Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative 2 Photo Caption 3 Cost 4 cannabis species 5 biased overview? 6 Method of Action 7 Fuel 8 Marijuana 9 vaporization 10 External links 11 Effects On The Brain 12 List of effects 13 Fertility 14 Aftereffects 15 Physical Effects? 16 Long term memory loss 17 Medicinal use 18 List of effects 19 Alternative names 20 Large revert 21 Khoi and Tobacco as burning aids 22 Tagged 23 Physiologicial Effects 24 Legality 25 Cannabinoid Receptors 26 merged? 27 #1 U.S. Cash Crop 28 Preparations for human consumption: Smoking 29 Legal status in Alaska 30 strains? 31 Requested move 31.1 Survey 31.2 Discussion 32 Requested move, additional comments 33 Eating raw grass is not psychoactive 34 Cost 35 Is 36 Number of Chemicals 37 Request for protection/semi-protection? 38 Illegal? 39 Terribly misrepresented information 40 UK definition of cannabis and citing UK studies 41 New Study Shows Absence of Long-Term Memory or Cognitive Impairment 42 Famous Users/Advocates 43 Article is not NPOV 43.1 Summary section dispute 43.2 About NPOV 44 Map 45 Resin Clarification 46 Colorados amendment 44 47 Psychological effects 48 Some Chemistry 49 Unprotected 50 Cannabis is not a drug 51 Good Reasons for moving this article to "Marijuana" 52 Deleting scholar sources is close to vandalism 53 Protection 54 "Marijuana", revisited 55 Marijuana most common preparation 56 Suggestion 57 Bodafiza 58 Survey: begin with "Cannabis or marijuana..." 58.1 Supporting votes 58.2 Opposing votes 58.3 Discussion 59 Medicinal use 60 Disputed 61 Oral consumption 62 Toxicity? Antioxidants? 63 Ganjes river > ganga 64 POV map 65 dime bag 66 Addiction 67 Not a drug 68 Strange paragraph 69 It would be great 70 Do something! 71 debunked studies 72 Cut gear 73 Better Pictures 74 Ancient History 75 Health issues section is not NPOV 76 Slang 77 A good Article? 78 Time to archive this page? 79 Semi-protection requested 80 Edit Skirmish 80.1 Going about this all wrong... 81 Alleged slang 82 Can a good article include totally wrong data? 83 Dispute 84 Cannabis seeds 85 The Edit War Continues 85.1 NIDA is an acceptable source 86 Disputed? 87 removal of references & names 88 This article needs urgent cleanup 89 Cannabis intoxication article 90 Knife in the picture? 91 Theory of not getting high the first time 92 Article too bias 93 Weed ain't no drug!!! 94 Reason's for edits made in "Ancient History" 95 Relationship with other illicit drugs 96 Can weed affect your love? 97 Top pic 98 Anon comment 98.1 Bong paragraph--why water? 99 Usage statistics 100 Unprotected!? 101 "The official marijuanna day is April 20th." 102 Physiological vs. Psychological Addiction 103 Eating and the danger of damage to the body from contaminents. 104 Vandalism 105 Rephrasing"Gateway Drug" B.S. 106 The High 107 Cannabis only has anti-nausea effects when eaten?? 108 Smoking 109 Street names 110 Request for comment on Talk:Legal history of marijuana in the United States 111 Marijuana has no carcigenic effects? 112 Marijuana on Mars? 113 semiprotection 114 There have been zero (0) recorded medical deaths from the use of cannabis? 115 "skunk weed" 116 Medical Studies Chronology 117 Munchies Theory

United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative

Under the section 'United States' I changed the link for the OCBC ruling since the link wasn't pointing to any page due to a spelling error in the previous link. --Wikipedia420 19:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo Caption

The caption on the photo of "4 ounces" is wrong. Each of those bags is at least 4 times that, it's more likely 1 pound.

--What? Those bags are a little over half full, and it is pressed marijuana, not fluff. Its pretty obvious to anyone who has ever had a quarter pound of pressed thats what that is...A pound of pressed weed looks more like a small box of cereal...--Donnie from the mean streets of Boston, KY 14:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets just say 4 bags and avoid controversy, I agree they look more than an ounce each to me too, SqueakBox 23:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What i don't get is how come it is illegal if it is used to treat illnesses like cancer and used to help tourettes syndrome etc. Surely it is also beneficial??? I think it is fine as long as it is not overused/bought from dodgy dealers etc.. it is maybe even more natural than normal cigerettes, if grown yourself surely??? Rebecca.

Yes well the dodgy dealers bit should be incorporated into the legality section if we could properly source it, drug wars go back to prohibition in the US and beyond, SqueakBox 21:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Cost

Does anybody know how much a joint costs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Right Honourable (talk • contribs) 06:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

well, assuming that this will somehow be integrated into the cannabis article, a joint can range anywhere from as little as $5 to as much as $15 depending on quality.

I've seen individual joints for as little as a dollar, but I've also seen a quarter-bag ($25) rolled into one huge joint or blunt. The variances listed above are actually only the middle of the bell curve.  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 04:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

cannabis species

The genus consists of one species. It is all C.sativa L. . There are no other species. Can the text reflect this. The one reference that states that there are more than one species is NOT scientific. Melbob 04:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite some sources for that? I've never heard it disputed that indica exists. Anyway, this should probably be on Talk:Cannabis, as that is the genus page. --Rory096 22:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Indicas and Sativas are regularly crossed, bred, and re-crossed without losing fertility. Thus, the subspecies or landraces meet the requirement for being a single species. 71.106.126.123 08:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats the problem with wikipedia its full of the half educated. As it stand it is wrong an makes wikipedia a laughing stock. Melbob 04:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

judging from your last post melbob, people like you are the ones who make wikipedia "a laughing stock". "As it stand it is wrong an makes wikipedia a laughing stock." how many errors can you count?

Cannabis Sativa, Cannabis Indica, and Cannabis Ruderalis are the three main species of marijuana. C. Indica is considered the most potent, followed by C. Sativa and C. Ruderalis. Sativa is the most commonly sought and referenced species. 207.210.130.105 19:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Stephanie, the Bud Queen

biased overview?

It looks like the article is made by the proponents of Marijuana use and legalization. Where is point of view of another side? [User:El] 9 September 2006

I agree. This page is in favor of cannabis legalization and most paragraphs end with a pro-cannabis conclusion. This could be harmful as it informs people that cannabis is a harmless drug, which has been shown recently in studies is false. I will begin to look for these reports --Mreaster 08:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of the research on Cannabis have concluded that it's less harmful than Alcohol or similar legal recreational drugs, for both acute and chronic effects. The article is not pro-cannabis, so much as it is regards the illegality of Cannibis as overly severe.

       Which is POV.  216.114.249.246 02:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see any particular slant in this article, it conforms to most modern findings. --Jaymo 16:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

To whomever wrote " I agree. This page is in favor of cannabis legalization and most paragraphs end with a pro-cannabis conclusion. This could be harmful as it informs people that cannabis is a harmless drug, which has been shown recently in studies is false. I will begin to look for these reports --Mreaster 08:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

" If you can find any reports supporting what you are saying please post links here. I have done fairly extensive research on marijuana because I live in Denver, was a supporter of the city wide initiative, and am a supporter of the state wide initiative which will be voted on in five days. Marijuana, while it may or may not lead to cancer (research is ongoing; however, as of yet no correlation can be found) can not kill you. To overdose on marijuana is litterally impossible. If one were to try to smoke enough to overdose on THC (The active ingrediant in marijuana) they would litterally sufficate before sucumbing to the THC. Marijuana is safer than alcohol and may be safer than siggarets. (Anonymous)--November 2 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.40.160.76 (talk)

This is wikipedia, people who are writing about marijuana are those with interest in it. I would be shocked if this article were impartial.--Loodog 04:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've put a POV tag on this article, since I agree, this article is biased.24.90.172.131 11:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Method of Action

Why is there no information on the actual method of action of cannabis? While the article does mention the presence of receptors, and where some of those receptors are, it doesn't mention the natural function of said receptors, or why an anonymous plant would interface the way it does with them. aubrey 03:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Not much is known about the natural functions of cannabinoid receptors in the brain, or of the endogenous cannabinoid system as a whole; as such, this information cannot be readily supplied. All we know is that such receptors exist, and are antagonized by cannabis when used as a drug. Currently, research is being done on the natural functions of the receptors, the normal purpose of which still eludes us.,

Fuel

Can someone add the benefits this plant gives to fossil fuel technology? such as; its high fibrousity, slow burn rate, use in plastics, and how this plant is a much better alternative than corn due to how it grows wild without fertilization i.e. it's a low maintenance plant--Howmee 23:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The fibers, fuel, and agricultural topics should all be covered under hemp. This article, Cannabis refers primarily to the cured flowers of the Cannabis_sativa plant, while the name hemp is usually used in reference to the plant when used for non-drug purposes. Mikeeg555 02:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Marijuana

So, why is this article located at cannabis (drug) rather than at marijuana? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

See Cannabis_(drug)#Recent_history, Legalise_cannabis_parties#fn_afgh, and the external links on 1937 Marijuana Tax Act. —Viriditas | Talk 20:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The external links you refer to seem to mostly use "marijuana" in preference to "cannabis". Can you elaborate on the point you're making? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The links above demonstrate that the misnomer "Marijuana" (actually "Marihuana") is a regional slang term, previously used in a politically loaded, racist anti-Meixcan, and propagandistic context in America during the "Reefer Madness" anti-cannabis campaign of the 1930's. "Cannabis" is the historical, botanical, medical, and politically neutral term, and hence, encyclopedic. —Viriditas | Talk 23:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where the links above show that it's a regional slang term. The reason we would put the article at marijuana is that it's the common English name for the drug. The context in which it was used in the 1930s doesn't seem particularly important. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 02:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

According to Harry J. Anslinger: "...the term "cannabis" in the Geneva Convention of 1925 and in the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act included only the dried flowering or fruiting tops of the pistillate plant as the source of the dangerous resin...we find then that Colorado reports that the Mexican population there cultivates on an average of 2 to 3 tons of the weed annually. This the Mexicans make into cigarettes, which they sell at two for 25 cents, mostly to white high school students...MARIHUANA IS THE MEXICAN TERM FOR CANNABIS INDICA....The plant or drug known as Cannabis indica, or marihuana, has as its parent the plant known as Cannabis Sativa...It is popularly known in India as Cannabis Indica,; in America, as Cannabis americana; in Mexico as Cannabis mexicana, or marihuana....It is all the same drug, and is known in different countries by different names. It is scientifically known as Cannabis sativa, and is popularly called Cannabis americana, Cannabis indica, or Cannabis mexicana, in accordance with the geographical origin of the particular plant....In the East it is known as charras, as gunga, as hasheesh, as bhang, or siddi, and it is known by a variety of names in the countries of continental Europe....Cannabis sativa is an annual herb from the "hemp" plant; it has angular, rough stems and deeply lobed leaves....It is derived from the flowering tops of the female plant of hemp grown in semi-tropical and temperate countries. It was once thought that only the plant grown in India was active, but it has been scientifically determined that the American specimen termed "marihuana" or "muggles" is equal in potency to the best weed of India. The plant is a moraceous herb....In the South, amongst the Negroes, it is termed "mooter"...In India, where the plant is scientifically cultivated on a wide scale for the drug obtained from it, the plants, when small, are separated, the female plant being used exclusively for the purpose of obtaining the drug." [1]

The term "Marijuana" is a regional slang term attributed to Mexico (sometimes others), as used in a racist and propagandistic context; the circumstances of 1930's drug prohibition are not only important, they are essential to understanding why the term is not used as the title of a neutral encyclopedia article. Notice, that Wikipedia naming convention policy is based upon NPOV, but has many exceptions. I would encourage you to also visit Wikipedia:Naming conflict and tally a score, as well as post your query on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants. All definitions of marijuana and marihuana refer to the dried flowers and leaves of the cannabis plant. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). —Viriditas | Talk 02:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Marijuana is not a Mexican slang term—its use is quite common throughout the U.S. as far as I can tell. However, despite taking a while to get around to it, you have made a good point: "marijuana" is normally understood to refer to only the most common of the preparations one can make from the cannabis plant. So, cannabis (drug) is reasonable as an alternative that includes all preparations.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether it is common or not, the word "Marijuana" is thought to be a Mexican slang term for "cannabis" that was first popularized in "La_Cucaracha," a Mexican folk song associated wtih Pancho Villa. In the same hearings above, on H.R. 6385, Marijuana was described as Mexican slang by the legislative counsel for the American Medical Association, Dr. William C. Woodward: "The term "marihuana" is a mongrel word that has crept into this country over the Mexican border and has no general meaning, except as it relates to the use of Cannabis preparations for smoking. It is not recognized in medicine, and I might say that it is hardly recognized even in the Treasury Department...Marihuana is one of the products of the plant Cannabis sativa. L., a plant which is sometimes referred to as Cannabis americana or Cannabis indica...In other words, marihuana is not the correct term...So, if you will permit me, I shall use the word "Cannabis", and I should certainly suggest that if any legislation is enacted, the term used be "Cannabis" and not the mongrel word 'marihuana...You understand that marihuana is simply a name given Cannabis. It is a mongrel word brought in from Mexico. It is a popular term to indicate Cannabis, like "coke" is used to indicate cocaine, and as "dope" is used to indicate opium." [2] —Viriditas | Talk 20:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "cannabis" should be used to refer to this plant, especially since it surfaces in both the scientific name and other references. "Marijuana", while widely recognized as a reference to this plant, is indeed a Spanish slang term that first applied to the plant during the Mexican-American War.Derryl C 23:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

vaporization

Is there any need for name dropping the "volcano vaporizer" this is a encyclopedia, and I don't think we have a need for it.-The Jordan

I think it should be noted that when making a lightbulb vaporizer the chemical substance inside is removed with salt. - AuraithX

External links

The external links was added about 3 weeks ago. When added, it contained just 1 link, to NORML, a pro-cannabis site. Soon after it was added, it proved to be a magnet for spam and pro-cannabis POV links. Any site with useful information should be cited inline, not as an external link in its own section, and having a section will end up being extremely hard to maintain. I see no reason to have an external links section, and so I removed the section. If there are any objections, please respond. --Rory096 05:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I mean no offense or disrepect, but I prefer and intend to follow Wikipedia:External links instead of your personal preferences. —Viriditas | Talk 05:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Erm, that says nothing about whether articles should have external links sections or not... --Rory096 06:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. Have you thought about contributing to Wikipedia:External links or the proposed Wikipedia:External links/External links policy? Users will continue to add external links to this article. Your personal preference is for inline citations, and I am forced to agree that this is probably best, but any disinterested user may think you are asserting WP:OWN without referring to a guideline or policy. —Viriditas | Talk 20:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That still doesn't say anything about whether or not articles should have external links sections. Like all disputed changes, they should be discussed on the talk page to see whether it's suitable for each individual article. --Rory096 23:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything about it, which is why I've asked if you would be willing to add your proposal to either of the above links. You say you see no reason to have an external links section, but we have guidelines for external links. Standard appendices appear to be agreed upon. Your argument could be made about any article (magnet for spam, POV, hard to maintain) which is why I've asked you to followup on the guideline page. —Viriditas | Talk 23:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for having it on this article. I think what sections should be in an article should be decided on an individual basis to avoid m:instruction creep. --Rory096 23:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

How is your rationale for eliminating the external links section particular to this article? Your argument could be applied to any article. In fact, I'm dealing with this very problem on at least three articles at the moment. —Viriditas | Talk 00:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is specifically susceptible to spam and vandalism, as it is a very popular subject and hot-button issue that there must be millions of sites and blogs about. Nobody spams NP-complete or Willard Metcalf. --Rory096 03:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a systemic problem. While it is true that popular and/or controversial articles may be more subject to spamming, unpopular articles are facing the same issues. I doubt polyphasic sleep, Heaven's Stairway, and Menehune could be considered popular articles, but they are suffering or have suffered from linkfarming. To combat this problem, you have proposed removing the external links section altogether, but you don't seem to have made any provisos other than requesting inline citations. Although you disagree, these ideas and related proposals are being discussed on Wikipedia:External links/External links policy, Wikipedia talk:External links/External links policy, and Wikipedia talk:External links. I don't think this article is the place for imposing your standards (which will be impossible to maintain over time) which is why I suggest discussing it in the appropriate place. I agree with your position, and I think your proposal will eventually win out (it has to or we will be drowning in links) but I think that general guidelines are best implemented from the top-down. —Viriditas | Talk 09:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see external links. I kept putting in a link to WeedSpeak but I guess they didn't like it. /shrug.

Effects On The Brain

What are some of the effects on the brain? A long time ago I took it a couple of times and felt some pain in the frontal part of my brain. Does it damage or do better to the frontal lobes or so of your brain? And compared to alcohol, which drug damages the brain more. Does marijuana really damage the brain? Does marijuana really damage your brain? Zachorious 15:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Some claim not, that it helps make the brain more intelligent, intuitive and improving memory and focus, SqueakBox 22:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence of marijuana causing brain damage. While there is an intoxicating psychoactive effect, cannabis use causes no lasting impairment to motor-function, cognition or mental acuity. Studies have shown cannabis to actually have beneficial neuroprotective effects, potentially protecting the brain from damage. While it may be possible for cannabis use to trigger pre-existing mental disorders in some people, this trait is common to other drugs (such as alcohol) as well as non-drug related social situations and environmental conditions. To answer your question -- no, marijuana does not damage your brain. --Thoric 19:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no evidence of marijuana causing brain damage, but there are correlations between cannabis use and some disorders

• • • "Cannabis use may affect population expression of manic symptoms (and subsequent risk to develop bipolar disorder)"[3]
    • "A clinically important withdrawal syndrome associated with cannabis dependence has been established"[4]
    • "Attention and memory deficits have been reported in heavy marijuana users" causing a "reorganized visual-attention network and cerebellar hypoactivation"[5]--interestingly, long-term abstinence may return one's function to normal in this study...
    • Cannabis users, long-term and short-term show "a higher proportion of deficits on verbal fluency, verbal memory, attention, and psychomotor speed. Specific cognitive domains appear to deteriorate with increasing years of heavy frequent cannabis use"[6]
    • "consumption of marijuana by women during pregnancy affects the neurobehavioural development of their children"[7]

This is all to say that cannabis is not without important central side effects, some rather long-term. It is addictive and heavy use especially can take a toll on one's mental faculties. I disagree with Thoric that "cannabis use causes no lasting impairment to...cognition or mental acuity", but haven't seen any evidence that motor function is overtly impaired long-term. -- Scientizzle 23:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you read some of the links you've provided, you'll find that cannabis has not be proven to have lasting consequences. Said cognitive impairment due to heavy use shown by the studies has been shown to reverse over time -- as you yourself even stated above "interestingly, long-term abstinence may return one's function to normal in this study" --Thoric 00:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course correlation does not imply causation. In fact, (and I say this in all neutrality), the causation probably runs backwards, i.e. having a mental illness puts you at a higher risk to start using illicit drugs. My father is a psychiatrist at a state prison/mental hospital. He, of course, finds high incidence of illicit drug use among the inmates. Yet, there's no doubt in his mind that the drug usage is symptomatic rather than causal.--Loodog 02:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This may be anecdotal, but I lived with a man who has Borderline Personality Disorder on and off for three years, and whilst under the effects of marijuana, he displayed much-lessened symptoms and personality traits of the disorder. He quite literally became a quite functional member of society when he was stoned off his mind, and absolutely impossible to deal with for any length of time while sober. I believe the marijuana had a strong antipsychotic effect.  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 02:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any evidence long term cannabis users under the influence perform worse in cognitive tests? Sounds a bit far fetched. Ras Billy I 00:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thoric, I'm not sure if you have access to journal publications, but let me reprint much of the conclusions from the fourth reference I gave above. This is from the Mar 14, 2006, issue of Neurology:

Long-term (LT) users performed significantly poorer on verbal memory vs short-term (ST) users and controls. LT and ST users generated fewer words and demonstrated higher impairment rates than controls on both phonemic and semantic fluency. LT and ST users showed inferior performance vs the control subjects on psychomotor speed, attention, and executive functions. The greatest deficits regarding the LT users were seen on almost every trial of the RAVLT, indicating a generalized verbal memory deficit with impaired verbal learning, retention, and retrieval. LT users' performance was significantly poorer than the published norms (table 2) on most measures of the RAVLT. Our findings are in accordance with certain studies showing that heavy long-term frequent cannabis use leads to subtle deficits in specific neuropsychological domains.

