may be to all. Bulbous (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
If it was empirically obvious to even far less than everybody it would be very easy to source, and the fact that it isn't so easy is itself evidence that it may not be provable using current scientific knowledge. Mental illness is being correlated by modern science with cannabis but cognitive lack simply isn't. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Relationship between cannabis and psychopathology" found in studies could be interpreted as evidence that in a world dominated by tobacco interests using the U.S. federal government as a club to suppress cannabis (and bully other countries into doing likewise) any person, especially young, attempting to have anything to do with cannabis enters a world of fear, fraught with dangers of being "caught with paught"-- by cops, school administrators, worst of all parents, and subjected to disgrace, expulsion, disownment, ineligibility for college loans and a barrage of other PSYCHOpunishments. Unfortunately this obvious fact is too controversial to be addressed by researchers with a job to lose, or until now by wikipedia editors in this "drug" article.Tokerdesigner (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be more convinced that alcohol interests but not tobacco interests had anything to do with this but would want to see some reliable sources. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead sentence and Hashish

Squeak Box, correct me if I'm wrong, I think you're trying to restore the version of the lead sentence that begins:

"Cannabis, also known as marijuana,[1] ganja (from Hindi: गांजा gānjā),[2] or as hashish,[3]..."

This version makes no sense--hashish is not synonymous with cannabis, like marijuana and ganja are. Hashish is a type of cannabis. This is an unambiguous semantic truism that is not subject to debate. For the love of God, please do not restore this version, especially without consensus to do so. I am frequently baffled by your edits.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biased Article

This article reads like it was written by someone who has never smoked a joint in his life. It is most definitely biased. If this is to be a neutral encyclopedia, let's add in a section on how marijuana relieves stress and extends a person's life span, or that its seeds are extremely nutritious to birds and other animals and by forcing this plant's extinction we are disrupting the food chain.--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you this article was written by people who have used this drug. Trust me. As for your mention of content to be included, it's called original research unless you can provide sources that confirm what you're saying. At any rate, I fail to see how this article violates neutrality.--Loodog (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Some sources that could be used to avoid OR claims (just need to word it right)

  1. Patterns of cannabis use among patients with multiple sclerosis and Cannabis Use by Persons Living with HIV/AIDS symptoms treated by medicinal pot
  2. Harm reduction-the cannabis paradox review of endocannabinoids literature suggesting that cannibis can be a useful drug (more info: Body's Own Marijuana-like Compounds Are Crucial For Stress-induced Pain Relief)
  3. Cannabis and the brain review of the brain lit NJGW (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Having smoked a joint is most certainly not a requisite for editing this article. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we all just have to accept the fact this article is going to suck some serious fucking cock until cannabis is legalized. Until then, people aren't going to have the sources they need to back up their original research. And since most of the available research (At least the research done in the USA) is anti-marijuana, most sources we have will be anti-marijuana, and consequently this article will be anti-marijuana, or at least ambivalent to the positive effects of marijuana. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank god for other countries. (1 == 2)Until 01:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Cannabis not decriminalized in Canada

I would like to change "Although recently in Canada the use of marijuana has been decriminalized and laws in certain provinces (such as British Columbia) have been un-enforced." to "Although recently in Canada, certain provinces (such as British Columbia) have not enforced all of the applicable Criminal Code statutes regarding the use of Cannabis."

The use of Cannabis, other than for medicinal purposes (for which a special exemption must be granted), is still very much illegal in the eyes of Canadian law. JoeCanadian140 (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian law enforcement has been going after various grow ops, not the individual pot smokers. Pot is still essentially illegal here, and what's his face, Steven Harper, iirc, is going after Marijuana. 99.252.110.14 (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)(Tetra Vega, not signed in)

[edit] GA Review

With all due respect, you've got to be kidding me here. This article isn't even close to meeting the GA criteria. The prose is poor, and it looks like it was written at about a fifth grade writing level in some areas. The lead section does not adequately summarize the article (I'd strongly recommend looking at WP:LEAD for suggestions here). There are numerous uncited statements throughout the article (see the {{fact}} and {{unreferenced-section}} tags I've added. The article is also incomplete -- notably absent is a section on the 'mechanism of action' of the drug; might want to say something about Δ9-THC here and how it interacts with cannabinoid receptors in the brain.