Now, I'm delving a little out of my range of research (I could tell you a lot more about meth, coke and Ritalin), but I commented on what I perceived was subtle misinformation...while it hasn't been conclusively, 100%, smoking-gun, stop-the-presses proven that long-term cannabis use has significant cognitive effects--there are some studies[8] that see effects wash out by two weeks and other studies that found neuropsychological deficits in long-term cannabis users after an abstinence period of between 12 and 24 hours[9] and persistent neurocognitive deficits in heavy cannabis users after 28 days of abstinence[10]. What we've got here is an old-fashioned mess; these are good studies from good journals that give different conclusions, and there are plenty more that fit somewhere between. Now what does this mean? Well, if one's got an agenda for or against cannabis use, one can easily find ten studies that back up the stance of "weed rocks and it's so totally harmless" or "drugs are bad, mmmkay". In any case, I just chimed in to show to Zachorious, our thread-starter, that while there's really no risk of "brain damage" (a phrase associated with severe injury or impairment) there is data that suggest long-term cannabis use can impair cognitive function. As such, Thoric's statement, that "cannabis use causes no lasting impairment to motor-function, cognition or mental acuity" is arguably false. Additionally, "cannabis has not [been] proven to have lasting consequences" is accurate but misleading as one could easily say "cannabis has not been proven to have no lasting consequences" and be just as supported the scientific data. (One more point: "lasting consequences" is also confusing; it's pretty much scientific consensus that there are long-term consequences to cannabis use--even in the study above that saw a wash-out, users had cognitive deficits for at least a week, which is pretty "long-term", IMO--there's just a lack of consensus as to whether things return to "normal" on the day, week or month time-scale. "Lasting consequences" ≠ permanent, irreversible changes.)

I've no axe to grind in this debate, but I felt it important to point out the unsubstantiated and misleading statements above, if only because I've been brainwashed by WP:NPOV. :) -- Scientizzle 01:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright then, I will restate my position as: "cannabis use has not been shown to cause permanent impairment, therefore I argue that there is no scientific evidence of brain damage". --Thoric 19:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In the recent addition to cognitive effects: "minor brain damage"; I find no support for this assertion in the information referenced. Urania3 05:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

So do I. Removed as vague and generalised rubbish, SqueakBox 05:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

---

The so called "brain damage" that was being sited on this page represents a misconception about the use of cannabis (marijuana). The most prevalent brain damage related to this circumstance is caused by oxygen deprivation to the brain due to the inhalation of foreign particulate (i.e. smoke) in place of oxygen. This happens when smoking cannabis, or anything else for that matter. The practice of increasing the euphoric sensation and effect of marijuana by excessive inhalation with prolonged holding in of smoke for further heightened effect (i.e. head rushes) resulting in almost blacking out of visuals and physical effects such as a tingling sensation, all of which tend to result in a lackadaisical stupor afterward, are all signs of asphyxiation which is where the real threat of significant brain damage comes from. Even though this self inflicted act of suffocation most likely won’t kill some one, repeated practice of this over a extended period of time will no doubt result on the loss of numerous brain cells. My I reiterate for all those who might try and blast this post, there is NO proof that cannabis or any of its chemical components kill brain cells. But rather when administering cannabis through the act of INHALATOIN OF SMOKE, there is slight to significant brain damage caused depending on the technique used when smoking, as well as the instruments or paraphernalia used to smoke and/or filter the smoke when smoking cannabis.DaCaylen 19:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I do not have any scientific studies to back up my assertions. However, I am a long time pothead and I think I can contribute to this answer through my personal experience. There is little question that THC will have an immediate and drastic affect on memory and cognitive functions while you are still high. In addition I have experienced that a reduction in short term memory will persist for for several days (even weeks) after chronic use. However, if I stay straight for a long enough period of time (roughly 3-5 weeks), my short term memory will improve drastically (back to, or approaching, normal - I am not suggesting that Marijuana can improve your memory). The biggest detriment I have found resulting from the use of Marijuana is inactivity. Being high makes it very easy (even enjoyable) to perform actions that a sober individual would find to be mind numbingly boring. Therefore, chronic users will often find ourselves in a situation where we have not been mentally stimulated for long periods of time. The mind, like the body, will deteriorate with inactivity. 72.1.102.240 8 December 2006

Which goes to show how differently people react to cannabis over a long period of time. Being physically and mentally inactive under the influence of cannabis is entirely an individual choice and not all cannabis smokers are lazy people or unstimulated or have problems with memory. How we use our brains and bodies on a daily basis is surely the measure of how mentally and physically fit we are. IMO whatever you do when you start smoking is what you will continue to do whether that is intense mental or physical activity or doing nothing. And it clealry is possible to learn and figure out new and difficult mental tasks that take years of study while under the daily influence. I strongly disagree that cannabis makes a mind numbingly boring life interesting or bearable or that one would accept mind numbing boringness solely because one is using cannabis. As an elderly Caribbean man said to me recently, "weed gives a man ambition", SqueakBox 02:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

List of effects

I merged the lists "List of effects" and "List of therapeutic effects" as there was lots of overlap between the two and not much of a point in maintaining separate lists. Instead I divided it into the three sections you see now: physiological, cognitive, and behavioral. A lot of the effects remain unsourced; I encourage anyone who is interested to source them. — GT 08:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Fertility

An oft (if weirdly) quoted effect of marijuana by the anti-drug advocates is its effect on fertility. That's not mentioned in the article as far as I can see. I think it should be, whether the effect is real or imagined since it gets touted so often. --ScienceApologist 14:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Its because it was a serious scientific bvelief till it was discredited probably 20 or more years ago. Perhaps someone could source this and write about it, perhaps in the history section. Ras Billy I 15:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There was a very recent study in the Mar 2006 issue of the journal Fertility and Sterility that found THC had major effects on in vitro sperm motility. PubMed link. "The use of THC as a recreational drug may adversely affect male fertility." -- Scientizzle 19:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, a study from 1990 concluded that "that smoking marijuana may cause a transient disruption of ovulatory function." PubMed link. -- Scientizzle 19:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Aftereffects

Hey, I tried to skim through the article but didn't find what I wanted. I heard from a friend that if you smoke marijuana, the smoke (or something like that) stays in your hair for 10 years. So if a job employer decides to give you a drug test, they can find out if you smoked marijuana in the past 10 years. Is this true and if (or if not) where in the article (or sub-article) is it mentioned? Thanks. sharpdust 05:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ten years? No way. A few months? Definitely. Here is some info. It really comes down to hair growth & its length. Cannabis use can be detected in hair folicles, but with hair growth ~1/2 an inch per month, it's unlikely that most people have more than two years of drug history on their heads. :) -- Scientizzle 05:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And people with short hair will have considerably less. On the other hand it is highly likely that there will be far more sophisticated drug detection methods developing over the next ten years, SqueakBox 05:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Geez, shave yourself bold before your next walk-in Zerocannon 04:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

1. They don't test your hair.
2. They only way it gets in your hair is from the smell anyway, i.e. it doesn't "grow" into your hair.
3. One month is pretty much the average turnout time on this stuff or so I've heard/read. That is, 2-4 weeks after you've smoked, all detectable amounts are out of your bloodstream. Do a google search if you want to research it. --Loodog 06:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I for the longest time thought it was three days, since we have a "lay low" period to prevent results coming out positive when a cop decides to do sudden checks =x Zerocannon 11:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Physical Effects?

Under the Immediate effects of consumption by humans it states that:

"Anecdotal evidence suggests that the Cannabis sativa species tends to produce more of the cognitive or perceptual effects, while Cannabis indica tends to produce more of the physical effects."

However, later in the article lists the effects in categories:

Cognitive effects Behavioral effects Physiological effects

and no Physical effects are listed. I think that "physical" effects are a little broad to be simply stated not only here, but several other times throughout the article, and not listed or described.. so if anyone has some good information on expanding this article to include a more descriptive listing of physical effects of cannabis, feel free to add them to help improve the article.

Long term memory loss

I understand the explanation given for adding it as an effect, but personal experience is not enough to add to an article. Original research isn't suitable to present a fact; if you want to add this effect, there needs to be adequate citation, since even the anti-drug websites I've just consulted fail to list this as an effect. Cheers! --Chuchunezumi 22:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides users report experiencing very different long term effects, some users report what they believe to be improved memory while others report what they believe to be memory loss, perhaps indicating that the cannabis isnt really either improving or destroying memory and certainly people's brains work very differently. People's widely different reported experiences is why cannabis research on the mind is such a controversial and difficult area, SqueakBox 22:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree to the first paragraph. My guess is that everyone reacts differently. There was a recent study that said the effects of pot vary too much between users to be used medically. Anyway, I need to share this somewhere.... I was on my way home from a road trip. A week long road trip. I was sitting there trying to remember what we did but I could barely remember but a few moments from it. I have a photographic/cinematic/polygraphic memory so that was a major shock; I am used to remembering the sounds, entire videos, and everything of what I do. I tried to look back further and I couldnt remember what I did at the beginning of summer but one or two still photographs. I looked back further and realized that I couldnt remember anything in the past year but around 20 still images. That was when I broke down crying, trying to remember what I had done in the past year, only remembering about 20 things of no significance and of marginal vibrance in relation to my memory pre-pot-smoking. Then thinking to myself that it couldnt be the weed and that it must just be my age I looked back further and started remembering times when I didnt smoke, and even more shockingly they were entirely vibrant memories, full video and audio. I could remember entire videos of what people said as opposed to the past year where all my memory provides me are single pictures and maybe a few words of what somebody said without video. I have since quit smoking as much, and havent smoked since this incident (about 4 days so far) on grounds that I wish to remember the rest of my life. Peace. 65.2.198.163 22:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

>> But that just simply proves that they are not long term memory problems. Any memory problems, or any problem related to smoking Marijuana is TEMPORARY. I smoke weed every day and my memory of minor details about the day are indeed hard to remember, but if I were to not smoke tomorow I could remember everything 100% from that day. I think its the being high that messes your memory up. Also, some people such as myself enjoy a lifestyle without so many vivid memories. Theres nothing about pot smoking that is really all that memorable anyway, its usually just something done to pass the time and relax.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.14.54 (talk • contribs)

Having smoked heavily for 26-27 years my memory is in good condition, I have mastered many new skills over the last few years such as fluency in a foreign language and advanced computer/internet based skills. My Mum and my Aunt, neither of whom have ever smoked, commented recently (3 years ago) on what an incredible memory for details of long past events I have and I could tell you roughly where I was in my life at the beginning of any August over the last 27 years, or at any other time. Marijuana as an end in itself sounds pretty dull but as a means to an end, say using it while working in the way someone else might use coffee or cigarettes, it is what one is doing that becomes or remains interesting and the pot isnt the centre of attention. TV Genius 23:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[EC]

Alright all, repeat after me: the singular of "data" is "datum," not "anecdote."

To address 65.2.198.163, It's entirely possible cannabis is partially or even fully responsible for your experience, it's also possible that other factors may be involved and you should probably consult a physician (who may also be able to offer advice and treatment options to help you quit cannbis as well). If this situation leads you to quit the drug, I wish you the best of luck--cannabis can cause profound addiction in some individuals and be difficult to boot. Decreased (or stopped) usage of most any drug will usually have positive physical & mental results in some time.

To address 24.187.14.54, your statement is filled with inaccuracies. 65.2.198.163's story proves nothing about cannabis-associated memory issues just as your story proves nothing. To say that "any problem related to smoking Marijuana is TEMPORARY" is a flat denial of considerable scientific literature (some of which I've cited on this talk page) and is as untruthful as Reefer Madness-style nonsense. The mechanisms by which long-term consequences may arise are certainly undefined, and the catalogue of testing paradigms often leaves more questions than answers, but there is a generalized set of long-term consequences that is largely supported by medical data. Every individual, however, responds differently, and nailing down the major effects of cannabis suffers from wide variability in user response, dosing, drug potency, delivery methods and (seriously) the notoriously unreliable self-reporting of cannabis use in clinnical studies.

I've been too long-winded, but I felt it was necessary to address these issues above before directing this talk page back to its specified mission: improving the article at hand as per WP:TPG. -- Scientizzle 00:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

We do also need to keep in mind that we are writing a general encyclopedia and not a scientific one but any anecdotal evidence is original research andd we need to keep the article sourceable in every statement it makes. TV Genius 01:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It is absurd to post "Short or long-term psychosis/schizophrenic disorders" as the first line in the effects of cannabis. Get the fuck out.

Medicinal use

The edits made to this section were too outlandish to appear without reference. I'm not dispuiting that this could be fact, but I find these claims questionable enough to wonder what science backs them. Furthermore, use of verbiage such as "As a matter of fact," suggests a tone that is less than NPOV. Hence, I question the validity of these claims. I've marked them to give the editor a chance to cite sources, but otherwise, after a few days, I believe that this should be removed. What does everyone else think? Cheers! --Chuchunezumi 02:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the dubious tag, as it seems that the citation needed tags are sufficient. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 01:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have to take issue with a passage newly entered into this section, and have added a {{Fact}} tag. It uses weasel language, completely lacks reference, and is too esoteric to be considered widely recognized fact, and therefore needs citation. I feel this should be removed if not corrected. What does everyone else think? Chuchunezumi 05:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The "citation needed" tag is not a free pass to allow unverified content to remain in an article; it is a challenge that the statement does not meet WP:V and is suitable for deletion. Absolutely the "citation needed" tags are appropriate for unsourced information, especially when contrarian to the established view, and if it remains for more than a few days then the material should be deleted altogether. Wikipedia is about verifiability; unverifiable statements have no place here, end of story. The Crow 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Who removed the part on alzheimer's that was added last night? It was verifiable fact researched from a prestigious lab and also appeared on CNN and other news organizations. It had references directly to the research companies press release. The Floyd

List of effects

I added a {{unreferenced|date=August 2006}} tag to this section because it seems to be littered with related personal experiences and very few cited claims. I feel very strongly that every listed effect should have a citation, especially considering there are volumes of data on the effects of cannabis use. -- Scientizzle 16:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this section is pretty ropey and perhaps should be rewritten so it isnt a list. TVGH (formerly TV Genius) 16:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I felt free to add "psychosis" to the listing (well, somebody removed it, here it is again) since it's more or less (more more than less) undisputed that this kind of thing can happen - and happens frequently - from smoking marijuana or the like. A friend of mine got psychotic from it (he jacked a car and drove a 200-mile ride home because he was convinced the government wanted to kill his mother...so...he will have to take pills for the rest of his life...oh well). Of course the majority of consumers will never be bothered by things like this, but it's a very real risk, so I thought it would be worth mentioning, no matter what you bunch of 15yo shitheads think...

Apparently you feel quite free to consider your anecdote universal and state outright that anyone opposed is a "15yo shithead." It's an encyclopedia, so a little more than your anecdote (which would be anecdotal even if you gave names and dates, which of course you can't since you made it up) is required for us "15yo shitheads."24.33.28.52 15:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

why should fits of laughter not be listed on behavorial effects. it is pretty much common knowledge among groups of teenagers that after smoking marijuana, people laugh much easier, and sometimes if not often people will break into fits of laughter at the most simple jokes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.162.154 (talk • contribs)

1. Unsourced. 2. Unencyclopedically stated. 3. Seems so be phrased in a way as to condone use. 4. Your own comments suggestOriginal research. ReverendG 07:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternative names

Is there a reason why "cannabis" was the only name mentioned in the intro? I thought it appropriate to at least add the common alternative name "marijuana", especially since the article uses the word to refer to cannabis several times. G Rose 09:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It used to be there, people keep taking it out. --Rory096 19:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Large revert

In the past month, the article has been taken over by vandals, false information, and bad format. I've reverted back to July 31, which was the last decent version I could find (then I went through that and fixed some things). I'm sure not all of the edits in August were bad, though, so feel free to add back in any good faith ones. I'll probably go through them later and do it myself, too. --Rory096 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Khoi and Tobacco as burning aids

The 'contributors' and the 'topic experts' who find the most used supplements with cannabis not worthy to mention in the Wikipedia, please come forward with your reasons and lets discuss it here.

It should go in the smoking article. Tobacco at least is reasonably common, khoi isnt. I also disagree with some of your statements, ie it seems riddled with errors. Most tobacco use is to mix joints with hash which wont burn in pure joints (hence the commonness of a tobacco mix in Europe) and people get accustomed to it so they also smoke it with grass. The idea that tobacco improves the high is laughable so the content would need major changes to stay. Most people use tobacco because they are addicted. El Rojo 20:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with El Rojo. It's too specific for this article, put it either in cannabis smoking or tobacco. You need to get sources for it first, though, see WP:V and WP:RS. --Rory096 22:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am defending the Tobacco for its proper place as a separate sub-article. Because it is common in some places but ubiquitous in the rest. The hash in a joint is ALWAYS mixed with tobacco (not just in Europe but EVERYWHERE) And pure joints in Europe is pretty rare if seen, the same is in Africa and Asia. So as a rule, when it comes to joints the tobacco is a considerable part of the picture. Therefore as a major part of the cannabis consuming culture the tobacco has to have a separate article. Hash is a fare shot to explain the tobacco's place in most of the joints around the world. The reason tobacco is common in Europe is because the amount of weed the average user puts in a joint is not enough to hold a good joint and tobacco is added to compensate volume. But tobacco addiction is most likely also a underlying reason. I also think (whoever wrote that, I am not the author of the "Tobacco as a burning aid" article) the part where the Fonta is reported to increase the high is not credible; even though the Jamaicans might believe it to have that effect, but that is not a reason to wipe out an entire article!!! About the Khoi being not common.. Not common where, El Rojo??? In the country where you live? The article (which I wrote) says "In South-East Asia". Pardon my stereotyping but it is blatantly obvious you are an American. Here I would like to warn everybody to do your research and homework before you delete something imagining it as false! Just because you never heard anything about it and making an immediate assumption that it is not true is a very stupid thing to do. If your research and common sense does not help you just attach a "(citation needed)" to it. I know just deleting is lot easier than to do your research but it only hurts the article that we are all trying to build. I thought the Khoi needs an article because it is as part of the bong gear as the cannabis, specifically in Thailand, Laos and Myanmar. This makes it the next most burned supplement with the cannabis and as such I think the Khoi wood deserves the article. Besides I believe the use of Khoi will spread around the world sooner or latter as it already being sold by some street shops in Amsterdam as a very popular product. The tobacco article needs editing not deleting!

Read my user page and you will see where I am from. I am definitely not living in an English speaking country right now nor have I been in one since I was last in the UK, so I fail the being an American test miserably, not even knowing the country at first hand. Khoi certainly should go in the sub smoking article and predictions about its popularity are irrelevant. Why are you being so aggressive? That wont help any of us. I see you rudely removed the dispute tag without resolving the dispute. Let me remind you this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit not just you. El Rojo 00:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have moved both disputed sections to Cannabis smoking which the consensus here warrants and that is clearly the right article for this material if there is one. El Rojo 01:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the basic idea that the article must go over all the aspects of the drug? Then how is the fact that the one ounce of cannabis is legal to possess in Alaska is more relevant to the whole article than the fact that the cannabis on this planet as a drug is consumed largely as a mix with tobacco? I don't think there is relevance balance here. If I am wrong with this thinking then please somebody explain it to me where exactly. (I did not remove the dispute tag, I don't even know how to do that)

In majority of the counties smoking pure cannabis is not practiced at all. And in the very few countries (like Australia) where pure joints are rolled it is still not the rule. As you guys believe the article should look like, on the entire body of the text the word tobacco appears only once. Just ones! And that is under Psychological effects, where it is suggested that cannabis enhances the effect of the tobacco. Now, that sheds light on the cannabis-tobacco relation!