The 'criminalization and legalization' section is very short, uncited, and probably out of place. I would focus first on the history, followed by sections on the mechanism of action & pharmacological effects, and then talk about the legal issues. The title of the section should also be changed from 'criminalization and legalization' to something simpler like 'legal issues'. Please see WP:MEDMOS for a recommended structure of an article about a drug. There's quite a few missing sections that should be included.

The 'effects' section isn't organized very well. The obvious flaw here is the duplication of the 'main article' link in the section summary and 'health effects' sections. Starting the 'health effects' section right away with the addictiveness fact (or rather, lack of addictiveness) seems to focus more on the positive effects than the negative effects, and this is a minor WP:NPOV issue. The article should focus on the pharmacological effects of the drug from a scientific perspective; both positive and negative effects need to be included, and an adequate summarizing statement on the paragraph/section needs to be put in place to focus on all of the effects together. As written, this looks clearly like it was written by someone with a pro-marijuana perspective.

The 'classification' subsection is very short. Short sections like this are discouraged. It should be combined with another section, and/or more information needs to be added to make this complete. More can be said about classifying this drug than simply classifying it as a Stimulant, Depressant, Hallucinogen, or Antipsychotic.

Lots of issues with the 'methods of consumption' section. Mostly unsourced. Parts of it look like they were written as a "how to" guide, which wikipedia is not.

The 'cannabis culture' section is very short, completely unsourced, and does not follow the manual of style. There's three 'see also' links at the bottom of the section, which coincidentally is right above the main 'see also' section, so the section seems largely redundant. Since there's really no content here, why not just scrap it entirely, and just link to Cannabis culture under the main 'see also' section. There also seems to be a couple of POV forks with many of the 'see also' links; there doesn't seem to be a need for a Cannabis culture and a 420 (cannabis culture) section, for example. Hemp and Hemp oil? Other links could be pruned as well, linking to them from some of the daughter articles involved. For example, it doesn't seem to be necessary to link to the people Fitz Hugh Ludlow and Marc Emery -- these could be linked through the context of cannabis culture, but as 'see also' links, they're really kind of pointless.

Reference citation formatting is overall good, but there's a few inconsistencies. The links to citations within the text should be placed immediately after punctuation marks, not before them (like this[2].), and not after a space (like this. [3]). It should look like this.[4] There are also two template errors within the references section that need fixing, ad a few URLs that need full citation information added to them (author, title, publisher, date of publication, date URL was retrieved).

There's a stray external link at the bottom of the 'references' section.

Change the 'bibliography' section header to 'further reading'. It's not immediately clear if those citations are being cited by the article; if they are citing material in the article, cite it inline preferably.

'External links' could be pruned a bit. Links to 'notable cannabis users' seems to not be very important, and the site 'veryimportantpotheads.com' seems kind of silly and pointless. We probably only need one link to slang terms, not two. You might consider adding the {{sisterlinks}} template here.

Sorry folks, but this article is still quite a long way away from meeting the GA criteria. I'd probably rate it at the early B-class stage, probably a B-; it's better than Start-class, but just barely. Hope these suggestions help improve the article. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I never imagined it was GA status. I think part oft eh problem is yuou get a lot of high scholl kids who are passionate on the subject of cannabis but not encyclopedia writing. I changed the legalization header to Legal status, how does that sound? I'll read your critique more thoroughly and try and institute other changes. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Title Change

Just curious what others thought about changing the name from "Cannabis (drug)" to "Cannabis (plant)". Aloe Vera is not considered a drug despite it's many uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegivingtree (talk • contribs) 03:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What, you mean like Cannabis sativa?--Loodog (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The article Cannabis is about cannabis as a plant. This is a sub article dealing with the drug aspects of it. There are several cannabis articles. (1 == 2)Until 04:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure about your description of this as a sub-article, Until, but yes, the cannabis article is about the plant and I wouldn't really support a change of any sort. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TITLE: (drug)?