For good or for bad, you like it or not Tobacco is an integral part of the cannabis consumption. How can't you guys grasp this angle!?! El Rojo, if you move this piece of information away from the main article you might as well go to the Corn flakes article and move into the Breakfast or Cow article the bit of information about the corn flakes being in general served and consumed with milk. I am saying it again, the main article MUST contain all aspects of the cannabis drug. There must be a structure of body as much complete as it can be from where all the related and sub-articles should proliferate from, so that the info is not broken up into places like Cannabis smoking or Chewing cannabis leaves under a moon light in Finland and so on. As it is, there is not a single piece of information about the use of tobacco with cannabis on the article and not to mention the absence of a link that suggests and leads to that particular information.

Can you source your claim that tobacco is mixed with cannabis in the majority of consumption cases as I for one am highly sceptical of the truth of this. But if you can source this information it can be put in the article. There is a link to Cannabis smoking which is exactly where this information should be otherwise this article will be overwhelmed with information so we dont have space to cover all the myriad aspects of cannabis use here. There are far more important bits of info that are in sub articles such as the use of hashish. Milk gets a brief mention in Corn Flakes, juice doesnt even get a mentyion, tobacco gets nmentioned once in our article and khoi not aty all so these cases are in fact equal. El Rojo 15:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Tagged

The list of effects section should be removed and replaced with normal paragraphs. These lists are contradictory, unreliable and hopelessly biased. El Rojo 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Physiologicial Effects

Under the heading "Physiological effects" the statement regarding the dilation of blood vessels may benefit from some clarification.

By listing "Increased blood flow..." and "Reddening or drying of the eyes" as sub-compenents of "Dilation of blood vessels..." suggests that these points are addressed by the reference [21] when this is not the case. The cited reference does support the idea that some cannabanoid receptors and substances may be implicated in some vasodialation responses; it does not make mention of increased blood flow, tachycardia or reddening or drying of the eyes.

It may be misleading to list "Reddening or drying of eyes" as a single statement since different physiological processes could likely explain each phenomenon independently (eg. reddening could occur as a result of vasodilation or as a result of a 'drying of eyes' [Keratoconjunctivitis sicca or otherwise]; reddening could occur independent of drying, but not neccessarily vice versa). These statements would also benefit by including some references.

Although according to reference [21] there may be some involvement of cannabinoid receptors or substances in the vasodialtion associated with reddening of the eyes it may be worthwhile to note that carbon monoxide (CO) is produced by smoking marijuana (or any carbon based substance) and that CO can also result in vasodilation.

Great work on maintaining the ever-important integrity of this topic.

24.69.212.30 17:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC) ___________________________________________________________________________________ Sample being discussed ___________________________________________________________________________________ Physiological effects

     * Dilation of blood vessels (vasodilation),[21] resulting in:
         o Increased blood flow and heart rate (tachycardia)
         o Reddening or drying of eyes

Legality

I think that having a legality section in this article is pointless. The legality issued should be left for the Main Page [Legal issues of cannabis]. This section should be considering the uses and abuses of cannabis as a drug only. Legal issues for recreational, spiritual and medicinal purposes should have the own pages.

Lethaniol 15:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No way. "Legality" is a big part of this article considering its existence is practically banned in many places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.1.132 (talk • contribs)

Cannabinoid Receptors

I work in the field of cannabinoid research (making improved synthetic cannabinoids), and we known for a fact there are at least two Cannabinoid receptors in humans (possibly more). I think when talking about cannabis as a durg we should at least say how they agonise the known cannabinoid receptors (CB1 and CB2) which are G protein-coupled receptor. From a scientists point of view the overall feel of this article is very amateur - and it needs a more detailed content on the science.

Lethaniol 15:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

merged?

There is no way this should be merged with hemp, i dont know who put up that suggestion but the context's of the 2 pages are completely different Javsav 15:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

#1 U.S. Cash Crop

According to The Guardian, cannabis is now the United States's number one cash crop.

I believe I found the Guardian article in question here, but the #1 cash crop estimate is attributed to an ex-narc. Steve White used to be a DEA agent, and more recently trains law enforcement officers in undercover techniques (according to a PBS Frontline interview of White here), but other than that experience, I couldn't verify White's background or basis for making the claim. The NORML study, however, is available in its entirety here, and I believe it's a stronger reference for the article. For this reason, I replaced the above sentence (added 22:07, 7 July 2006 by 162.84.192.143) in the United States section with one referencing the NORML study, but I'm preserving it here in case there's a better Guardian article that I missed. Matt Fitzpatrick 05:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A 1998 study by pro-legalization lobby [[National Organization for the
Reform of Marijuana Laws|NORML]] estimated cannabis to be the largest cash
crop in ten states, all of which lie outside the [[Great Plains]] and
[[Midwestern United States|Midwest]].  Nationwide, the study estimated cannabis
to be the fourth largest cash crop.<ref name="cashcrop_NORML">{{cite
web|url=http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4444|title=NORML Report on U.S.
Domestic Marijuana Production|date=October 1998|accessdate=2006-09-08}}</ref>

Removing the above sentence and citation to talk page. Can someone find the right context for this? It doesn't quite seem to fit in this article, but there are a lot of other cannabis articles to go to. (The sentence was taken out of context; it describes the cannabis market in the United States.) Matt Fitzpatrick 18:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Preparations for human consumption: Smoking

This entire section is worded very poorly and I just cleaned up some horrible spelling errors within. The article Cannabis smoking is a lot more professional, perhaps Cannabis can simply state the different ways to smoke marijuana and link to Cannabis smoking for more information? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Memorygap (talk • contribs) .

You didn't make any edits, as far as I can tell. The section isn't too bad, and exists as a short summary of cannabis smoking (which was broken off from that section a while back). A few minutes prior to your post, I removed a couple non notable smoking techniques that shouldn't have been in that section, and it seems fine now. --Rory096 16:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Legal status in Alaska

The article contains conflicting statements about the current legality of cannabis in Alaska, so I'll try to help sort them out.

(→ United States) "The state of Alaska formerly allowed residents to legally possess up to four ounces for personal use, but it was criminalized on June 2, 2006; possesion of up to four ounces is now a misdemeanor."

(→ Decriminalization and legalization) "Also, in Alaska, marijuana was decided legal for in-home, personal use under the Raven vs. State ruling in 1975. This ruling allowed up to four ounces of marijuana for these purposes. On July 17th, 2006, that amount was reduced to one ounce due to an 'increase in potency' since the Raven verdict."

By my understanding, Ravin v. State (1975) was the Alaska Supreme Court decision finding the Alaska state anti-drug law to be unconstitutional, at least insofar as the defendant's right to privacy outweighed the state's public health interest in banning marijuana.

This makes the June 2006 statute, basically, a legislative end run around the Ravin decision. Subsequently, a superior court judge ruled, rather quickly (July 2006), that the June 2006 law is still unconstitutional. This puts Alaska more or less back where it was in 1975, while the issue winds its way back up the appeals ladder. Matt Fitzpatrick 00:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I got the facts mostly straightened out and mostly cited, but the organization still has serious problems. To be honest, my edits may have inserted a bit too much stuff about "legality" for a "medicinal use" section. Part of it might need to be merged into a more appropriate section or article. Unfortunately, I won't have time this week to clean up the organization. Hopefully someone can pick up where I left off. Matt Fitzpatrick 21:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

strains?

can somebody compile a list/description of strains whether it be on this or a seperate page? if there is such a page can somebody link it at the bottom of this one? thanx.

Requested move, additional comments

I missed the discussion, but I have to say that this argument has come up quite a number of times in the past couple years. Maybe there should be a better way of handling requests for renames when the issue has already come up in the past. Personally I cannot see why some people are so adamant at trying to rename articles to suit their political agendas rather than allow them to remain with proper neutral (NPOV) international scientific terminology. --Thoric 22:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm the editor who recently nominated the article to be renamed, and I'm confused how you're inferring a "political agenda" from anything that I wrote; please clarify. The reason for my nomination was purely linguistic.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As the person who named this article I agree with Thoric. In the UK and most of Europe as well as other places where hashish cannabis is not called marijuana as that would imply that hashish is also called marijuana or that hashish is not cannabis, both self evidently not so, SqueakBox 23:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore Google is not a source for wikipedia, ie it is not published material, nor is that US search engine rewriting history, SqueakBox 23:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Eating raw grass is not psychoactive

according to many sites, eg [11], eg "Marijuana must be heated before being consumed to activate the cannabanoids so one cannot simply eat raw grass.". Many sites including our own correctly state that marijuana is not soluble in wayter so needs heating with fats to release the psychoactive properties, SqueakBox 00:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Cost

I think it would be useful to add typical costs of cannabis, and the ammount of cannabis given for the costs, so it can be compared to cigarrette addiction.

Where? The price of cannabis varies greatly between places (which is part of what makes it so profitable for criminals transporting it between one place and another), SqueakBox 02:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This would probably lead to many people just trying to show the prices in their specific area, which could get complicated unless it was organized by country, state, and city? or an average price per wieght, which to be usefull would most likely have to be organized by the location also. johnskate17 14 October 2006

I read an article recently about the differing prices in the regions of the UK, SqueakBox 15:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait,...: That does seem very dangerous.

If it is from a longterm historical perspective, well, that seems fine. However, anything more updated could get wiki fined. Now, I do have many complaints about wiki; but, that would be one huge boobytrap {not brassiere}.

I am even annoyed when ordinary product articles list updated prices. Even there, I would say, only list them from a historical perspective, not as a catalogue {not even cattlelog}.

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 05:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Cannabis generraly sold in "1o bags" which are supposed to weigh 1/16 of an ounce(1.7g)Often it is under this amount it all depends on where you get it. Fisk

The whole idea of listing prices is unworkable. Not only will it be unverifiable, there is also too much variance. Not only do prices vary from city to city, but they also vary considerably by quality. Add to that the fact that any discussion would have to give equal attention to prices outside of the US and UK, which is absolutely unmaintainable. Regardless, since you aren't going to get good, verifiable sources it can't be added anyway. You could use price estimates from police/governmental sources, but those are usually quite a bit off-the-mark. --The Way 11:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Is

this true, false?:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis_%28drug%29&diff=82143001&oldid=82142607 >.

Would that put the can into cannabis, or cannabis into can? Or canknot? I am certainly not familiar on the subject, as I generally avoid fertilizing weed. I, generally, toss weeds into the dumpsters behind my home, rather than other dumps. Getting high?

I do, occasionally, hear of the confluence of marijuana & formaldehyde. Is this worthy of an article? Considering the other applications of formaldehyde, the consequences do seem important. However, we, likely, put much more dangerous chemicals inside of our bodies all day.

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 05:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Weed is much less dangerous than tobacco. No body much knows what they put in cigarettes. Weed is grown maybe with some plant fertilizer, CO2 to pump up the buds, a water and peroxide mist to kill parasites. thats about it for a simple weed crop.

Number of Chemicals

Can we get an accurate figure for the number of chemicals contained in cannabis? It states four under the 'Active ingredients, metabolism, and method of activity', which is obviously incorrect. 24.209.129.107 04:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for protection/semi-protection?

Methinks there's a lot of IP vandalism recently. What's some input on requesting protection/semi-protection for this article? Urania3 20:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection seems like a very good idea. -- Chondrite 05:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Illegal?

After reading sme of this stuff, it seems o me that this drug s beneficial to teh body and brain in several ways. It also ave some negative effects, but so does motrin if you take enough. I don't understand why this is illegal when cigarrettes seem to be much more harmful. Anyone have an answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MADmike253 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested in reviewing Legal issues of cannabis and Medical cannabis; try proposing critical suggestions for improvement on those talk pages. If you need a particular question answered, you may need to be more specific. The talk pages are used for improving the article, not for general discussion about the topic. —Viriditas | Talk 03:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Terribly misrepresented information

I just changed an extremely apocryphal representation of source information.

What the source says:

Marijuana interferes with blood flow to the brain. People smoking less that 70 joints a week will show improvement from the irregular state caused by the marijuana usage.

What the page said: "Although studies have not proven altogether conclusive on the subject, recent work suggests that the cognitive effects of cannabis use under 70 joints a week are wholly impermanent, and that most afformentioned effects subside after about a month."

I scoured the article for anything remotely like that. Nothing. I therefore suggest that all cited sources be checked to make sure they say what they are represented to say. Also, a page number needs to be on any source that has them. The UK report, for example, is 179 pages long. I've been trying to find where this report says "using cannabis is less dangerous than both tobacco and alcohol in social harms, physical harm and addiction", and I can't.--Loodog 05:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

UK definition of cannabis and citing UK studies

You need to be careful when citing UK studies. In the UK, 'cannabis' is synonymous with a mix of marijuana and tobacco. Since marijuana is a vasodilator, it seems nonsensical that it would constrict blood flow to the brain. However, if you consider that this is a UK study and they may be referring to cannabis laced with tobacco, it makes perfect sense, since nicotine is a vasoconstrictor. However, this study tells us nothing about the effects of cannabis itself since it is tainted with a confounding variable. Runderwo 19:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well in the UK people smoke cannabis and not exclusively marijuana. There are a lot of people who mix tobacco with cannabis unlike in other places like the US but to claim cannabis is synonymous with tobacco in the UK is simply not true, SqueakBox 19:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So I took a look at that study to see what's going on. It actually took place in the States, not the U.K., with research listed as coming from: Molecular Neuropsychiatry Branch, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, PO Box 5180, Baltimore, MD. So, I don't think this is a problem with the U.K. definition of "cannabis". I see how you thought that though, since the source listed is a news report on the BBC. On the other hand, I'm looking over the full text of the study and there are some important things to note.

1. Taken from the abstract: the study is "to determine possible effects of prolonged marijuana use on the cerebrovascular system during a month of monitored abstinence." So any observations are in subjects, who are monitored in a research facility, taken after cessation of cannabis use.
2. The study only has a sample size of 54 users (11 light users, 23 moderate, and 20 heavy) and 18 control subjects. This is not a very large study.
3. The study claims to control for tobacco smoking (which appears in users and control groups), stating: "neither alcohol nor tobacco use contributed to any of the differences in blood flow velocity observed between the control subjects and marijuana users. Furthermore, preliminary data from this laboratory have documented that chronic cigarette smoking does not alter PI [results]."
4. The study, by its own admission, states "the present observations suggest that more research is needed to study the effects of chronic marijuana use on cerebral and peripheral vascular systems."
5. There are many possible reasons for the results, but the study states: "It is more likely that the changes in blood pressure and blood flow velocity in the anterior and middle arteries might both be associated with withdrawal from the prolonged use of marijuana."

I propose taking out the BBC source (which is obviously going to editorialize the results) and replace it with the primary source. I think maybe this info belongs in a withdrawal or tolerance heading, rather than the list of effects. --Howrealisreal 20:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

New Study Shows Absence of Long-Term Memory or Cognitive Impairment

http://www.umcutrecht.nl/research/agenda/2006/10/Ecstasy+leaves+memory+intact.htm

Occasional use of ecstasy (an average of a total of two pills) or frequent cannabis use (several marijuana cigarettes a week over a period of an average of four years) does not lead to long-term abnormalities in memory or ability to concentrate, or related brain activity. These are the main findings in Gerry Jager’s doctoral thesis. She studied the long-term effects of the popular drugs ecstasy and cannabis on brain functions (memory and ability to concentrate) using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

Jager will receive her PhD from Utrecht University on October 31. The title of her thesis is, “Functional MRI studies in human ecstasy and cannabis users.”

When this article becomes available someone might want to add in some of the information in it. Its useful for discussing long-term negative effects.

I agree the thesis could be interesting once accessible. I included other references that indicate impairment of short-term memory functioning and abstraction in heavy users but no impairments or even improved test scores in light and intermediate users. It was problematic a little to access articles, but this conclusion appeared to be a common finding. I linked to one article (and one abstract of an article) that support it. --Ben ^T/_C 12:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And I changed the indication that this would affect all users with the corrollary that this is found in some users as there is clearly no consensus on this conclusion in the scientific world, and nor should there be, SqueakBox 15:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I just read a review on the topic, and it seems as if there are more problems with chonic use than said here. Additionally int he article when they talk about increased blood flow to certain areas and increased activation they say it has to do with chronic smokers "working harder." Otherwise, without stating this it seems like increased activation and blood flow are a good thing. The review is by Lundqvist T, Feb 2005 in Pharmachology Biochemistry and Behavior. Someone else who knows more should consider reading this and adding more to the article. Thanks. Rjkd12 01:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Famous Users/Advocates

Is there a list of celebrities and famous people who claim openly they use regularly or are advocates?

I think there should be a list, for example, Bill Maher, Sarah Silverman, Willie Nelson, Snoop Dog, Bob Marley, Woody Harrelson, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.42.208 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Cannabis activists currently fulfills this role. —Viriditas | Talk 06:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Try List of iconic smokers, SqueakBox 15:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

List of iconic smokers is a list of tabbacco smokers and Cannabis activists and famous smokers are very different. That list is incomplete. Someone should pull the names from that site, or just list the site as a link.

Why did I get a message saying that the link I posted and was talking about above is inappropriate?? It's exactly what this section is about...We're talking about important and famous people who openly use or have used the drug and that's what that site is. Who sent that message and did they even bother going to the site??