Aspirin is a drug but it's title does not include "(drug)" next to it. POV error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.190.99 (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. There is an article Cannabis which is about the plant. This article is about using the plant as a drug. The topics are both broad enough to warrant their own article. --Jaysweet (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
But if you think the title of this is POV and should be something else please make a proposal. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, when you think about it, this is a very poor title. Can we find some backup to support that the primary name of the psychoactive drug which is derived from Cannabis Sativa (not Cannabis as Jaysweet erroneously alluded) is called "Cannabis"? I would suggest that the drug produced from the Cannabis Sativa plant is more frequently refered to "Marijuana" rather than "Cannabis". "Cannabis" more commonly refers to the plant itself, not the recreational drug produced from the plant. Bulbous (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Health Effects and more

That section seems to be biased, most of the section is on the toxins found in the smoke and there seems to be little mention on effects over than psychosis. I think that the name of the section health effects suggests physical risks like cancer, when the main risks are mental, not just psychosis. Also the section is called 'effects' but does not mention any, whether positive, neutral or negative effects. It can cause panic attacks, high anxiety, hallucinations etc. The section should illustrate the dangers to mental health further than dangers to physical health.

I have noticed lots of people emphasizing the fact you cant die from an od of weed but if anyone was to take in a huge amount like 50 spliffs they would probably have a bad time and trip out.

The discussion page talks a lot about the POV (both sides) i think if people do question it the article should have a banner indicating this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.172.66 (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

MOst people don't "trip" on weed, especially those who have experience with the drug. The way you percieve things may change (a large tree's leaves and branches fluttering in the wind may remind you of a bunch of bugs flapping their wings, or a large tree with some orange on it may remind you of a giant bud, but I would hardly call these perceptions a "trip"). Either way, I'm going to abstain from taking further part in this conversation, as this is just a POV-laden argument waiting to happen.--AtTheAbyss (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

See the subarticle created on this issue: Health issues and the effects of cannabis.--Loodog (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In order to die from weed you need to inhale a large amount of it....before you reach that amount though you would most likely pass out... so really...if ppl arent strapping you down and putting a bong in your mouth its very unlikely to die from smoking weed...but you do trip out hardcore if you smoke alot...

ok but u haven't answered any of my points.... and the second person you have missed the point. I don't see why you won't discuss it, thats what the talk section is for...

What i was saying was that most people seem to be overly concerned with saying how it is impossible to die from weed, but i was just saying there are negative side effects (that aren't death), especially if you inhaled an amount that could be 'lethal', and they weren't mentioned. But my main point is if so many people are concerned with the POV being biased, why won't a banner indicating this be displayed?

[edit] Unsourced Claim

"Aggression and violent outbursts can occur with benzodiazepines when they are combined with cannabis." This is not sourced, can someone please remove this opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.29.189 (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Yes I will take the liberty because I myself comsume benzodiazepines on a regular basis for anxiety and I am frequent cannabis user and I know this to be untrue. 24.3.108.141 (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Gateway Drug" Hypothesis can be proved to be false, section should reflect this

'Most users of heroin, LSD and cocaine have used marijuana. However, most marijuana users never use another illegal drug.

Over time, there has been no consistent relationship between the use patterns of various drugs. [1]

"As marijuana use increased in the 1960s and 1970s, heroin use declined. And, when marijuana use declined in the 1980s, heroin use remained fairly stable.

For the past 20 years, as marijuana use-rates fluctuated, the use of LSD hardly changed at all.

Cocaine use increased in the early 1980s as marijuana use was declining. During the late 1980s, both marijuana and cocaine declined. During the last few years, cocaine use has continued to decline as marijuana use has increased slightly."