I sent the message and I went to the site which seemed to have lots of pics of famous people who have allegedly smoked cannabis; yet this article is not about famous people who use cannabis, for that you need to go to List of iconic smokers. Spamming isa big problem in wikipedia, SqueakBox 03:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Article is not NPOV

This article is not NPOV. Sources have been carefully cherry picked to only pertain to one point of view. Edits contrary to the view of marijuana advocacy are edited out. Perfectly legitimate research data are contradicted with claims from spurious sources. The scientific consensus is that cannabis is a dangerous drug with long lasting effects. In my opinion, a group of marijuana legalisation advocates have conspired to control the information presented on Wikipedia so that it appears to support their beliefs. Please consider adding more sources that identify the dangerous effects of marijuana to balance the bias in the article. See below for examples:

http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/effects-of-marijuana.htm http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/parentpg15-16N.html http://web4health.info/en/answers/add-cannabis-psychosis.htm http://ncadi.samhsa.gov/govpubs/phd641/ http://foxnews.webmd.com/content/article/100/105717.htm?src=rss_foxnews http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040309071927.htm http://science.howstuffworks.com/marijuana4.htm --Darth Borehd 23:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

All these articles you have furnished us with appear to be politically motivated stuff from prohibitionists, ie it doesnt appear the kind of serious, rigorous stuff that is actually in the references section. Perhaps you should try to edit the article rather than just sticking a pov tag on it, and do so in a way that doesnt itself contradict pov. I disagree that a group of legalization advocates have conspired to do anything whatsoever re the article. The only scientific consensus is that there is no consensus and to try to claim that there is is simply to ignore the debate going on on the issue. Almost none of the claims in your articles have been scientifically validated, and certainly not scientifically validated in those articles themselves. An NPOV article takes in all sides of the debate, if you think the prohibition arguments are poorly presented then please edit the article but dont do so in a way that the article would conveys solely the prohibitonists pov, SqueakBox 00:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comments support my statements. You dismiss contrary evidence out of hand by calling them "prohibitionists". Are you seriously trying to tell me that the NIDA, a government agency, is a political advocacy group? And in response to your comment about editing the article, I have tried to revise the article to bring it more into line with NPOV but I have found myself stymied by the same group of editors changing it back to the biased condition. So, now I'm trying to open a rational dialog in the discussion session and to bring attention to the egregious pro-marijuana bias in this article. --Darth Borehd 00:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, agree with squeakbox, and say that upon looking over NIDA's site that they seem to have formulated their opinions before reviewing the scientific evidence, and therefore present an extremely biased view based on preconcieved notion. A political advocacy group? Perhaps not, the other sites were however, and this one is a very politically motivated group. ReverendG 01:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Who's going to edit an article on marijuana? People interested in it. Bias is therefore unfortunately expected. For example, some asshat keeps misrepresenting the article about blood flow to the brain to mean that it has no long-term effects. As a occasional user, I assure you there are adverse effects. It doesn't mean anyone editing this page will go out of his way to find articles showing that, like this one, this one, or this one, these were the first three results of a google search that somehow didn't make it to this page.--Loodog 01:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps your edits are being opposed because, like the content in the links you have offered, they dont fit NPOV. If you want a discussion perhaps you could propose some changes to the article and see what other people think. Personally I dont want a pro cannabis article that will be dismissed by many out of hand, I want a balanced, objective article. Accusing people who have smoked a lot of cannabis over many years of being brain damaged and having learning difficulties, the classic stance of the prohibitionist, wont create that balanced article. Learning difficulties indeed, lol, SqueakBox 02:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't meant as a personal attack. As a fact of wikipedia, people will write about what they're interested in. This creates bias. E.g. someone from Los Angeles will take an interest in the Los Angeles wiki article and just might insert a few things about the better parts of LA. This is why is article is biased. There are no intended insinuations of brain damage. --Loodog 17:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Not from wikipedia no, the attacks on cannabis users come from the type of prohibitionist material Darth brought to this talk page, SqueakBox 17:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Your continued characterisation of such studies as "prohibitionist" material is typical of the bias I am referring. NIDA is a government agency attached to the DHHS (http://www.hhs.gov/). Their continued stance, substantiated by research, is that marijuana is harmful. Equating research showing marijuna to be harmful with prohibitionists of the 1920s and 1930s is not only inaccurate but misleading as well. The consensus of medical and scientific experts is that THC may have some legitimate uses under medical supervision, but it's illegal use, expecially when done through the inhalation of combustibles, is dangerous to human health. My point, which you have been so helpful in helping me make, is that the sources cited, the conclusion, the tone, and the diction in this article have been crafted in such a way as to give an impression of pro-marijuana legalisation bias. --Darth Borehd 21:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because research is cited by prolegalisation groups doesn't make it false. Similiar, just because research is "prohibitionist" doesn't make it false. There are enough ad hominem circumstantial fallacies here to kill a politician.--Loodog 22:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I would add that if someone is pro-legalisation (which I am), they have probably experienced or witnessed adverse affects of canibus (I know I have) and should't pretend like they don't exist for political purposes. The entire tone of the article seems to suggust that cannabis is less harmfull than alchahol and tobacco in every way, which is absolutely false, and provided pro-legalisation advocates have used these drugs, they should know this. The article states:

"According to a United Kingdom government report, using cannabis is less dangerous than both tobacco and alcohol in social harms, physical harm and addiction." This implies that if a person uses canabis instead of alchahol or tobacco they will have less social harm, physical harm, and addiction potential, but the report is really just an assesment of the drugs impact on society not intended to provide advice on an individual basis. Not only is the statement not properly backed by the article, but it is not backed by what should be obvious to anyone who is familiar these three drugs. Alchahol use in moderation is widely socially accepted and could beasaid to have posative social affects; tobacco use's only real negative social effect is a smell that is less strong than that of cannabis; one hit of cannabis however is enough to cause adverse social effects in many situations. The article also has no mention of addiction other than to say it is less adictive than alchahol and tobacco even though their is a clear concensus among experts that Cannabis is highly adictive for some people. The bigest problem with the article seems to be that it was written to push a political idea, but it is primaraly used by people looking for individual advice, and in that respect it is very misleading. It might actually be best to write an additional article on "Cannabis Addiction" that could detail the unique charactoristics of cannabis addiction.--Theanonomous 12:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

But do you have any sources contracting the sources that say it is safer? I am sorry, but that is just what the citations say, it is safer then alcohol and tobacco. As for you idea for the article "Cannabis Addiction", show me which sources you will use? The sources I see cannot find evidence of it's addictive nature. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I know the report says that cannabis is safer than alcohol and tobacco, but that's not what the article is saying. The article states that cannabis has less social harm, physical harm, and addiction, which is not entirely true, and not entirely supported by the article. Cannabis causes virtually no physical harm, but it definitely causes more social harm than tobacco, and it causes more social harm than alcohol in many situations. That's really all I was trying to say about the health issues article, but it was late and I was long-winded and confusing in my explanation. sorry.

As far as the suggestion to have an article on marijuana addiction, I wasn't basing that on any of the articles that had already been used, but on personal experience and hearsay advice from qualified experts. I was hoping someone else would find some citations so I wouldn't have to, and I would look for some now, but it's late now too. I do think there should be some mention of the article on Marijuana Anonymous somewhere in the section on marijuana. There should be an article on MA until someone can wright an agreeable article on marijuana addiction--Theanonomous 13:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And indeed then fundamental problem we face when writing about cannabis as a drug is that it is a highly charged political issue, SqueakBox 03:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Summary section dispute

Cannabis (drug)#Health issues and the effects of cannabis is a summary of Health issues and the effects of cannabis. In keeping with the guideline, material pertaining to this topic that is included in Cannabis (drug) should be a WP:NPOV summary of the information presented in the detailed article. Expansion should occur in the detailed article, and, if appropriate, summarized in this article with due weight. A {{POV-section}} dispute tag would be appropriate in the section (rather than a {{POV}} tag disputing the nuetrality of the entire article) if the section does not properly summarize Health issues and the effects of cannabis. I have replaced the dispute tag accordingly, but further discussion in this talk page should focus on whether the section accurately summarizes the detail article with appropriate weight. Content of the detail article should be discussed at Talk:Health issues and the effects of cannabis. Chondrite 06:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

---

What you did was very important, and I think everyone agrees. My question is - why was the {{POV}} tag put there in the first place? If this isn't a good summary of Health issues and the effects of cannabis (and I have to admit I haven't read this full article just yet, so I don't know), maybe it should be re-written or receive a {{review}} or just a simple {{cleanup|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}} tag?

Any thoughts, anyone? --Odedrim 23:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC) ѕ

About NPOV

I happened to bump into this page and I have to concur that sections of this page is nowhere near NPOV. It is obvious that different sections have been written by different people, but the sections focusing on the medical effects of marijuana is not well written. My skin crawled when I read some of the stuff on this article.

I found the prose was sometimes too vague for a medical discussion. There is no clear cut (and simple) description for their effects. The section sometimes lacked the word "may" when it would be expected (such as in new or controversial research). There is no list or discussion on the official position of the medical (and scientific) profession, especially in regards to the dangers of smoking. At all. Instead, we get a list of all the beneficial things cannabis MAY have, with little on the other side of the coin or counter-evidence. This section should be rearranged into 1) indications of cannabis/THC, 2) known effects, 3) contraindications (there is nothing sensical on this, but reads vaguely towards anti-prohibition), 4) Adverse side-effects. All of these should be taken from the offical position of the medical profession. Then you should have separate sections to discuss controversial medical issues surrounding cannabis, and give both sides a section to present their case. Like all research, there are people and papers that disagree with that position, but it is unwise to throw the baby out with the bathwater when such research papers come along. Doing so is misinforming the very people many of us are trying to educate from the so-called "War on Drugs".

A good example of where this page fails completely is the misconception (that is, different to the position of the medical profession) by some cannabis users that cannabis is "less dangerous" than tobacco in regards to COPD and lung cancer. The only reference supporting this quite stunning claim is a website discussing a non-peer reviewed talk given at a low-profile conference. The second reference in another sentence refers to a newspaper article about the first reference. Since talks at even the best conferences are not peer-reviewed, I would strongly suggest that this claim be removed unless a peer-reviewed reference (or preferably two by two separate groups) can be given. It may still play a role in this article though, perhaps as a footnote in the controversy section highlighting the weakness of some "evidence" used to promote cannabis agendas. The point is that it needs a serious rewriting before you could justifiably say that this article deals with the medical issues legitimately. Volantares 19:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I reiterate that the Health Effects section of this article is supposed to be a summary of Health issues and the effects of cannabis article. If the section in this article does not accurately summarize Health issues and the effects of cannabis then it may be an NPOV issue for this article. However, if you dispute the content of Health issues and the effects of cannabis then the appropriate place to discuss your concerns is at Talk:Health issues and the effects of cannabis. -- Chondrite 19:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Having flicked through the larger article, I can say with great confidence that it does not reflect the larger article, since there is virtually no mention of the much more substantial content of negative effects (apart from a very non-descript sentence), and a relatively large incoherent (due to the lack of mentioning the negative effects) discussion of one section that promotes the idea that cannabis is "not as bad as tobacco". This is the biggest issue I have with the section, although I have significant reservations of the conclusions on both pages. The reference used in the summary page should be the same as what is in the major article, since it is peer-reviewed, if not yet reproduced by another group. I believe that claiming cannabis has: (a) "fewer" effects on the lungs on the suggestion that it may be different for two lung function properties and more importantly, (b) the general public tend to treat the word "fewer" as implying that it is "safer". The tone of that section also encourage you to form that conclusion because of no mention of negative evidence, and no emphasis that fewer does not equal safer. I will post something on the other page, giving much more detail why I think that you cannot conclude cannabis does not cause COPD, nor other similar airway damage and disease from this abstract. Volantares 04:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do edit the health effects section of this article to accurately summarize the detail article. Can I suggest that if you plan major edits to the detail article, it might be best to achieve a stable version there before attempting to summarize here? Chondrite 06:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded some of the references and sentences used in that section, but I haven't gone through and provided a summary that represents what is in the more detailed article. I may do that at some stage, but this article is not strongly linked to my interests or knowledge, so someone else would be more than welcome to write it (and I'd be happy to agree or disagree with its content). Volantares 13:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that this article is not NPOV, and I am by no means anti drug. However, I think that we have a responsibility as editors of an encyclopedia to ensure that we are being objective and our own personal opinions do not shine through into the articles we edit. Encyclopedias should give the reader nothing but facts, and it's going to take a lot of work to get this article up to Wikipedia standards. In addition, a lot of the language and grammar needs cleaning up. It doesn't seem to flow very nicely. Needless to say I think I will be doing quite a bit of editing on this page to try to get it up to par. I hope that others will help out in that regard as well. Karabeara126 07:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This article seems to have been written by the pro-cannabis lobby. It is unbelievably biased and fails to mention any consequences of use, despite the fact that marijuana is still phrohibited under international law because of its high potential for abuse and health consequences. It is laughable that in the health consequences section, it immediately discusses tobacco and alcohol and ignores consequences of cannabis use completely. Please review and edit accordingly, if you're not too stoned to read this.

As said many times above, do you have any source that shows what you say is true? We work by citation and references here. You can remove unsourced items if you think they are false, but if you want to introduce new information please provide sources. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you source that cannabis is prohibited under international (or any other) law because of its high potential for abuse and health consequences? The health section does not immediately discuss tobacco and alcohol, it points out certain scientific problems relating to cannabis effects where the controls havent been strong enough. If you are not too stoned to read this sounds like a personal attack, please remain civil and assume good faith and dont make statements that attack other users, SqueakBox 16:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Map

Image:World-cannabis-laws.png may contain unsourced info. Can anyone confirm the info in it? While I agree that Hondurass has laws that for the most part arent enforced I think the Honduran government would not be happy with this. Please can wee get a source for it or I'll remove the map, SqueakBox 00:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am the creator of this map. Where shall I list the sources? This map doesn't have its own page... I suppose if there was a page called "International Cannabis Laws" I could put them there... CL8 01:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The source for the Honduras map is from the Medical cannabis page. It says: "Sick people caught with cannabis are claiming it is for medical purposes but the government and the law does not recognise this and punishments remain harsh, though enforcement for consumption is lax." CL8 01:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ho hum, I wrote that myself, while the first bit was from the local news the second is possibly original research. Its a bit of a tricky one and I see the basic problem as being there is a lot of potentially controversial info in the map presented in a very concise way and with no real way of changing the info on a country by country basis. Anyway, good work, and we can discuss this at Image talk:World-cannabis-laws.png, SqueakBox 01:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but it is somewhat misleading in that even if it is decriminalized by the states, it isn't decriminalized by the federal government, and maybe that should be shown as different from when it is decriminalized on all levels of government. You wouldn't want someone to assume that they will be safe with Cannabis in a state where it is decriminalized and then get picked up by the feds. Food for thought anyway.--Theanonomous 13:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Source list has been started. Please view, comment at: Image talk:World-cannabis-laws.png. CL8 04:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Resin Clarification

I think the methods and preparation, specifically resin to include it's true nature and common misconceptions.

"Resin is essentially condensed smoke and is commonly, but incorrectly, thought to contain a higher concentrations of tar and other carcinogens."

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.115.142.211 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Resin is not condensed smoke, and it does have higher concentrations of tar by weight. Foolishben 00:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous editor (06:08, 3 March 2007 209.29.21.138) wrote:

hashish a resin like but non resinous substance. Resins are produced integrally in a plant and secreted. THC grows in bulbous formations with a resin-like liquid produced at the site. This common error has serious ramifcations for legal/political reasons) is a psychoactive product of the plant Cannabis sativa L. subsp. indica

First of all, it is disruptive to make an argument like that in the middle of an article. Second, it seems to me that "resinous" is a perfectly adequate (and commonly used) descriptor for hashish. Why quibble over whether the "resin-like liquid" is secreted "integrally" (whatever that means) or into the secretory cavities of glandular trichomes? Is there a difference chemically? What are the "serious ramifcations for legal/political reasons?" Inquiring minds want to know. GeorgeLTirebiter 04:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Colorados amendment 44

Colorado's Amendment 44 didn't pass. This means that marijuana is illegal to all ages in any amount when it comes to recreational use. I am unsure of whether or not it legal in medical usage. The world map showing where it is legal and illegal is wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1950salvador (talk • contribs) 06:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Actually, marijuana is decriminalized here in Colorado which means essentially that it's only 'kinda' illegal. If you get caught with an ounce or less it isn't even a misdemeanor, all you get is a $100 fine. I'm not sure how that should be reflected on a map, however. --The Way 19:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is somewhat misleading in that even if it is decriminalized by the states, it isn't decriminalized by the federal government, and maybe that should be shown as different from when it is decriminalized on all levels of government.--Theanonomous 13:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Psychological effects

There is currently no discussion whatsoever on the subjective psychological effects of marijuana. There used to be. Why was this removed?

I noticed too but didnt put it back as it was always very controversial but by all means do so. i have no idea whether the removal was well or badly intentioned, SqueakBox 20:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Some Chemistry

"Isopropyl" is mentioned in this article as a type of chemical. However, no such chemical exists. This word is more like a prefix for naming a chemical. I suspect someone ment to put isopropyl alcohol, but since I am uncertian, I will leave it to someone else to fix.

Preparations for human consumption Cannabis is prepared for human consumption in several forms:

[stuff deleted for space]

• Hash oil, resulting from extraction or distillation of THC-rich parts of the plant with isopropyl or butane.

What do you mean for space, it hardly takes up any, SqueakBox 18:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is actually sdtill there. If anyone believes this article is too long please remove heavy pics and not light text, SqueakBox 18:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

I unprotected the page from anonymous editors, if the IP vandalism gets out of hand, contact me on my talk page. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh and I archived this rather long talk page. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the same problem continued so I have semi protected the page again. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The Cannabis articles all receive a constant barrage of vandalism. I think they should all be permanently semi-protected. Maybe we should start an unprotected "Cannabis Playpen" for the goofballs among us. GeorgeLTirebiter 13:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis is not a drug

Cannibis drug?First of all cannibis is a plant. Not a drug.Deriving its name from the greek canna for cane and bi for bisexual having both male and female sexes.Canna-bi.....cannabis the female cannabis plant produces both thc and cannibinoid oil among other chemicals during the flowering cycle. Perhaps this subject should be looked at from a biologically molecular level to truly understand why certain aspects of the active ingredients are psychoactive and some are analgesic and pain releiving...right? for example just do a google search for ajulemic acid and you will see that the compounds responsible for the analgesic and pain releif have been isolated from the psychoactive compound in the tetrahydrocannibinol.so why not seperate them? So those who use it for pain releif can do so and those who want psychoactive effects can also specifically use that?also one last thing...its a question.Why do humans have cannibinoid receptors in their brains if nothing in the body is endogenously produced to bind to it? Is it so that this plant which has been around thousands of years was meant for humans and their brains?Prove me wrong- hope this helps- I am a first time user of wikipedia-but not cannibisBodazifa 05:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all cannibis is a plant. Not a drug. You are quite correct. How did this happen? I'm going to propose a merge. --Bill Huston ^(talk) 09:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge tag removed, requested move opposed. The topic is split into at least three different primary articles: the plant genus Cannabis, the use of cannabis as a psychoactive drug, and non-drug cultivation, Hemp. —Viriditas | Talk 10:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You can oppose the merge, but please do not delete the merge tag, to allow discussion from other users. Cannabis is not a drug, it is a plant genus. The drug, which is contained in the cannabis plant, is called THC. --Bill Huston ^(talk) 11:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

He is right to oppose the merging of a 46KB article into a 43 KB article, that would make 89KB yet both articles already have warnings that they are too long and to create such a masive article would fly in the face of wikipedia policy on article size, SqueakBox 15:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

He is "quite correct" that cannabis is a plant, not a drug? Explain that to the DEA or any other law enforcement agency that catches you or someone else with cannabis in your possession. It's an absurb distinction that smacks of nit-picking. Cannabis is marijuana. Both cannabis and marijuana (along with THC) are Schedule One Controlled Substances, illegal except under rare and highly controlled (and government sanctioned) experiments. You may as well say that the coca plant is a plant, not a drug, or that the opium poppy is a plant, not a drug, because their active ingredients are cocaine and morphine, respectively, which are drugs. They are part-and-parcel of the same thing. This criticism is pedantic, not terribly significant, and totally irrelevant to the legality/illegality of cannabis/marijuana/thc as viewed by the U.S., Interpol, the W.H.O., etc. You get caught with cannabis, you get arrested and possibly sent to prison. End of story.Thomconn 04:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to comment on this "Why do humans have cannabinoid receptors in their brains if nothing in the body is endogenously produced to bind to it?". With a little research you can notice that the receptors are indeed used by body, namely through endocannabinoids. It seems like most of the articles written here are pro-drug, and I would consider them harmful for, for instance, youth looking for information on the effects of drugs. It is true that pot does not cause strong physical dependency, but - as we can see on the comment and the writing on the article - the psychological addiction is severe. Maybe you should ask yourself: if I'm not addicted to it, why do I still need to find the time to use it and try to convince yourself and others, that it is OK? That is, why do I need to mess my head up? As I've visited many geeky discussion-boards (incl. wikipedia), I could say that psychedelics are "brainwash" drugs. They are just as mindlessly pro-drugs as they accuse "authorities" of being against them.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.23.12.60 (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC). THC is the scientific name for the drug but this is not a science article, we are concerned with the use of the drug by people, and both users and non users generally consider their consumption of this plant to be taking a drug, SqueakBox 15:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What discussion? No valid reason for a merge or move has been given, so I have removed the tag. —Viriditas | Talk 12:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK I think I understand what happened here. This was all part of a very long article at Cannabis, and it was decided to split this into three parts, the plant genus, the drug/medicinal use, and hemp fiber. The problem I have is with the naming of this article. It is quite a misnomer. "Cannabis (drug)" doesn't make sense to me, and evidently to others as well. I think the article should be renamed to "Cannabis (drug use)", but I really don't like the word "drug". Is there a single word which includes "medicinal" and "psychoactive" while avoiding the word "drug"? --Bill Huston ^(talk) 12:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

See disambiguation. The article is titled appropriately. —Viriditas | Talk 12:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone thinks so. Some months ago I proposed that the article be renamed "Marijuana." As I recall, I was not the only one in favor of such a move.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge strongly opposed. This article deals with cannabis when used as a drug. As for calling it marijuana, even more strongly oppose and even if a lot of people wanted that it would not be acceptable because marijuana is a slang name for grass, it would mean cannabis didnt get treated at all on wikipedia. Anyone in Europe and large parts of Asia knows that cannabis may be hash, it may ne marijuana, and while hash has a separate article if you also give a separate example to marijuana then cannabis will effectively have been deleted. that wont happen as consensus is not the only factor to be taken into consideration in naming an article. if people think cannabis is not a drug the first thing they need to do is source that. What I would support is to merge hashish and hash oil into this article as I dont believe they should be treated separately though recognising that there are weight issues that would need resolving, SqueakBox 15:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, forget about the merge. I agree that would be a mistake. I like the idea of renaming this article to Marijuana best. "Cannabis (drug)" is a misnomer. Cannabis is NOT a drug! --Bill Huston ^(talk) 17:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm, of course it is a drug. What definition of drug is being used here, because I have always used A drug is any substance that can be used to modify a chemical process or processes in the body,. The substance Cannabis is a substance that can be used to modify the body, it contains drugs but that does not stop it from being a drug itself. THC is but one of many drugs in the substance cannabis, and calling it Cannabis (drug) refers to the drug effects of what is contained in Cannabis. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Cannabis is a drug under any standard use of the term drug. While there are parts of the plant that aren't psychoactive, much of the plant contains THC which is a part of, not separate from, the plant. Thus the plant itself is a drug since the TCH is a necessary component of the plant. Anyways, our naming policy here is to use standard, common names. Cannabis, marijuana, pot... is considered a drug in every day conversation. This is no different than calling salvia, magic mushrooms, coca and coffee drugs. --The Way 19:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Reasons for moving this article to "Marijuana"

According to WP:NAME:

• "...article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize..." I think most English speakers recognize "Marijuana" over "Cannabis (drug)".
• "...with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity..." The present naming does create ambiguity, because of the disconnect between the fact that Cannabis *is not a drug*.
• "...while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature..." Creating a link to Marijuana is easy and second nature, but Cannabis (drug)? That just seems weird.
• "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Again, what is more compelling here?
• "Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing..." Again, what is more common?

I think it is quite clear the calling the article Marijuana fits Wikipedia naming conventions much better than the present name.

MORE DATA SUPPORTING MOVE: There are between 1000-1500 Wikilinks to both "Marijuana" and to "Cannabis (drug)". But if you examine the links to the latter, most of them are of the form [[Cannabis (drug)|Marijuana]]. This clearly indicates that most people want to link directly to an article called Marijuana, and this link counting is artifically skewed to "Cannabis (drug)" because people are evidently violating this policy: Wikipedia:Redirect#Don.27t_fix_links_to_redirects_that_aren.27t_broken, which says, "Most especially, there should never be a need to replace [[redirect]] with [[direct|redirect]]."

Please add your comments below, and highlight your vote, like KEEP or RENAME to Marijuana, etc. --Bill Huston ^(talk) 17:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My vote is for RENAME to Marijuana --Bill Huston ^(talk) 17:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) would be more relevent, it supports the current name. Also please understand this is but one of many Cannabis related articles, this is the one that concentrates on the drug effects. I oppose the move, we should Keep the name we have now. Marijuana already links here. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Most Americans recognise marijuana over cannabis, almost zero Brits recognise marijuana over cannabis, certainly less than 1%, so calling it marijuana clearly would not help our readers in any way other than to confuse them. I strongly oppose a vote on the issue. These marijuana links need changing, I have changed many, many incorrectly calling cannabis marijuana, many just inexperienced users who dont understand that this is an international encyclopedia, and the only thing to do with these links is fix them. Marijuana is clealr y not more common than cannabis except probably in the US, and that is no argument. You still havent sourced cannabis isnt a drug. it is a drug, scientifically, legally and in the minds of most users, SqueakBox 18:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose a vote on the issue. That's silly. Wikipedia is all about building consensus. You can oppose the move, but you should not oppose debate on the matter. These marijuana links need changing, I have changed many, many. Really? Have you read this? Wikipedia:Redirect#Don.27t_fix_links_to_redirects_that_aren.27t_broken Also, how do you define "incorrect" if by your own admission, the use of Cannabis vs. Marijuana has a cultural component? --Bill Huston ^(talk) 18:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh ya, it is definetely a drug, almost every study on the subject refers to it as a drug, as to laws. The definition of the word drug also supports it is a drug. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It is just fine where it is. --Guinnog 18:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia:Redirect#Don.27t_fix_links_to_redirects_that_aren.27t_broken applies because his motive is not to prevent redirection, but instead to use the scientific term instead of american/spanish slang. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

With Cannabis (drug)|marijuana edits it is always appropriate to look at the context, in some contexts it is appropriate to leave the word marijuana in place and in other contexts utterly inmappropriate, eg talking about Paul McCartney and claiming his Japanes bust made him in favour of legalising marijuana is patent nonsense because British people dont think like that, ie it made him in favour of legalising cannabis, whereas if he had been American it might have been better to leave the original word marijuana in place. And this is the basic problem with the term, it is an American term hardly used in the UK and when used done so only to describe herbal cannabis which doesnt make up even 50% of the cannabis consumed in the UK, SqueakBox 19:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

Cannabis (drug) is unwieldy. It would be convenient for editors if there was a one-word synonym that was gobally recognized, like "hemp" is for non-drug forms. However, "marijuana" is not in widespread use outside of North America. Nor is it a complete synonym, because it designates only the dried flower material, but not other drug preparations like hashish or hash oil, which are also drug preparations of Cannabis. For these reasons, use of the term "marijuana" should be avoided throughout Wikipedia. What is called "marijuana" in North America is more generally known as "herbal cannabis." Herbal cannabis is the most common form of cannabis-derived drug in North America, but not in other parts of the world. For example, hashish is much more common in Europe. Depending on context, most current uses of "marijuana" should probably be changed to cannabis; but in some cases it may make sense to change "marijuana" to "herbal cannabis". When referring to the genus or species anywhere in mainspace, the genus name Cannabis should always be capitalized and italicized (consistent with WP naming conventions for plants). Drugs derived from Cannabis should be lower case "cannabis" to avoid ambiguity. Chondrite 19:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) states that

Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following, as determined on a case-by-case basis through discussion on the WikiProject Plants talk page:

...

2. Plants which are economically or culturally significant enough to merit their own page, using the common name as a title, describing their use. Example: Coffee. (A) separate page(s) with the botanical description(s) of the taxa involved, using the scientific name, is preferred.

This would support moving Cannabis to Marijuana, as this article is about the cultural nature of the plant, which would merit using the name commonly used for that item. I do understand that in some places of the world (notably, Canada and the U.K.) prefer to use "Cannabis" when not using slang, and that there is no clear policy for naming of an international subject's article. Given all this, what would be the course of action? I, personally, as an American, would prefer the wording "Marijuana", as it is more commonly used in my "neck of the woods". But, the redirect is fine for me. --Jmax- 03:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention would not support such a move as marijuana is clearly not the common use name for cannabis. The reality is that for the most part only the US calls cannabis marijuana, and that is not enough reason to demand conformity from the other 19/20ths of the world especially whenm we have a good generic word like cannabis, SqueakBox 03:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Weed has a thousand names, but it's only scientific name is cannabis, it is not known as marijuana commonly outside of north america. It is not like Coffee, should use it's proper name. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I have never heard weed called marijuana in the UK in 25 years, and where I live in Latin Americas and you might expect it to be called marijuana (being a Spanish word) it is called mota, SqueakBox 03:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's called Mota here in San Antonio, too.  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 03:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collection of facts, not government propaganda. There is no 'scientific consensus', because scientists have not been allowed to study the drug in years. The United States, one of the only countries which would be able to draw accurate conclusions, has banned the research of the drug.

Therefore, the only accurate information is what has been studied illegally, and Wikipedia is international and should make no discrimination against illegal study. This article, as it stands, is certainly not very one-sided. However, it does present facts, and not lies spread by governments and companies trying to gain money and power.

As a matter of fact, there is NO 'legitimate research data' that contradicts what is said in this article. It does not violate NPOV.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.2.69.204 (talk • contribs).

Ummm...the United States has not banned the research of cannabis nor its psychoactive chemicals. That's easily demostrably false. -- Scientizzle 07:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

lets put it this way ...just change the title to cannibinoid (drug)I dont dispute that cannibinoid is a drug because the president and the us government recently did a study on it available below.But the word cannibis means the plant. Check out the latest US govt study on marijuana at medmjscience.org that was done recentlyBodazifa 23:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not, we have to stick to common terms (ie common international terms) and cannabinoid isnt that let alone cannibinoid which is meaningless, SqueakBox 00:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

actually opinions are what is somewhat meaningless in an encyclopedia.Cannibinoids are definitely not meaningless to everyone who has spent their entire lives studying it.You need to look up the definition of cannibinoids,THC,CBD,CBN,etc.Anyone here disagree?Post upBodazifa 00:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I mean meaningless to people involved in cannabis as a drug, enforcers and consumers. To these 2 groups of people this word is meaningless and yet it is the use of cannabis as a drug that the article is about. cannabinoids is a great name for the cannabinoids article, but the great majority of people involved in this subject dont study it and they certainly dont study it per se, and thus cannibinoids is indeed meaningless, I note cannibinoid is a red link, SqueakBox 00:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Cannabinoids is the proper spelling... -- Scientizzle 01:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we write an article for wiki that has the title coffee (drug) and then go on to describing the effects of caffeine?So that people from all over the world can know the effects?Or should there be an article for a coffee describing plant,bean,etc, and yet a completely seperate article for caffeine?How do you outline the definitions ok key words throughout the article?

again- making statements like "cannibinoid is meaningless" will only help to add to the already too much misinformation...Please be carefull how you word things.

May I post a link to the latest us govt study done on cannibinoids as a drug? Or is that against wiki rules?I think it will prove the point.

Cannabis (drug) is much better than cannibinoids, SqueakBox

read this and then still tell me that- http://medmjscience.org/Media/pdf/marimed.pdf

Although marijuana smoke delivers THC and other "cannibinoids" to the body,it also delivers harmfull substances.Including those found in tobacco smoke.In addition plants contain a variable mixture of biologically active compounds and cannot be expected to provide a precisely defined drug effect.For those reasons,the future of cannibinoid drugs lies not in smoked marijuana, but in chemically defined drugs that can act on the cannibinoid systems that are a natural component of human physiology.Until such drugs can developed and made available for medical use ......well? Do a google search for ajulemic acid.

thanks for the proper spell correction scientizzle...also noticed I have been forgeting to sign my name...another effect of thc lol.Bodazifa 02:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

did squeakbox have something more to add?Bodazifa 03:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Bodazifa, your comments suggest that you might not be familiar with the breadth of cannabis coverage on Wikipedia. Cannabis deals with the plant genus and is thee main article of the category. Cannabis sativa deals with the plant species. Hemp deals with non-drug uses. Cannabis (drug) is the main article dealing with use as a drug. Cannabinoids covers the natural, endogenous, and synthetic cannabinoids. Health issues and the effects of cannabis and Medical cannabis discuss those aspects of the drug. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cannabis -- Chondrite 03:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

your suspicions were absolutely correct...if you will read up further into this article what i have wrote.I am a new user to wiki,but not pot.So please bear with me,hopefully i havent offended anyone yet and I am not trying to piss into the wind either.I am just having trouble picturing cannibis (drug) instead of cannibinoids (drug).Because one is plant matter by definition, and one is drug by definition.When you combine them into one heading.Instead of linking them togeter with words highlighted in the body of the article it gets a little confusing is all.Common sense tells you one is a plant and one is the drug.The plant has thousands of uses.Does the drug?Or does it have a specific physiological effect?

technically and legally,all cannibis,whether rope or dope,is classified as cannibis sativa.Regardless of origin,all cannibis is considered cannibis sativa (C sativa) under international law.However it can be broken down from there too.Bodazifa 03:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Er international law? Scientific names aren't mandated by international law. Also scientific name only apply to the plant. Rope made from hemp isn't Cannibis sativa. It's rope (made from Cannibis sativa. Nil Einne 15:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Something can be plant matter and a drug. Something can contain drugs and still be a drug. Do you have any citations that support your beleifs? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. There is no good reason for changing the name of this article to marijuana. This has been discussed time and time and time again. Before you make a move to suggest renaming an article, please be considerate enough to check to see if (and how many damned times) a similar suggestion has been made in the past, and have the courtesy to take the time to ready exactly why it did not get renamed before you bother wasting everyone's time. (Note: last time it was voted on, 87% agreed it should remain Cannabis (drug)). First of all, the word "marijuana", despite its widespread North American use, is a slang term. While it may be what the DEA uses, Wikipedia goes by International conventions. Secondly, as clearly stated under Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(flora), a plant related article should be under its botanical name, and it is perfectly fine to have all kinds of redirects to that article. In addition, there is no good reason to bother worrying about or changing wiki-links within other articles to reflect the primary article title. Wiki-links to a redirect are perfectly valid, and should not be changed. --Thoric 16:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How about a reversal of the words in the title? Drug cannabis? That way those who are doing a search on wiki for the article for what pertains to the drug aspect of the plant will get this article first in the search engine on the main page.Because again its not a drug.....its a plant.Or is that not the way the search box works?Mabe someone can answer that-Bodazifa 03:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well if you type in marijuana you will get redirected straight to the article, SqueakBox 03:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

the first sentence in the article-"cannabis is a phychoactive drug"is this true or would organic chemical work better?Drug is such a direct word.Is that why its being used here is the question.Bodazifa 03:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Cannabis (medical use)  ? Bodazifa 03:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is about cannabis used and perceived (eg by law authorities) as a drug. Medical use is already in Medical cannabis, SqueakBox 03:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

should there be seperate sub articles then about cannabinoid drugs?For example Ip 751 under the products tab at this link-http://www.indevus.com/ currently trading for about 7 bucks on the open stock mkt. I have emailed directly with the part owner of the pharma now ready to mkt it.All it needs is a lilly to come in and mass produce it,but their worried about the potential for abuse obviosly.also the link http://www.aapsj.org/view.asp?art=aapsj070115 for more details.

is this even the right place to ask this question on wiki? help me out here squeakbox if its not please.I am totally new to this.Perhaps the wrong forum?I wrote that last one just forgot to sign it.Bodazifa 04:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

the name of the organic chemical or as we say "drug" is Ajulemic Acid.And thats only one cannabinoid derivative.

perhaps if there is an article about interstitial cystitis in wiki there should be a key word ajulemic acid in blue there so those living with this can come here to learn about there disease and treatment options from the article or perhaps just a link?I need to read more now.Bodazifa 04:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

makes you wonder what they will call ajulemic acid-IP751 drug ....Viagrajuana?lol...first drug to be almost side effectless and still give you appetite and relieve your pain.Hmmmm.Bodazifa 04:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting scholar sources is close to vandalism

The source that has been removed:

• Lynskey Michael T. et al (Jan 22/29 2003). "Escalation of drug use in early-onset cannabis users vs co-twin controls". JAMA 289: 427-33.  [12], [13] [14] [15]

--BMF81 11:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What?Bodazifa 22:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

One must also consider the source of money for these kinds of studies and findings.And the influence this money has on the outcome of the study.Bodazifa 22:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I removed the semi-protection from this page a little while ago. Do people think it is needed again? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets wait and see. Peopele are very good at quick reverting, which is what counts, SqueakBox 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Marijuana", revisited

I agree that the name of the article should remain as "Cannabis." However, I also think it is misguided to eliminate all mentions of "marijuana" throughout the article. While that term is more common in the USA than other parts of the world, it's by no means limited to the US. I haven't been able to find anything authoritative about who uses what terms, but an informal Google experiment yields the following results:

• Total
• # hits for "Cannabis": 15,000,000
• # hits for "marijuana": 20,200,000

UK

• # hits for "Cannabis" restricted to site:uk: 915,000
• # hits for "marijuana" restricted to site:uk: 218,000

India

• # hits for "Cannabis" restricted to site:in: 600
• # hits for "marijuana" restricted to site:in: 2,050

Australia

• # hits for "Cannabis" restricted to site:au: 327,000
• # hits for "marijuana" restricted to site:au: 225,000

New Zealand

• # hits for "Cannabis" restricted to site:nz: 119,000
• # hits for "marijuana" restricted to site:nz: 70,500

Canada

• # hits for "Cannabis" restricted to site:ca: 226,000
• # hits for "marijuana" restricted to site:ca: 482,000

Again, not exactly scientific, but certainly suggestive that the term "marijuana" is not limited to North America. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, cheers for that but hardly dents my hypothesis that we shouldn't use marijuana in anything other than specific references in wikipedia, and remembering that Google is a US site, SqueakBox 05:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Google is a US site doesn't mean anything. It doesn't favor US sites in search results. Since you're such a stickler on sources, how about providing one that says marijuana is a slang term used predominately in North America? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

On my talk page, SqueakBox asked me not to include the word "marijuana" in this article because it's "slang". I know how difficult it can be for our learned friends from the UK to believe this, but North American English ≠ slang. "Marijuana" is the ordinary word for this drug in North American English, even in formal discourse. Words like "pot", "grass", "weed", "reefer", etc., are slang and don't belong in the opening sentence. "Marijuana" on the other hand, certainly does, precisely because Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, not a British one. I don't mind that the article is named Cannabis (drug) rather than Marijuana, but refusing to even mention the word is extremely non-NPOV. —Angr 06:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see a source for the word "marijuana" being slang...that's the first time I've ever heard that claim. Here's the definition from my Random House Unabridged dictionary:

marijuana, n. 1. hemp. 2. the dried leaves and female flowers of the hemp plant, used in cigarette form as a narcotic or hallucinogen. Also, marihuana. [1890-95, American < MexSp marihuana, mariguana]

Nothing there about it being slang. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless the dictionary is the OED or a specialist reference, it won't be very helpful. See for example Webster's entry from the 1950s, which is unbelievable in hindsight. The 2002 Mosby's medical dictionary points readers to an entry on cannabis. See also the 1937 congressional testimony by Dr. William C. Woodward, legislative counsel of the American Medical Association: "I use the word "Cannabis" in preference to the word "marihuana", because Cannabis is the correct term for describing the plant and its products. The term "marihuana" is a mongrel word that has crept into this country over the Mexican border and has no general meaning, except as it relates to the use of Cannabis preparations for smoking. It is not recognized in medicine, and I might say that it is hardly recognized even in the Treasury Department...In other words, marihuana is not the correct term. It was the use of the term "marihuana" rather than the use of the term "Cannabis" or the use of the term "Indian hemp" that was responsible, as you realized, probably, a day or two ago, for the failure of the dealers in Indian hempseed to connect up this bill with their business until rather late in the day. So, if you will permit me, I shall use the word "Cannabis", and I should certainly suggest that if any legislation is enacted, the term used be "Cannabis" and not the mongrel word 'marihuana." You understand that marihuana is simply a name given Cannabis. It is a mongrel word brought in from Mexico. It is a popular term to indicate Cannabis, like "coke" is used to indicate cocaine, and as "dope" is used to indicate opium." [16] —Viriditas | Talk 12:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

At best, this is an argument to keep the article at Cannabis (drug), not an argument to expunge all mention of the word "marijuana" from the article, as SqueakBox has done. Again, it is the normal word, at least in North America, for the topic of this article, and there is no reason at all the article shouldn't begin with the words "Cannabis (also called marijuana) is a psychoactive drug...". Doing so is not opening the doors to a long list of genuine slang words in the opening sentence; no reasonable person will view it as a precedent to allow them to write "Cannabis (also called marijuana, grass, pot, reefer, MJ, or spliff) is a psychoactive drug...". —Angr 16:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To add to Ohnoitsjamie's data above:

U.S. government sites

• # hits for "Cannabis" restricted to site:gov: 185,000
• # hits for "marijuana" restricted to site:gov: 657,000

U.S. military sites

• # hits for "Cannabis" restricted to site:mil: 759
• # hits for "marijuana" restricted to site:mil: 40,400

Other U.S. sites

• # hits for "Cannabis" restricted to site:us: 630,000
• # hits for "marijuana" restricted to site:us: 1,190,000

The U.S. government and the U.S. military are not known for using slang words in their formal documentation. —Angr 06:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So far as I know marijuana is the most proper word for the drug. Growing up, my friends wouldn't say "marijuana" precisely because it was the proper way to say it. Regardless, "marijuana" should be mentioned for recognizability, if nothing else.--Loodog 06:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as we're comparing ghits, SqueakBox changed every "marijuana" in the article to "herbal cannabis", so I thought I'd see how common those terms are:

• #hits for "herbal cannabis" (global): "herbal cannabis": 27,600 ("marijuana": 20,000,000)
• #hits for "herbal cannabis" (*.ca): "herbal cannabis" site:*.ca: 52 ("marijuana": 459,000)
• #hits for "herbal cannabis" (*.uk): "herbal cannabis" site:*.uk: 818 ("marijuana": 218,000)
• #hits for "herbal cannabis" (*.au): "herbal cannabis" site:*.au: 48 ("marijuana": 225,000)

It looks to me as if the the word "marijuana" is more popular than "herbal cannabis" by a factor of about 1000. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Remind that, as is also stated in the article (Cannabis_(drug)#Recent_history), Marijuana was a propaganda term spread by US government, to replace the common and harmless term "hemp". US people speak as their gov says to.--BMF81 09:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. People use the term that is most familiar to them. Marijuana as a drug wasn't actually particularly well known in the U.S. until the govt started warning people not to use it. —Angr 09:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you people are still debating whether or not marijuana is slang. Regardless of how the word started out, it is now standard English.