In 1994, less than 16% of high school seniors who had ever tried marijuana had ever tried cocaine - the lowest percentage ever recorded. In fact, as shown below, the proportion of marijuana users trying cocaine has declined steadily since 1986, when a high of more than 33% was recorded.

Proportion of Marijuana Users Ever Trying Cocaine

High School Seniors, 1975-1994 [2]

1975: 19% 1980: 27% 1985: 31% 1990: 22% 1976: 19% 1981: 28% 1986: 33% 1991: 22% 1977: 20% 1982: 27% 1987: 30% 1992: 18% 1978: 22% 1983: 28% 1988: 26% 1993: 17% 1979: 25% 1984: 29% 1989: 23% 1994: 16%

In short, there is no inevitable relationship between the use of marijuana and other drugs. This fact is supported by data from other countries. In the Netherlands, for example, although marijuana prevalence among young people increased during the past decade, cocaine use decreased - and remains considerably lower than in the United States. Whereas approximately 16% of youthful marijuana users in the U.S. have tried cocaine, the comparable figure for Dutch youth is 1.8 percent. [3] Indeed, the Dutch policy of allowing marijuana to be purchased openly in government-regulated "coffee shops" was designed specifically to separate young marijuana users from illegal markets where heroin and cocaine are sold. [4]

Sources:

[1] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Main Findings 1990; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Preliminary Estimates from the 1993 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse.

[2] Johnston, L.D. et al, Monitoring the Future, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research (1994).

[3] Cohen, P.D.A., Cannabisgebruikers in Amsterdam, Jaarbeurs Congrescentrum Utrecht (1995).

[4] Leuw, E. and Marshall, I.H. (eds)., Between Prohibition and Legalization: The Dutch Experiment in Drug Policy, Amsterdam: Kugler Publications (1994). '

-This information was copy/pasted from: "Exposing Marijuana Myths: A Review of the Scientific Evidence

From The Lindesmith Center A Project of the Open Society Institute Ethan Nadelmann, Director

Lynn Zimmer, Associate Professor of Sociology, Queens College John P. Morgan, Professor of Pharmacology, City University of New York Medical School

October 1995 © Open Society Institute/The Lindesmith Center"

I would appreciate if someone would incorporate this information into this section. The section already highlights the reasoning that supports the "gateway drug" hypothesis, in the spirit of neutrality and seeing things from all perspectives I believe it should also include the reasoning that disproves the "gateway drug" theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.29.189 (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Marijuana Myths Marijuana Facts: A Review Of The Scientific Evidence ISBN 0964156849

Also available online in several places.[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] 199.125.109.103 (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RM cut and paste

{{editprotected}}

Please remove the cut and paste of this edit[18] which is a copy of the abstract at [19] 199.125.109.103 (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. The text is a very short summary of a longer summary of a scientific report. How do write about the scientific results without using many of the words i the other summary and make it both shorter and understandable? --Dala11a (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Not wrong. You originally cut and pasted a section of the abstract. That has since been amended. It's called paraphrasing, and it's how scientific literature (and literature as a whole) is generally presented. Halogenated (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Just take the whole thing out. The only thing you have changed is their conclusion:

Your text:

Another example: A 25-year longitudinal study has been made on the health, development and adjustment of a birth cohort of 1265 New Zealand children. Regular or heavy cannabis use was associated with an increased risk of using other illicit drugs, abusing or becoming dependent upon other illicit drugs, and using a wider variety of other illicit drugs. The risks of use, abuse/dependence, and use of a diversity of other drugs declined with increasing age. The researcher's made the conclusion that the findings may support a general causal model such as the cannabis gateway hypothesis. The extent to which these causal mechanisms are direct or indirect, remain unclear.