BMF81, you may find the origins of the word distasteful, but any attempt to undo decades of linguistic reality by trying to impose that distaste on Wikipedia readers will be a rather silly uphill battle. Language and words spread marvelously on their own--through ordinary people, not by the government, not by online encyclopedias. As for replacing marijuana with the laughably awkward and obscure term "herbal cannabis," I think User:Yath said it best in an earlier comment:

"anyone who thinks that a "correct" term exists other than the most common one is trying to use Wikipedia to influence language, rather than reflect common usage"

--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

But marijuana is only common in North America, SqueakBox 17:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It is slang, and it is spelled several different ways depending on region, and not used much outside North America. Cannabis is what all of the scientific literature uses. This is a very old discussion here. Google shows the usage by anyone, whereas we work through reliable sources, show me a search engine that only returns reliable sources and I will give more credence to search hit counts. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hold on..."Cannabis is what all of the scientific literature uses" is not accurate. A PubMed search for "cannabis" returns 9211 publications while "marijuana" returns 10950 publications. Obviously many of those publications simply list marijuana as a commonly-known alternative name for cannabis and use cannabis thoughout the article, but there are many examples in the scientific literature--recent ones, too--that use marijuana as the preferred term. The fact that "marijuana" actually currently outhits "cannabis" in PubMed (how's that for WP:RS?) should put to rest any notion that this is an unrelevant term.

This is, in my opinion, a stupid content dispute. It makes sense on pages for MDMA, Methamphetamine, Amphetamine, Nitrous oxide, ad nauseum, that very common alternative names (ecstasy, speed, meth, crank, laughing gas, etc.) are mentioned early in the article witout necessarily being labeled as American slang or whatever people keep slapping on there. It seems like an open-and-shut case to me that "Cannabis (also called marijuana, especially in North American English)..." is a perfectly resonable opening to the article. -- Scientizzle 17:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Forget the Google searches and the georgaphical popularity of the term marijuana for a second and please try to familiarize yourself with the term slang and what it refers to. Marijuana is definitely not slang. Look it up in any dictionary and it will not be classified as such. Slang is an extremely informal street languague that would not be appropriate in formal documents or literature. "Spliff" is slang. "Mary Jane" or "MJ" might be slang. Marijuana has been standard for decades.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Only in North America, and this encyclopedia is not North American, SqueakBox 17:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Slang refers to an informal word. It is not a black and white thing, there are degrees of slanginess. Extremely slang words are extremely informal. This one is a little of both, not extreme I agree. Regardless, it is certainly less formal that it's well known scientific name. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Slang does not merely refer to an informal word. It refers very specifically to the most informal, non-standard words in a certain language; specifically words that are too informal to use in most forms of writing. There are degrees of informality, but marijuana is not the least bit informal in the United States.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Slang 

an informal nonstandard vocabulary composed typically of coinages, arbitrarily changed words, and extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of speech.[17]

While it may not fall into one of the typical types of slang, it still meets the general definition. However I don't wish to nitpick, can we at least admit that it is less suitable for an academic article? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Marijuana" is appropriate for scholarly and formal literature. I still can't believe we're arguing this. Thousands of academic articles use the word. Here's just a few:

[18], [19], [20]--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I still consider Cannabis to be more formal and more appropriate. Consensus agrees. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S. at least, and probably elsewhere, the word "marijuana" is not even informal--let alone slang--by any stretch of the imagination. Does this look like an article using slang and informal language? What about this report to a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives? What about the 489 hits from the Journal of the American Medical Association and another 662 from the New England Journal of Medicine? Sorry, this is not an informal word. Not even mentioning the name "marijuana" in the opening sentence is simply absurd. —Angr 16:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not opposed to a mention of the word. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it. SqueakBox, however, apparently is opposed to a mention of the word. I have no problem with the article being called Cannabis (drug). But I do have a problem with the word "marijuana" not being mentioned prominently in the opening sentence, and an especially big problem with the word "marijuana" being completely removed from the article and replaced with the unfamiliar term "herbal cannabis". —Angr 16:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why? Marijuana is a slang word used almost exclusively in North America and this is not a North American encyclopedia. Before we had "known as marijuana or hashish amongst other things" and that would be okay by me though worse than kno mention of either. If you can think of a better word than herbal cannabis that is universal (ie not North American) I am happy to use that but certainly in the UK it would be called weed by users and cannabis by authorities whereas in Jamaica it is called Ganja etc. Our duty is to write an international encyclopedia and as editors like me dont come from North America wikipedia is inevitably becoming international, as is the world, and thus local North American terms should only be used in specific contexts (eg quotes from Americans etc), SqueakBox 16:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, I posted a dictionary definition that contradicts your opinion about marijuana being slang. The google searches contradict your assertion that the word is only used in North America. I understand what your opinion is on the matter; do you have any reliable sources that agree with you? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted a dictionary definition specifically to avoid this dispute about what kind of references Google was finding. Again, from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary:

marijuana, n. 1. hemp. 2. the dried leaves and female flowers of the hemp plant, used in cigarette form as a narcotic or hallucinogen. Also, marihuana. [1890-95, American < MexSp marihuana, mariguana]

pot n. Slang. marijuana. [1935-40, Amer.; said to be a shortening of MexSp potiquaya or potaguaya, appar. contr. of potacion de guaya wine or brandy in which marijuana buds have been steeped (lit., drink of grief)].

I hope the distinction is clear. marijuana was indeed intentionally imported into American English approximately a century ago. Words enter the English language through many different sources. Over the years, it has become a standard, accepted English word. pot, on the other hand, is slang, and the dictionary clearly identifies it as such, defining it in terms of the standard word, which is marijuana. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 16:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Simply not true, outside North America marijuana and cannabis are anything but synonymous, its an American word and has not enetered the Britiosh English language, hence my strong opposition to this entirely American centtred word that assumes falsely that all cannabis is herbal. Google as an American company doubtlerss finds American definitions that say marijuana but that is not international. On the other hand I have no objection to the word pot which is far more universal and is a word British people are familiar with, SqueakBox 17:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Pot? Now that is slang. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I post a dictionary definition, word for word, from a reliable source, and SqueakBox's reasoned response is "simply not true"? Please, we know what your opinion is; can you find a reliable source that agrees with you? And can we drop the silly argument about google being an American company? It's an Internet search site; it reports what's on the Internet, with no preference to American sources. And I posted google searches from various English-speaking countries demonstrating that the term "herbal cannabis" is virtually unused. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Writing an articvler based on Google is original research, SqueakBox 17:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox said: "Marijuana is a slang word used almost exclusively in North America." No one is arguing about where people do and do not use the word, but the fact that you're still insisting marijuana is "slang" in the face of copious evidence to the contrary means either: 1) you are not following or the discussion above (especially the fact that "slang" words are by definition not used in scientific literature or official publications) 2) that you are ignorant of the most basic linguistic realities.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay forget slang, I am happy to acknowledge it isnt slang in Norht America but in order to address our international audience we need international terms and marijuana isnt that, cannabis is, SqueakBox 17:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox said "Google as an American company doubtlerss finds American definitions that say marijuana but that is not international"; please provide a reference for the claim that Google somehow favors American definitions in it's results. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not willing to source that here, that would be for the Google article, but you equally I believe cant source what I am saying is not true, SqueakBox 17:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a reference that marijuana is considered slang, from the UK BBC, SqueakBox 17:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a source that in the UK the standard word is cannabis, and doesnt even mention the word marijuana, SqueakBox 17:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, SqueakBox, but here's what I found in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary: Marijuana

It does not identify the word as slang. I'd be interested in seeing the definition from the full OED; I don't have access to it. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This BBC source notes that the word entered the English language via Mexican slang, but it does not claim that it continues to be slang. It uses the word "marijuana" numerous times; the phrase "herbal cannabis" is nowhere to be found. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The title of that article is "Timeline: the use of cannabis" not "Timeline: the use of marijuana" and I have provided another source that marijuana is considered slang in the UK, so what that article actually says is we should use cannabis as the word, SqueakBox 17:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the article in context, not just the title. The complete context of the article makes it clear that the writer does not consider the word "marijuana" to be slang. Moreover, the Concise Oxford dictionary definition does not identify the word as slang. And an authoritative unabridged dictionary does not identify it as slang. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

this makes it clear it is a slang term, SqueakBox 18:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. It makes it clear that a particular BBC Radio writer considered it a slang term. The article I posted made it clear (from context) that a BBC news writer did not consider it to be slang. And the Concise Oxford dictionary definition makes it clear that the authoritative source for the English language does not consider it to be slang. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Come on, its a bbc source, you could say that about anything but this is not a blog source and clearly meets our sources policy, SqueakBox 18:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but the BBC article I cited uses the word as standard English. If we can agree that the BBC sources are inconclusive, do you dispute the Oxford citation? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox, you're not going to find more than a handful of reliable sources suggesting "marijuana" is slang. That is becasue it is not. Any good dictionary well tell you whether a given word is slang or not.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

this also says the same. I am certainly not grasping at straws given that in the UK the correct word is cananbis, SqueakBox 18:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That article isn't a reliable source, but setting that aside, it doesn't claim that "marijuana" is slang; it merely lists it as one of the synonyms for "cannabis", noting that it was originally "subcultural". This source, on the other hand, cites several actual dictionaries, none of which claim that the word is slang. Can we all agree that the word clearly entered American English via Mexican slang, but no modern authoritative source claims that it continues to be slang. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[http://cannabis.net/hist/index.html Thjis article refers to cannabis and only to marijuana when talking specifically about US history, specific mentions of marijuana are fine but not generalised ones as if that is whatt everyone calls cananbis, SqueakBox 18:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The little known word marijuana (or more specifically, at the time marihuana) was purposefully chosen by the American government to illegalize the well known cannabis (more commonly know as hemp) plant. This was both a social and political move during a time where the American public was already up in arms about Mexicans coming across the border to "take away" their jobs by working for very low pay during a time when jobs were scarce. While "marijuana" may now be a well recognized part of the english language in North America, upholding its use is supporting what was essentially a form of racial oppression. Not so long ago (as recent as the 1930s and 1940s) it was certainly commonplace to use the term "spic" to refer to a Mexican, and "nigger" to refer to an Afro-American. You can also find those words in a dictionary. Does that mean we should use them freely in an encyclopedia? Certainly not. --Thoric 17:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If spic and nigger were to become standard English words that, for some reason, unexpectedly lost their extremely offensive connotation to the vast majority of readers, we would absolutely use them in an encyclopedia without blinking an eye. Please support your idiosyncratic view on that the usage of the word marijuana is offensive with a reliable source.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Spic" and "nigger" will never lose their offensive connotations except to those ignorant of their history. Likewise, those who prefer to use the word "marijuana" are perpetuating an 80 year old racist initiative. Learn some history, and then come back to the table. --Thoric 19:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

True. And furthermore, when Thoric says that marijuana is a "little known word", he reveals naivete. --Ezeu 17:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think he meant "little known at the time". —Angr 17:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean at the time. In the early part of the 20th century, the word "marijuana" was completely alien to the American people, yet the word "hemp" was known by everyone, and the word "cannabis" known to many. --Thoric 19:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I read your post carelessly and replied hurriedly, sorry. --Ezeu 20:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But the essential problem with Angr's edit wasn't even that marijuana is a North American term, it is that marijuana only describes herbal cannabis whereas the article is about cannabis as a drug which includes hashish or cannabis resin as it is officially called in the UK, and for us to state that the drug cannabis is herbal (cos marijuana cannot by definition be resin) is simply misleading, hence my reverting the edit, SqueakBox 17:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your edit summaries don't bear you out there: "rv marijuana pov pusher do you think this is an American encyclopedia lol", "rm North American slang", "more of the same NPOVing", "rm more USA slang", "more american pov reverted", "more US pov". The article on spanners/wrenches is at Wrench, and it mentions the fact that the tools in question are called spanners in British English. I suspect you'd be highly annoyed if someone removed all mention of the word "spanner" from that article on the grounds that it's "British slang" or "British POV pushing". —Angr 17:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

anyway, that is an important point: using marijuana without specyfing that it refers just to the herbal form is misleading.--BMF81 19:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In fairness this encycloepdia does suffer far more from US centrism than UK centrism but weither is wrong, SqueakBox 17:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect everyone notices more the forms they're unfamiliar with. I'm always amazed at how very often articles on topics that are not specific to any English-speaking country use British spellings, and especially how often articles that were originally given American-spelling titles later get moved to British-spelling titles, without any consensus-gathering first (as happened with both Humo(u)r and Yog(h)urt). —Angr 17:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We can debate the reliability and formalness of any sites presented here for "cannibus" or "marijuana", I'm speaking solely from a matter of utility. Many people, confused from a redirect when they typed in "marijuana", would be better served by a mention of the term "marijuana" to know even that they've hit the right article. --Loodog 19:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

---

There are several arguments going here and it seems several good will assumptions need to be made by all. Assumption 1 -- There are multiple Englishes, all of which are valid and all of which have words more commonly used in one than others (and vice versa). Just because "I" use one word and hear this word around "me" doesn't mean it is the only proper word choice. {And it is this "I" and "my associates" that seems to be the basis for many of the claims of what "most" users do in this thread.} Languages carve up the world in slightly different ways and accepting the validity of this AND learning the distinctions is important (for example, in Arabic, a galabyaa is a garment for men in Egypt, but a garment for women in the lower Gulf; a burqa is a full body covering in Afghanistan, but a gold colored frame to cover the nose and cheeks in the UAE and Oman--and one's very life may depend on understanding this vocabulary difference). Assumption 2: Legitimate, credible, and authoritative sources should carry more weight in an argument over "proper" usage than casual sources. The personal preferences of one or two should not determine widespread acceptance or non-acceptance of a term. As an international encyclopedia, the reliance on authoritative sources really must be the determiner of usage -- and as an international resource, the respect of legitimacy of the multiple Englishes must be a given. Just as one would not want to assume American English as the standard, it would be equally as ethnocentric to assume British English as the standard. Assumption 3 -- Language changes. Indeed, this is one of the critical distinctions between a living language and a dead language. We have all sorts of new words (microchip, internet) and revamped words (web ...as in world wide), so evidence from even 50 years ago can't necessarily be used to counter-argument evidence of current usage. "Jazz" used to be a very offensive reference to females -- it's a widely used and accepted term for a particular type of music now. Judging the now by the then doesn't always make sense as words evolve.

So......Let's look at some credible sources. The Oxford English Dictionaryis generally accepted as "the definitive record of English language). It says:

--> marijuna /marihuana -- first definition: "1. a. A preparation of the cannabis plant Cannabis sativa subsp. indica, for use as an intoxicating and hallucinogenic drug; esp. a crude preparation of the dried leaves, flowering tops, and stem of the plant in a form for smoking."

-->cannabis -- first definition: "1. Common hemp, Cannabis sativa, a tall erect herb of the family Moraceæ ..." Only with the second definition does it get to the "2. (Orig. ellipt. for Cannabis sativa or (esp.) indica.) Any of various preparations of different parts of the hemp-plant which are smoked, chewed, or drunk for their intoxicating or hallucinogenic properties and were formerly used medicinally; bhang (marijuana), ganja, and charas (hashish) are different forms of these preparations." It is also notes that "cannabis" was an elliptical reference (i.e. slang) for Cannabis sativa.

Also according to the OED "hashish" {like "marijuana" and like "cannabis") can be used as a broad or narrow term, depending on regional context. "The top leaves and tender parts of the Indian hemp (which in warm countries develop intoxicating properties) dried for smoking or chewing, in Arabia, Eqypt, Turkey, etc. Cf. BHANG, an Indian preparation of the same plant." Hashish (or better, hasheesh -- as in sheesha pipe) is used in Arab parts of the world to refer NOT to just the resin lumps, but all the parts used as intoxicants. The narrowing to the resin evolved from the corner of Persia that produced the Hassasseen (assassins for hire who were known for their use of this particular substance as they prepared for their next "job").

Using the highly respected Oxford Reference Online as a search tool, marijuna turns out to be the more common term, even for the Britian based Oxford University Press and its reference arms. Yes, in a few instances where "marijuana" shows up the entry reads "see cannabis" but just as often there are instances where "cannabis" shows up tht it says "see marijuana." Nowhere does it suggest that "cannabis" is the master term nor that "marijuana" is merely slang. Marijuana has full status in the OED, the New Zealand Oxford Dictionary, the Australian Oxford Dictionary, the Oxford American Dictionary of Current English,& the Canadian Oxford Dictionary. In all of these, "cannabis" is merely "any hemp plant of the genus Cannabis, esp.Indian hemp." The Dictionary of Diet and Exercise gives preference to "marijuana" (saying it is "sometimes called cannabis or grass") as does the Oxford Dictionary of Sports Science & Medicine. Only the Dictionary of Plant Sciences and the Dictionary of Nursing give preference to "cannabis." It also becomes clear looking at the Oxford dual language dictionaries that "marijuana" actually works better in multi-lingual situations. "Marijuana" is still "marijuana" in Dutch, French, Spanish, German, and Italian, but the same is not true of "cannabis," which is quite different in Spanish, Portugese, and German. And other terms are regularly used for this substance across the world -- it is dagga in South Africa, kif in North Africa, bhang in India, "grifa in Spain and Mexico; anascha in Russia; kendir in Tartar; konop in Bulgaria and konope in Poland; momea in Tibet; kanbun in Chaldea; dawamesk in Algeria; liamba or maconha in Brazil; and bust or sheera in Egypt." (from Stephen Easton, Marijuana Growth in British Columbia, Fraser Institute Vancouver). This means that an argument for cannabis as the master term just doesn't hold water.

Perhpas the most useful distinctions are made in the Dictionary of Psychology (publishied by the Oxford University Press, as are the rest of these reference sources) under the entry for cannabis--

"The psychotropic drug delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and related substances called cannabinoids that are found in the leaves, flowering tops, and young stems of the female common hemp plant Cannabis sativa, and whose biochemical action remains largely unknown....The cut and dried leaves, tops, and stems of the plant, rolled into cigarettes and smoked, are generally called marijuana; the dried resinous exudate of the flowering tops of the female hemp plant and the undersides of its leaves, when smoked with tobacco or added to foods and eaten, is called hashish; and the drink made from an infusion of cannabis is called bhang."

These distinctions are maintained by the Australia Drug Foundation/Drug Info Clearinghouse, the US Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the Fraser Institute for Public Polisy in Vancouver, Canada. Medline Plus (created as a part of the largest medical library in the world, the US National Library of Medicine, in cooperation w\ the National Institutes of Health) gives marijuana/ cannabis/ bhang as equivalent terms. In MedicineNet.com (New World Medical Dictionary), marijuana is defined as the recreational drug, cannabis as the "botanical name for the plan from which marijuana comes." The Merck Mannual for Healthcare Professionals, 18th edition (the world's largest selling medical text) uses "Marijuana (cannabis)" in the index, but all articles use "marijuana." A search for "cannabis" says "see marijuana." The US Office of National Drug Control Policy maintains a Street Terms database for the use of police officers, educators, treatment providers (i.e. the legitimate and credible authorities)-- all 536 examples of slang are defined using the "master term" of "marijuana." The preference for "marijuana" holds for many of the authorities in Canada as well, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Policy, the government Center for Research and Information on Canada (CRIC), and the Canadian Medical Association Journal. And while the Prince Edward Island Student Drug Study used "cannabis" in writing its questions, all of the student comments used the word "marijuana." And here's what the South Australian Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs had to say: "Cannabis is a Latin word meaning hemp. The expressions 'hemp' or 'Indian hemp' are particularly used in older documents cited in this chapter and refer to the whole of the cannabis plant...Like the word 'marijuana', 'cannabis' is also used to refer specifically to the 'dried preparations of the plant itself'." Documents from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime use marijuana and cannabis interchangeably. And, my daughter's experience here in Dubai, going to high school with kids from 76 other countries, suggests that "cannabis" is far more likely to earn one a lifting of the eyebrow while "marijuana" yields a nod of understanding (although among the Arabs, the term for all by-products of the Cannabis sativa is hashish).

Of course there are a lot more resources and citations that could be thrown into this, but you all are bleeding at the ears by now. Clearly though, there isn't any justification to marginalize the use of the term "marijuana" in favor of "cannabis." It could as easily be argued from the evidence that "cannabis" is the idiosyncratic term and "marijuana" is the term of larger currency. Or one could argue that the dominant usage based on population counts clearly gives the edge to the American English usage (all of the UK, Australia, and New Zealand and half of Canada equal about 100,000,000 English speakers; the US + half of Canada equals about 313,000,000 English speakers). However, that is a silly argument. What does make sense based on legitimate research is to use "cannabis" when talking about the plant, and then either to use "marijuana" and "cannabis" as co-equals to refer to the leaves/tops/stems of the plant or to keep "cannabis" as a reference to the plant, "marijuana" for the leaves/tops/stems and "hashish" for the resin. "Herbal cannabis" seems to have very little currency in the legitimate literature -- and seems more of a dodge to avoid having to recognize the legitimacy of non-British Englishes than anything -- and so should be poofed out of use. Su 05:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as this is under the english part of the site, Countries who's main language aren't English shouldn't be counted in determining which term is more popular. Really only the UK and North America should count.

Can you source that NZ, Australia, Jamaica etc are not English speaking countries. And if they arent what language do they exactly speak? SqueakBox 19:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of language, the Latin "Cannabis" is used in the scientific world, at least in the studies used here. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Marijuana most common preparation

Where is marijuana the most common preparation? This needs impeccable sourcing, certainly in Western Europe hashish is more common as in many other countries, SqueakBox 17:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the impeccable sourcing for the claim that hashish is more common? Either claim of fact needs support other than personal anecdote or casual webpage references. Reference drawing from United Nations reports, World Health Organization reports, major academic research on drug use, etc. would be the appropriate. Su 22:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well we cant state anything without imperccable sourcing, SqueakBox 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Okay, how about this for the opening sentence:

Cannabis is a psychoactive drug produced from parts of the Cannabis sativa plant, primarily the cured flowers and gathered trichomes or "bud" of the female plant (also known in this form as marijuana), as well as the less psychoactive remains of the plant, and its highly psychoactive resin.

—Angr 17:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This implies bud is the most common preparation which must be sourced, and I dont see the need to use the word marijuana in this sentence, SqueakBox 17:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how about:

In some areas, particularly in North America, the cured flowers of the female Cannabis plant is known as Marijuana

I can gladly find a citation if this wording if found acceptable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict; response to SqueakBox) Perhaps it does need to be sourced, the bit about "primarily the cured flowers and gathered trichomes of the female plant" has been around since 29 March and isn't at issue here anyway. Regardless of whether the herbal variant is indeed the primary form in which cannabis is consumed, the fact is that the herbal form is known as "marijuana" by a whole lot of people, and a whole lot of our readers are going to be confused and wonder if they're reading the correct article if they don't see the word marijuana bolded in the first paragraph. —Angr 18:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And what about our readers who use other terms such as weed, ganja, bud, etc. If you can source that Americans dont understand the word cannabis then we could put something in about cananbis being known as marijuana in North America, SqueakBox 18:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For instance, what do the authorities call it? Do they say someone was detained with cannabis (as in the UK) or with marijuana? as the word authorities use is very important, they play their part in cannabis as a drug as much as users), SqueakBox 18:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Canadian authorities invariably use the word "marijuana" to describe the plant as a whole, for example, when talking about shutting down grow operations. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Marijuana is a more formal, more common term than weed, ganja, bud. It is widespread and standard throughout North America. It should not be oddly excised from the opening sentence. To answer your question, you'll see that it's extremely common for the media (and, I believe, for police) to report someone was arrested for carrying marijuana: [21]. A headline would almost never use one of those other words, unless they were trying to make a pun.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. To Americans, "cannabis" just isn't a particularly common word; even the plants are more likely to be called "marijuana plants" than "cannabis plants"--even by the police. —Angr 18:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"even by the police"? I'd say expecially by the police. That's obvious since that's the term that was used to criminalize it.--BMF81 19:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's obvious at all. I wasn't aware of the history and etymology of the word "marijuana" until I looked it up. I don't imagine that the average Canadian or American police officer has any idea where the word originated; it's just the everyday word for the Cannabis plant. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the reason why we need to be discriminant in our terminology. --Thoric 22:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well I dont object to the current opening. Do you? See http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&q=arrested+ganja&btnG=Search+News and it becomes obvious that while marijuana is used in the US ganja is used in Jamaica, cannabis in the UK http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&q=arrested+cannabis&btnG=Search+News etc. I thjink an explanation of this phenomenon could be useful as we can safely assume the police dont use what is a slang term in their own countries, SqueakBox 18:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The UK police appear to use cannabis when talking about growing operations, eg http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=cannabis+grow+operations&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=go&uri=%2Fradio1%2Fonelife%2Fhealth%2Fdrugs%2Fcannabis.shtml SqueakBox 19:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is this phenomena which should be added to the article not giving special attention to the words used in some countries and ignoring those used in others, SqueakBox 19:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What I object to is unreasonably and persistently excluding the most common North American term for the substance from the opening sentence. The word is not in the same category as "bud" or "grass" (I don't know if "ganja" is considered standard or not where it is used; but if so, it should be mentioned too).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ganja is synonymous with marijuana in Jamaica, SqueakBox 20:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but is it slang there?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears not, according to, eg, this, and this from Jamaica and India, SqueakBox 20:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The real issue is that "marijuana" is essentially a POV term used by drug enforcement agencies to perpetuate their point of view. For that reason alone its use should be kept to a minimum within Wikipedia, except when it makes sense to use that word -- i.e. common names for the plant, of which "hemp" is a far more historical term, having hundreds of years of use, while historically "marijuana" is quite a recent term. Cannabis sativa is the proper botanical name for the plant, and hemp is the proper "common name" for the plant. Both of these are the well established, centuries old proper terms to use, and of encyclopedic value. "Marijuana" only exists in our vocabulary due to the efforts of people like Harry J. Anslinger. --Thoric 19:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This conspiracy theory is hardly the "real issue." The real issue is linguistic profusion, and in North America the word marijuana is an innocuous, standard and widespread.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

innocuous? To hear the term marijuana brings a psycological effect that is absent with hemp.--BMF81 20:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh yes, in North America (and indeed Latin America) but that is still less than 15% of the world, SqueakBox 20:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory? Your ignorance on the subject speaks volumes. You obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Please at least read the article on Harry J. Anslinger, and the history of his campaign against "marijuana". Also see, 1937 Marihuana Tax Act. This is no conspiracy theory, it is American history. --Thoric 20:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thoric, there's no dispute about the origin of the word. But the English language is not static, and the origins of the word are now irrelevant. The modern reality is that the word "marijuana" is now a standard English word; the original history of the word is irrelevant. I've provided numerous dictionary references that make it clear that the word is not considered to be slang, and the word is not considered to be offensive. For additional references, see Encarta and Britannica. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The word is considered slang outside of North America. Wikipedia is an international effort, and therefore is not governed by American English alone. The existence of the word "marijuana" as a non-slang term is a POV of the American War on Drugs. The origins of words are never irrelevant -- in fact, to sweep important historical information under the carpet only serves to perpetuate ignorance. --Thoric 20:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've provided numerous sources that make it abundantly clear that you're mistaken, Thoric. Can you point to a dictionary or encyclopedia definition that asserts that the word is either slang or offensive? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The historical/phsychological weight you personally ascribe to the word due to your reading of history are not widely held views. To omit the word from the important lead sentence due to your personal distaste for the likes of Anslinger is to push your POV at the expense of linguistic clarity.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Mexican word "marijuana" is no more important than the Indian (Siddhi) word "bhang". While it has "enjoyed" very widespread and increased usage over the past hundred years, we certainly shouldn't try to legitimize its use over that of proper terminology. I'm not saying we cannot use the word here, only that it should be kept to a minimum, and only used where appropriate. --Thoric 21:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You or I cannot "legitimize" (nor nullify) the use of a word that has already found acceptance. That happens on its own. The evolution of words and their entry into the standard lexicon is a mysterious organic process that happens on the streets, in homes and in commincation between everyday people. It is not handed down from above, not by Anslinger, not by wikipedians.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Untrue. An encyclopedia strives to achieve a certain level of academic convention along with a timeless quality. Therefore the language used within should avoid colloquialisms and words that while may be the norm of a particular time period, may have little relevance and cause confusion a couple hundred years down the road. Especially when referring to plants and animals, botanical names along with centuries old common names set the standard, and recent (i.e. less than 100 years) additions to the english language take second billing. As an encyclopedia, important and relevant information such as the fact that the word "marijuana" has played a major dominant role in North America over the past 80 years are indeed important, they should not supercede long established proper terminology. --Thoric 22:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And this isn't a North American encyclopedia, hence the problem. Personally I think we should treat enforcers and users equally in order to NPOVise the article so i think what the police use is important and we certainly musn't be anti the police or imply that wikipedia thinks these drug laws are wrong, SqueakBox 20:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Britannica isn't a North American publication, and their article does not assert that the word "marijuana" is North American slang. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim, do a little research. "Marijuana" is a slang term, in the sense that it is "a characteristic language of a particular group." According to Anslinger himself, "Marihuana is the Mexican term for cannabis indica. In the argot of he underworld it has colloquial, colorful names such as reefer, muggles, Indian hay, hot hay, and weed. The drug is known in many countries by a variety of different names. In India it is known as bhang and ganja; as dagga in Africa." [22] [23] —Viriditas | Talk 21:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Times have changed. Depsite its humble origins, marijuana is standard English and (unlike ganja and muggles) has found widespread use in scientific and academic literature. See the discussion above.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It is slang because it is a recent (past 80 years) and intentional use of a Mexican word (Mexican slang btw) for which English words have existed for hundreds of years. Hemp is not a specifically Mexican plant, therefore the use of the word "marijuana" is no more appropriate than insisting than we use the word "sombrero" instead of "straw hat". The only reason that the word "marijuana" has polluted Encyclopædia Britannica is due to the American War on Drugs. Wikipedia has no obligation to follow in their footsteps. We not only have the opportunity and ability, we have the moral obligation to keep the efforts of propaganda wars from polluting and corrupting Wikipedia. --Thoric 21:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments are becoming increasingly disjointed and your understanding of what constitutes slang is apallingly incorrect. Wikipedia maintains a NPOV and has no "moral obligation" to ritually purge itself of all language that originated amid political movements with which you personally disagree. Some of the most beatiful and most interesting words in our language originated under less than savory circumstances. Also, some words lose their informality over time. Your impassioned campaign to expose the dark side of the history of drug enforcement should not govern whether an editor can or cannot use a mostly unconvtroversial and mainstream word like "marijuana."--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a very clear NPOV policy. This means that no point of view is to be given undue weight over another point of view. This also means that any part of Wikipedia which is not specifically describing a particular point of view should be written from a completely neutral point of view. I am arguing (along with many others) that the word "marijuana" cannot be fully detached from the prohibitionist point of view from which it was introduced to the world, and therefore we should not use the word "marijuana" to describe the cannabis plant when the proper scientific botanical word "cannabis" is available to us. I never said that we should purge Wikipedia of the word "marijuana", just that it should only be used in proper context. --Thoric 23:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If I might reassert something I wrote above that got quickly buried..."Cannabis is what all of the scientific literature uses" is not accurate. A PubMed search for "cannabis" returns 9211 publications while "marijuana" returns 10950 publications. Obviously many of those publications simply list marijuana as a commonly-known alternative name for cannabis and use cannabis thoughout the article, but there are many examples in the scientific literature--recent ones, too--that use marijuana as the preferred term. The fact that "marijuana" actually currently outhits "cannabis" in PubMed (how's that for WP:RS?) should put to rest any notion that this is an unrelevant term. Additionally, searches for "marijuana NOT cannabis" (2930 articles) and "cannabis NOT marijuana" (1191 articles) indicate a real mix of preferences that span the globe--the #2 hit, for example, in marijuana NOT cannabis query is a 2007 article from Scotland, published in the Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry[24]!

This is, in my opinion, a stupid content dispute. It makes sense on pages for MDMA, Methamphetamine, Amphetamine, Nitrous oxide, ad nauseum, that very common alternative names (ecstasy, speed, meth, crank, laughing gas, etc.) are mentioned early in the article witout necessarily being labeled as American slang or whatever people keep slapping on there. It seems like an open-and-shut case to me that "Cannabis (also called marijuana, especially in North American English)..." or something similar is a perfectly resonable opening to the article. To leave marijuana out, when it is commonly used in scholarly journals around the world, is perfectly unreasonable. -- Scientizzle 17:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm think your proposed lead sentence sounds great. For many, marijuana refers to the plant and drug in general, not just the dried leaves/flowers. Go ahead and implement it, but I predict such a change will meet with shrill resistance as it has in the past, given the quirky political dispositions of certain heavy editors to this article.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The argument isn't to purge the article of the word "marijuana", only not to give it undue attention on the grand scheme of history. Cannabis has been in human use throughout most of recorded history. To give high preference to a somewhat recent and colloquial term detracts from the article. BTW, the alcohol and alcoholic beverage articles don't mention the terms "booze" or "hooch" once, let alone in the opening paragraph. --Thoric 23:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This argument remains silly. We live in the present; so we should employ the standard language of the present. Booze and hooch--much like bud, grass, and the aforementioned muggles--are hardly considered formal English. Neither would be acceptable in a scientific or academic context; marijuana is acceptable and widespread in standard (not colloquial) usage.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We may live in the present, but the language we use in an encyclopedia should aim to avoid that which is specific to a certain region or time period unless specifically describing that particular region and/or time period. It is very possible (and likely) that the word, "marijuana" will fall out of usage over the next half-century, and hence when considering a span of several thousand years of recorded human history, will only play a minor role, and become forgotten language over the next century. Its use is primarily in the domain of law enforcement, and when it is no longer illegal, the term may fall by the wayside along with the draconian laws that popularized it. --Thoric 23:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thoric, if you'd like to assert that the word is slang or colloquial in modern English, please point to a dictionary that agrees with you. A dictionary definition will tell you whether a term is considered to be slang or informal. Here are some examples:

alcohol versus booze ("Informal")

marijuana versus pot ("slang, marijuana"), weed ("slang, marijuana"), grass ("slang, marijuana").

heroin versus smack ("slang, heroin").

Note that the terms "pot", "weed", "grass" are defined as being slang terms for "marijuana", not "cannabis". "Cannabis sativa" is the scientific and botanical term; "marijuana" is the everyday standard English term.

Words enter the English language through all sorts of strange routes; other words drop out of favour. That's how a living language works. Our responsibility is to use terms as they are used by modern authoritative sources; Wikipedia is not a political soapbox. Yes, the word entered the English language via Mexican slang in the 1890s; we're all agreed about that. That's history, though; it's not relevant today. Several editors have put a lot of effort into providing reliable, authoritative sources that demonstrate that the word "marijuana" is and has been a mainstream English word for decades. Your personal opinions about the history of the word don't reflect mainstream usage by authoritative sources. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The argument that because Americans use a word it must be correct fails to address the issue that this is an international encyclopedia and therefore Americanisms or any colloquialisms should be treated as colloquial and not as something that exists throughout the world, SqueakBox 23:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Many countries use the word. That is established. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Some countries use the word, others dont. This is the problem. I have tagged the article and cannot see why we should mention this word for cannabis marijuana and not other words such as ganja, SqueakBox 23:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, SqueakBox, your assertion that "marijuana" is an American slang or colloquialism is not borne out by numerous sources. Neither Britannica nor Oxford are American sources, and neither asserts the claims that you're making here. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Come on, I have given plenty of sources that do state that, both that it is slang and that it is a North American term, SqueakBox 23:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This Australian source indicates cannabis is the name and marijuana a slang nickname, and outside North America this is the case, SqueakBox 23:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That appears to be a mirror of the same text your posted earlier, and I'll repeat what I said to that. First, it's not an authoritative source. Second, it doesn't claim that marijuana is slang! You're not helping your case by misrepresenting the source you're providing. Here's what it says: "Cannabis has many names including dope, marijuana, mull, grass, pot, hash, weed, reefer, mull, buddha, ganji, yarndi, stick, buckets, cones, mary jane, hooch, brew, skunk and herb." There are a lot of slang words in that list, but it doesn't claim that all of those words are slang -- and it certainly doesn't say it's limited to North America. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It indicates the correct word is cannabis, SqueakBox 00:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Many sources also show it as a valid word, it is one of the more common terms used. Please Squeak, the international view of Wikipedia does not mean anything local to one area is excluded, just not given undue weight. North America is a big continent. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Marijuana" is a valid enough term to have widespread usage in the very peer-reviewed publications that make this article more informative than the average fanboi page. I think that alone asserts its validity as a proper name to be presented. -- Scientizzle 00:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

So lets present it, ie see my recommendation below, if what you say is true Scientizzle (and I do trust you) we need to present this fact in an NPOV way, remembering that ganja certainly also has legal usage (and the legality of the plant is central to this article), SqueakBox 00:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: "ganja" hits 5752 articles in PubMed, although only 3 of those do not have "cannabis" & 5 don't have "marijuana"...this indicates to me that very few publications exclusively refer to this drug as ganja. This doesn't mean I don't agree think it may merit mentioning, though...just some further information. -- Scientizzle 01:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