Their text:

Design A 25-year longitudinal study of the health, development and adjustment of a birth cohort of 1265 New Zealand children. Measurements Annual assessments of the frequency of cannabis use were obtained for the period 14–25 years, together with measures of the use of other illicit drugs from the same time period. Findings The frequency of cannabis use was associated significantly with the use of other illicit drugs, other illicit drug abuse/dependence and the use of a diversity of other drugs. This association was found to be particularly strong during adolescence but declined rapidly as age increased. Statistical control for confounding by both fixed and time dynamic factors using random- and fixed-effects regression models reduced the strength of association between frequency of cannabis use and other illicit drug use, but a strong association between frequency of cannabis use and other illicit drug use remained even after control for non-observed and time-dynamic sources of confounding. Conclusions Regular or heavy cannabis use was associated with an increased risk of using other illicit drugs, abusing or becoming dependent upon other illicit drugs, and using a wider variety of other illicit drugs. The risks of use, abuse/dependence, and use of a diversity of other drugs declined with increasing age. The findings may support a general causal model such as the cannabis gateway hypothesis, but the actual causal mechanisms underlying such a gateway, and the extent to which these causal mechanisms are direct or indirect, remain unclear.

It doesn't even say that cannabis is a gateway drug, so there is no need for even including it. Besides, it is an abstract to a paper that costs $39 to read. Just delete the whole thing. It adds nothing to the article. 199.125.109.103 (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done copyright violations are completely unacceptable. Happy‑melon 21:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
To expand: it is unacceptable to directly incorporate copyright material in any form, even if it subsequently modified, as that would clearly constitute a derivative work. If you wish to use information from this paper, it must be presented in your own words, not using or even based on a structure taken from a copyrighted source. Happy‑melon 21:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

To Dala11a: And you think that copying less words is not a violation? "A 25-year longitudinal study" is a direct quote. Your words, "showed similar results" is a false statement, as the study showed the exact opposite. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] War on drugs

Add to article that it is the drug lords who are the biggest supporters of the war on drugs: 199.125.109.103 (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Organised crime expert Misha Glenny warned this week of an imminent explosion in illicit drug use as cartels increasingly produce synthetic drugs inside consumer countries rather than shipping good across borders. The author of ‘McMafia: A Journey Through the Global Criminal Underworld’ pointed out that the key cost component of most drugs involved international transportation costs and predicted that prices will collapse if Prohibition continues. “This is a policy whose greatest supporters – and I discovered this in Canada and in Colombia—are the people it’s designed to bring down,” Mr Glenny told Canadian news portal Straight.com. “The big drug dealers who… support the war on drugs because it’s the nature of prohibition that makes their vast profits and ensures that they’re able to go on holiday to the Caribbean every year,” he said.

[edit] Definition of gateway

The idea that "a permissive ideology in relation to the use of one substance increase the risk for use of other drugs" is pretty odd. Like just because chocolate and sugar are legal substances that means that people are more likely to use cocaine and heroin? Nonsense. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be interpreted as "a permissive stance on the use of a specific illegal drug in the society, diminishes the respect for harsher stances on other illegal drugs; and therefor increases the risk for other drug use" if thats makes it any clearer. During the eighties in Sweden this argument was used in an attempt to suppress any "drug liberalism" (eg. not being hardcore zero tolerance). Drug liberalism itself was considered to be more damaging to the society than individual epidemic drug abusers (contagious drug users) by Nils Bejerot and the anti-drug movement. - Best regards Ssteinberger (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I forgot, the argument is primarily used today against a more permissive stance on cannabis on the grounds that it would be hard to explain a break with the official propagandist stance in Sweden, that all drugs are equally dangerous, without diminishing the respect for other drugs. I seen some leading person within ether "The National Swedish Parents, Anti-Narcotics Association (FMN)" or "The Swedish National Association for a Drug-free Society (RNS)" to say that quite outright on TV. This while the first use of the argument has been overplayed with the entrance of internet and the explosion in the number of media gatekeepers. Ssteinberger (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
1)Sorry I typed a text but I forgot to update. 2) I agree that with you that it was right to delete the sentence "a permissive..." 3) You can easy find different theories about indirect connections between cannabis and use of other drugs because people have different reasons/ couses for the step from cannabis to other drugs. The theory of an indirect connection is for example mentioned in one of the sources for this section. It is therefore relevant to mention it in the article.Dala11a (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as my logic go "The argument is that people, upon trying cannabis for the first time and not finding it dangerous, are then tempted to try other, harder drugs." is already a indirect argument, implying that the gateway theory is more dependent on policies and propaganda surrounding cannabis then cannabis itself. Ssteinberger (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
There are also other types of possible indirect connections for ex. taking more risks (a well documented acute effect)/a lower level of general judgment during several hours after use of cannabis. --Dala11a (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
If increased risk-taking and impaired judgement is so well documented effects of cannabis, why is it not already mentioned in the article? Ssteinberger (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Increasing levels of THC

While I've been researching an essay I've come across some dispute around this claim - The average levels of THC in marijuana sold in United States rose from 3.5% in 1988 to 7% in 2003 and 8.5% in 2006.[39]

First of all the citation is a weak secondary source and no longer current.

Secondly according rto this site - http://www.drugwardistortions.org/distortion11.htm, the reporting of the statistics is incorrect.

I briefly tried to find the original source of the statistics

- Quarterly Report #76, Nov. 9, 2001-Feb. 8, 2002, Table 3, p. 8, University of Mississippi Potency Monitoring Project (Oxford, MS: National Center for the Development of Natural Products, Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2002)

But didn't find it.

I don't currently have time, but this claim needs to be verified by referring to the original source and if confirmed incorrect either removed or changed.

Wipasnapa (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Some info: the original story, a partial retraction, a more thorough analisis of the raw data, information about the Potency Montoring Project. NJGW (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the source DEA [20]. The same development with increasing THC-level has also happened in Western Europe. Dala11a (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


The claims of up to 20% THC is clearly incorrect. None of the pictures of the drug appear to have 20% of their make up in crystal thc, the "buds" would fall apart if this were true, am I right?

Additionally the NIDA study only involves "joints" of 3.5%. Why use such obviously low potent drug to test when, appearantly most users would obtain stronger material. Also, NIDA used us government plant material. The best the US GOV can grow is just 3.5% thc, when varieties of up to 20% exist, I dont believe it.

Weed in BC often passes 20% THC, it does not fall apart the THC is like glue. (1 == 2)Until 16:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] health effects and more

Health Effects and more

That section seems to be biased, most of the section is on the toxins found in the smoke and there seems to be little mention on effects over than psychosis. I think that the name of the section health effects suggests physical risks like cancer, when the main risks are mental, not just psychosis. Also the section is called 'effects' but does not mention any, whether positive, neutral or negative effects. It can cause panic attacks, high anxiety, hallucinations etc. The section should illustrate the dangers to mental health further than dangers to physical health.

I have noticed lots of people emphasizing the fact you cant die from an od of weed but if anyone was to take in a huge amount like 50 spliffs they would probably have a bad time and trip out.

The discussion page talks a lot about the POV (both sides) i think if people do question it the article should have a banner indicating this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.172.66 (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

MOst people don't "trip" on weed, especially those who have experience with the drug. The way you percieve things may change (a large tree's leaves and branches fluttering in the wind may remind you of a bunch of bugs flapping their wings, or a large tree with some orange on it may remind you of a giant bud, but I would hardly call these perceptions a "trip"). Either way, I'm going to abstain from taking further part in this conversation, as this is just a POV-laden argument waiting to happen.--AtTheAbyss (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

   See the subarticle created on this issue: Health issues and the effects of cannabis.--Loodog (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In order to die from weed you need to inhale a large amount of it....before you reach that amount though you would most likely pass out... so really...if ppl arent strapping you down and putting a bong in your mouth its very unlikely to die from smoking weed...but you do trip out hardcore if you smoke alot...

   ok but u haven't answered any of my points.... and the second person you have missed the point. I don't see why you won't discuss it, thats what the talk section is for...

What i was saying was that most people seem to be overly concerned with saying how it is impossible to die from weed, but i was just saying there are negative side effects (that aren't death), especially if you inhaled an amount that could be 'lethal', and they weren't mentioned. But my main point is if so many people are concerned with the POV being biased, why won't a banner indicating this be displayed?

wuz up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.90.172 (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

who loves the weed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.30.98 (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Violent death!?

"A Swedish study showed however an increased risk for a violent death: accidents, suicides and homicides" comes from the Health issue section and is backed up with an article written by Jovan Raijs and Anna Fugelstad publicized in Marihuana and Medicin [21].

To me the citation looks like a strange summary of the source given. The source looks like a resume of the 58 cannabis related deaths (in 17 cases cannabis was the only present drug) in Stockholm during a eight year period. Stinkingly many of these died a violent death, but the authors don't state cannabis as the villain in the drama. The conclusion that cannabis increases the risk of violent death must come from someone else. (To me it seems more plausible that the life situation for cannabis users in Sweden has to do more with these deaths then cannabis in itself, but I might be biased as a "pro cannabis activist and probably a supporter the dutch drug policy" as pointed out by the one I assume to have written the short summary in question.) Steinberger (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that someone has read some raw data then used original research to come to their own conclusion. I suggest that this be removed, at the very least changed to reflect only what the source has determined and not anything else. 1 != 2 15:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Steinberger wrote: "The conclusion that cannabis increases the risk of violent death must come from someone else"
According to Tim Boekhout van Solinge is it Jovan Rajs that concluded that he found a correlation between violent deaths and cannabis. [22] In addition, adding that laboratory experiments have showed that an acute effect of cannabis is a greater propensity to take risks so is the result of Rajs investigation not surprising at all.Dala11a (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The relevant section in the Boekhout van Solinge report on the Swedish drug policy is: "Cannabis psychosis is often presented as the major risk of cannabis use. A second danger of cannabis use that is often heard concerns the correlation between violent deaths and cannabis use. A study conducted by Jovan Rajs of the Department of Forensic Medicine, and Anna Fugelstad of the St. Görans Hospital (both based in Stockholm), who carried out autopsies on the brains of deceased people, allegedly found a correlation between traces of cannabis in the brain and violent deaths such as suicide, murder, and accidents. These violent deaths were supposedly caused by the completely unexpected and impulsive behaviour of the cannabis users. In a paper written by Jovan Rajs for the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, one reads: “People who have used cannabis on its own, without simultaneous consumption of other substances, have frequently died in connection with impulsive and unforeseen acts of violence. The predominant form of death is suicide”. These findings have been used in a recent prevention video, issued by the National Institute of Public Health, where a person suddenly falls from a balcony after having smoked a joint at a party."
I can't see this "increased risk" in the quotation above. In fact, he's sarcastic when he writes it. If one reads the whole book, its obvious that the sociologist would favor a social-psychological explanation to this, rather then note it as a medical heath issue. Steinberger (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Der... It's called correlation, not causation. You find find a correlation linking low test scores to number of times KFC is eaten in a week. People who tend to be a certain way are more likely to smoke weed. Schizophrenics, for example, are more likely to make marijuana regular fixture in their lives. This does not mean marijuana causes schizophrenia. If nothing else, to obtain weed, you do need to go through illegal means.--Loodog (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Right. The same has been argued about tobacco addiction, but because it's legal and has a huge influence on the private and public sector, you rarely hear that 50% of the people diagnosed with mental illness smoke cigarettes. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This should definitely be taken out of the article. It's absurd if we are quoting someone who is being sarcastic in this manner and quoting him as if he were serious. He's quoting this in the context of a list of the most absurd stories he's heard about cannabis. It should be removed or the full quote should be put in, or we should make clear that the author is making fun of these studies, not citing them as authoritative. csloat (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned that birth can lead to death. Removed. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)