So my recommendation is we have somehere in the article something about the naming of this drug, SqueakBox 00:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I recommend removing (commonly referred to as marijuana in North America) from the opening and adding something about naming either at the bottom of the opening in a new paragraph or e;lsewhere saying commonly used official terms are cannabis (UK), marijuana (US+Canada), ganja (India+Jamaica) etc, as I think dealing with the issue directly in the article is the only solution, SqueakBox 00:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally feel that the most established alternative name(s) for cannabis should be in the first line if only to clarify why a user searching for "marijuana" or other redirects would land on this article. An early mention, I feel, is entirely appropriate, but a paragraph on the various common names, without degrading into a list of cannabis slang slang (blunt, bud spliff, etc.), is a good idea. -- Scientizzle 01:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that both spellings "color" and "colour" appear in the first sentence at color. I am curious as to why you think this article should handle the situation so differently. --Yath 01:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As good punctilious wikipedians, shouldn't our goal be concensus and usability? That being said, what's so controversial about adding the two words "or marijuana" to the intro for recognizability?--Loodog 04:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In this edit which started this whole debate yesterday it is implied that marijuana and cannabis are synonymous which far from helping recognizability incorrectly implies that cannabis is only herbal (ie only marijuana is cannabis) which actually only helps confuse readers, and especially North American readers who may not realise that marijuana is not the only cannabis, SqueakBox 15:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The opening sentence currently says that cannabis is produced from the flowers, trichromes, and other parts of the plant. Being made from parts of the plant would make it herbal, I would think. What else would you say cannabis is made of? --Yath 16:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

But we are talking about the drug not the plant. For Europeans cannabis may be herbal and it may be resin. For North Americans (or anyone else) to think that cannabis as a drug is only herbal is where the problem lies and we must not replicate that myth, indeed we must make it clear that this is not the case, that cannabis as a drug may be marijuana, it may be hashish and could possibly be hash oil, kief, etc, SqueakBox 16:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing that those of you campaigning against the use of the word marijuana don't realize: for many North Americans, marijuana refers to the plant and the drug itself, not just the specific preparation. It's common to hear talk about a marijuana plant or about growing marijuana or about different forms of marijuana. Though to some, marijuana traditionally refers to the dried buds/leaves/etc, to others, it's also become a synonym for cannabis.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please can you source that marijuana may refer to cannabis resin (hashish)? Though even if this is so this would, without a solid explanation, completely confuse British people amongst others who absolutely identify marijuana with the herbal form of cannabis, SqueakBox 16:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure here's a quote from everyone's favorite source, the U.S. government: "researchers asked teens if they had used marijuana or hashish (another form of marijuana)" [25]. It's from one of their delightful anti-drug websites. Regardless of your feelings about the America's war on drugs and the government's peculiar choice of words, I just want you people to know marijuana is used as a broad synonym for cannabis in official sources.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, SqueakBox, this is not as complicated as you're making it. All we need to say (preferably in the opening sentence), is that for many outside of North America marijuana refers to the dried leaves/buds, while in North America marijuana has become virtually a synonym for cannabis. No confusion, problem solved. Then, later on in the article, if you and Thoric want to write about the nefarious, racist history of the word marijuana, do so, but try to maintain a non-preachy, NPOV tone.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well as I said all this info we are discovering should be put in the article, IMO in a new paragraph in the opening. BTW I dont agree with all Thoric says and certainly dont want a pro cannabis pov article, whatever pov I may express on my user page, SqueakBox 17:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bodafiza

recognizeability?Is that a the word?Think i like it.Once upon a time there was a bong that would filter out the bad things in smoke and only allow good things right?Using water for the filter?Lets examine this a little more closely...What if a device could split up the thc from the cannabinoids from the harmful things in combustion process?Through a complex filter and progressive heated air system.Now that would be one pure bong hit of filtered cannabinoid oils (essential)and vaporized THC.....without anything harmfull to the body.Can such a device exist?Perhaps some of the lab equipment big tobacco uses to figure out the assimilation rate of nicotine into you?Get it?Someone invent this please...and mass produce it.But not in the form of a drug that the govt and big pharma can mass produce and in the form of taxes and pills......and control.Lets keep it private and where you can grow it yourself anytime anywhere and research it saving yourself possibly thousands of dollars in medical cost any way you can to solve these issues right?A vaporizer comes real close but do you really know exactly what you are inhaleing on a cellular level?Matter or energy?Only then can we finalize the argument for drug or?Should it be in drug form controlled by govt and pharma or controlled by you the consumer of it?Ultimately it is up to the private morality of the individual in my opinionBodazifa 06:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis is a plant containing the phychoactive organic chemical THC and the essential oils cannabinoids. How about that for the opening sentence?You break it down from thereBodazifa 06:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with highbc that cannabis is more formal and accepted in public use here in america....i am a barber and when you bring up the word marijuana in a crowded barbershop its like you just took a shit on the floor...BUT if you are having a political discussion about morality and inject the word cannabis into the discussion loud enough for everyone listening including your customer perhaps the influence is more acceptable and people who never encounter ganja will talk about it...IE....chemo paitents....i have a couple customers that will talk about it and have lost some of their hair from chemo...but the jury is still out on the morality because of the psychoactive compounds (jury of public opinion)People dying dont want to hallucinate as a general rule- time here knowing oneself and ones family is precious.Perhaps that needs a vote though?The new song from Tool sums it up.Its called the pot.LOL.NO really I think it correlates to how the languages of all the different nations on earth can communicate.Ever wonder how stories like this could have been told a few thousand years ago with out anything more than the fire and the cannabis?Matter and energy?By the Humans.I somewhat believe it has its origins around the time of language.anyone?Look up the language DEMOTIC on wiki then you will see cannabis the word comes from greek canna for cane and bi for bisexual(plant).Bodazifa 06:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am honestly thinking of setting up a projector screen and laptop with a presentation of Rosetta Stone in my shop.So my customers can communicate more easily in their own dialect with me in presentation format with a projector.Communication is so important when dealing on a personal level with people of all tribes...you know?But to even try to cross that barrier of talking about pot...well sometimes its hard enough just to figure out how you want your haircut.POLITICS? RELIGION?POT?In that order-Today a guy spoke 2 dialects of hindi and also english.Do you think we were talking about pot?It was something needed when the humans began to help them communicate better outside the present...get it?If you havent reasearched the rosetta stone i implore you to.Could we have all spoke the same language at one time?I dont knowBodazifa 06:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to see search engine results ....they are in.Type in God in the google search bar.How fast did it decide for you and what did it show you?Remember Google is trading for over$300 a share compared to the 32$ a share stock price of microsoft-who most likely made the op sys you are using.Now What does your private morality have to do with this resultant search?Do we all agree?This is what should be shown everyone living on earth.for hundreds of years cannabis has helped this along...?Until now the jury of public opinion on the existence of a god has decided for you in 0.04 seconds and returned 392000000 results for it in that particular amount of time.??????????????Still need the system? only now do you have the technology to see it for yourself and if you dont we should be thinking of ways to put that technology in everyones hands.Bodazifa 07:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That last one was kinda off subject but wanted to add anyways when i saw all the results for searches above....Bodazifa 07:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

My friends if you listen to George Bush you will believe that nasas budget will get us to mars right?You cannot even get along enough to cure the cold or stop warring so should you continue to listen to bush or follow reality which is you came from energy now you are matter and will return to energy with god?Is this what humans believe as a whole?Just type in God at google.Or are we all going to get on a spaceship and habitate the cosmos in these bodies?anyone?Crush the system of thought revolving around material things-and see whats leftover-whats real-Bodazifa 07:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

remember those monks who burned themselves to death in the streets of Vietnam in protest of the system.?(during)war)In front of all to see....their faith.....anyone here have that kind of faith in matter and energy?(to walk out into the street in front of a jury of your neighbors dump gas on yourself and light up)?Funny how here we are a few years later .....still at war with our neighbor instead of what is it?Help me out here???????? LOVE-That is I think what their message would be to you if they could communicate it from the afterlife.-(martyrs)But we only have history and wiki to go on right?None the less very real...Bodazifa 08:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

way off subject so I will stop here unless someone askes me to expound more-Bodazifa 08:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey: begin with "Cannabis or marijuana..."

On the question of whether the article should begin with "Cannabis or marijuana...",

I think a tally of opinions in the above discussion shows a clear preference one way or another, and that ample evidence has been presented for anyone to make an informed decision on the matter.

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

Supporting votes

Vote here if you think the article should begin with "Cannabis or marijuana..."

1. Support --Yath 19:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support more accurate wording such as Cannabis, often called marijuana in North America... or just Cannabis, often called marijuana HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   If we do that, we might as well make the opening sentence a long list of every term in use and the places they're used. It would be better to keep the opening succinct. --Yath 19:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   Well we are not sure there any other than ganja and marijuana and we are sure bud, weed, green, mota etc are purely slang but ganja isnt nor is marijuana and this is an international encyclopedia so we should at least cover the main English speaking terms and remeberingn there are a lot of people in India where ganja is used. Forme the difference between slang and non slang is whetehr the police use the word officially (eg in press releases), SqueakBox 19:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   I disagree Yath, North America is a big continent, I don't think it is undue weight. Other than Cannabis and marijuana I don't think there is a term used over such a wide area. Which other terms for other places did you have in mind that would be on the same level of notability as these two terms? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   Ganja, which is used in India and the Caribbean, and which is in the current opening, SqueakBox 19:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   Has the word Ganja entered the English language like Cannabis(Latin) and Marijuana(Spanish)? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   In the UK, with its Jamaican population having unquestionably helped popularise cannabis in the last decades of the 20th century, the answer is yes, and of course Jamaica is purely an English speaking country. its a bit like spliff in terms of usage but it is not slang in Jamaica and India, SqueakBox 19:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   I was not referring to common usage, I was asking if it had become an English word, such as in dictionaries and such. It may be more of a dialect thing. Regardless I don't oppose the mention of the word Ganja. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   See Ganja (disambiguation). You could argue all English is dialect and I dont beleiev we should discriminate against jamaican English, SqueakBox 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   Good enough for me. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   I've always thought of it as slang, but apparently not: Ganja. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   Yes well I always thought of marijuana as slang. We live and learn, eh? SqueakBox 20:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   Here's the difference, Squeak: I didn't comment about it on this page until I had a fact to report. I kept my opinion to myself until I checked it against a reliable source, and I reported what I found, even though it disagreed with my preconception. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Well I hear what you are saying. We are editors with a different approach but I have known this problem has been bubbling under for months and if I have helped resolve the issue then we are making real progress on this article. This discussion has been very good natured for its tenseness from a wikipedia viewpoint and this project needs good quality editors bringing their various life skills here, of which your contribution has been great, SqueakBox 20:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Support I don't think it's necessary to qualify marijuana as "North American" either. I disagree that doing so somehow slants the article toward America; if you look at the history of the Bong article, you'll see that was firmly against a persistent user's attempt to characterize it as primarily intended for tobacco just because that's what head shops in the US market it for to circumvent drug laws (I'm under the impression that in most parts of the English-speaking world, bongs and similar items are perfectly legal). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   Right now it isnt qualified in the opening statement, though later on of course it is explained, SqueakBox 20:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Support. I was about to make the same edit that Ohnoitsjamie made -- Hashish is not a synonym to marijuana; it's a particular preparation. I also bolded marijuana and ganja to give them equal weight with cannabis. Can we all live with this version? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support as long as it is maintained that cannabis is the proper encyclopedic terminology, and marijuana only gets honorable mention ;) I can live with Jim's version. --Thoric 18:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Opposing votes

Vote here if you think the term "marijuana" should not be included so prominently.

1. No, an edit like that is confusing and should not be allowed to stand as all non North Americans will think the article is making out that cannabis resin is called marijuana. This may be true in the US but it isnt true elesewhere and therefore we would need a much fullerr explanation of the whole naming issue in the opening, which I support. I am not sure this straw poll will work because it fails to give a full range of options. Also what about ganja, if marijuana is in the opening then so should ganja be and cannabis resin at the very least but the proposal doesnt comment on this one way or the other, SqueakBox 19:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

The term "cannabis" to an American has several meanings, of which "a drug" may not be the most prominent depending on who you ask. It can mean "a genus of plant", "a plant", or "an alternate name for marijuana used as law-enforcement jargon". On the other hand, it is no more surprising as a name for a drug than the term petrol is as a name for a motor fuel. So its use as the name for this article is not a big deal, any more than aluminium.

However, "marijuana" is the primary term - and less subject to confusion - for a vast chunk of Wikipedia's English-speaking readership. It doesn't make sense to exclude it from the introduction, and force people to wonder for several sentences or longer whether they're reading the correct article. --Yath 19:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree we need a cogent explanation of this whole issue in the opening. At the end of the day we need to have an opening that makes sense to both our North American and non North American readership, we cant exclude one group while pandering to the other and to include both is NPOV, though I also think the word ganja does appear somewhat similar to marijuana, so we need something much more complex than your proposal, SqueakBox 19:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how this will not make sense to non North American readers especially if it begins with Cannabis, often called marijuana in North America... HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Because most cannabis is hashish in Europe (weed is a specialised product) and most Europeans dont think marijuana is hashish, SqueakBox 19:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Here are several dictionary definitions: Marijuana These are reliable sources, not blogs; I can confirm that the transcription from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary is accurate; I have it here in my office. In all of these dictionaries, definition #1 equates marijuana to the cannabis plant; definition 2 narrows it down to just the dried leaves & stalks. We don't need any more personal opinions about whether this definition is valid worldwide, but I would be interested in a citation from some dictionary somewhere that differs with this. My strong preference would be the OED, but any dictionary of the English language from any Commonwealth country would be useful. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember we are not dealing with the cannabis plant but with the drug cannabis, and neither of your definitions seems to encompasss that, ie it talks about the plant or the leaves. Unfortunately I cant get the page up right now, but our opening definition must be of the drug. If people say marijuana is synonymous with cananbis the drug in North America I cant dispute that but they arent sysnonymous terms in the UK, SqueakBox 19:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The current opening sentence mentions marijuana and ganja, which are likely the two most common synonyms used in the English-speaking world. I removed the sentence which seemed to suggest that hashish is called marijuana in North America because hash it suggests that the word "marijuana" is used instead of "hashish" in NA, which is not the case. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the qualification you just added. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh hell, Squeak, we were converging on a good version, and you just changed it to something I can't support. Marijuana in North America and in many other places is understood as a synonym for Cannabis sativa. You just edited that out again. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

And removing the "in its herbal form"? Its how we deal with cannabis resin that appears to be the sticky issue (lol) here, SqueakBox 20:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem goes away if we take Hashish out of the opening sentence. We can make a case for marijuana and ganja being synonyms for cannabis in various parts of the world. Hashish, on the other hand, is the name for a particular preparation, so it should be given lesser prominence. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. i think a l;arge percentage of what is consumed as the drug cannabis is hashish and to leave it out of the new opening is confusing for non North American readers. Where I grew up cannabis was always pretty much synonymous with hashish and I dont believe the UK is substantially different on this than it was a few years ago, or Spain for that matter, and to ignore this in the opening doesnt feel right, but for mwe this has always been at the heart of the issue, SqueakBox 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I recall reading in a number of reliable sources that hashish production is the largest type of preparation and use of cannabis consumption in the world. —Viriditas | Talk 21:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have long felt that hashish should be merged into this article but I am not convinced other editors would agree, but it really should be here even if we have to take other stuff out (into other articles) to make way for it, SqueakBox 22:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I just reworded the first paragraph & separated the THC info into a second paragraph. How does it look? -- Scientizzle 21:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, SqueakBox 21:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis is still the proper term. Marijuana is a slang term which became a legal term. Essentially the legal embracement of a slang term as a law enforcement term turned the once slang term into a "real" word. This was purposefully done with the intention of deceiving the American public back in the 1930s. While many of you may feel that this is irrelevant today, many believe that this bit of history is quite important to the legal status of this plant, and therefore should not be forgotten or ignored. --Thoric 00:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is why the article is called Cannabis (drug) and not marijuana, SqueakBox 18:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That's very interesting, but it sounds like historic information that doesn't need to go in the introduction. --Yath 00:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it belonged in the introduction, just that it should be noted. --Thoric 18:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

which came first the cannabis or the drug?Bodazifa 02:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis has been used for its medicinal qualities for many thousands of years. --Thoric 18:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The plant is clearly much older than the drug, I imagine much older than humanity itself, SqueakBox 18:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats all i am sayin my friends.Until you look into your history you dont know where you are goin.I agree with squeakbox that the plant has possibly been around longer than its need to adapt to dying by produceing these compounds as a reaction to a photoperiod.perhaps the photoperiod on earth was longer thousands of years ago?I do not know?How do you explain it?Or did the humans create it out of a need for it?Probably not.Then why do we have receptors for it in our brains if nothing produced within the body will bind to it?It has to come from an exogenous source like a plant or animal etc....so....the fact that we have the receptor and the plant produces the compound to bind to it...well now what? which one came first...our receptor or the plants response to the process of dying.Now you have a question or a parable i am not sure which.You know?Do we create art as we are dying as a response to it?like plants?do we emit a thc?NO?Bodazifa 19:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, and of course the cannabis in pre-human times may not have been psycho-active, or not appreciably so, just as we wouldn't recognise a pre-human carrot as that which we find on our dinner tables. I suspect such research hasn't been done though if it has it would be well worth including, possibly in Cannabis, SqueakBox 19:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Your only given a short time here on earth.Is it so hard to believe that a plant would help you in your dying?Question is did early humans adapt the plant for this reason or did the plant adapt for us...mmmmmm makes me wonder.....mabe gods way of telling you he knows its super overwhelming this life were in and mabe something could help you relax and return a little to homeostasis. like Led Zepplin-stairway to heaven?right?Bodazifa 19:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

what drives me in this subject somewhat is that the idea of undiscovered archaelogical records of cannabis origins may be out there you know?Egypt?Africa?you know?it wasnt that long ago the rosetta stone was discovered 1799...and there is already a piece of computer software based around it that helps you learn over 30 languages at a super accelerated rate.Should we then focus on where we are going with cannabis?Or where we have been?This is my questionBodazifa 19:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

And before I end this, I would like to clearly say that everything that enters our mouth is a big difference to our life!

As soon as everyone turns their heads we have young kids filling the opening full of their local slang term for cannabis. This was inevitably going to happen, and without commitment from other users to revert back to not using any slang terms I suggest we go back to the pre Angr version, ie just keep it at cannabis and if people are ignorant and dont know that cannabis is marijuana etc, well as an encyclopedia our job is to inform, SqueakBox 17:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Aha. I see why you reverted. I understand your concern, although the last part of your last sentence contradicts everything that precedes it. Unless you're being sarcastic. Wahkeenah 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Medicinal use

I have added a substantial amount of information on the medical uses of cannabis, so please let me know what you think - ClemsonTiger 20:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking said "the photoperiod of the sun is around 10 billion years".(before it swells and destroys earth)So we have plenty of time to have to figure it out right?Only the puny humans will not be here this long...lol.He is in the news-check him out.Bodazifa 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We wont be around? says who. Sounds crystal ballish to me, we could ahve dominated the universe long before then, SqueakBox 00:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought we were to have uploaded our consciousnesses in digital form and sent copies to every planet in the galaxy long before old Sol burns us up... but what has that got to do with medical use of Cannabis? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we could mathematically populate a planet from a few people in a few millenia so having billions of trillions of us is mathematically possible but it doesnt have anything to do with cannabis as a drug so should be terminated here, SqueakBox 00:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate to spoil all the fun, but you might want to check out the doomsday argument. —Viriditas | Talk 03:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

I think the “Marijuana Myths” section my not be totally accurate. Here’s a links that suggests evidence to the contrary [26]. Also what are your sources for the statement that Marijuana does no damage to the brain? Thanks! 71.112.106.203 05:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Ups, sorry, I wasn’t signed in. S.dedalus 05:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If you find original research articles to support the claims in that article I will find research on any possible neurotoxicity of tetrahydrocannabinol and post it in its proper place.

Eyejuice 09:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

All of the info displayed on the "marijuana myths" section which now I see was taken down, is available and backed up on this book "The Benefits of Marijuana: Physical, Psychological & Spiritual" by Joan Bello.

Youlookadopted 08:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What sources does he use? Eyejuice 18:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware the title of this article is cannabis (drug) not marijuana. Please also look at wiki style guides, if you reinsert the material (a) in a sourced way and (b) using wiki style it probably wont be deleted again, SqueakBox 18:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

(a) Start collecting sources, like this guy[27]. or just look it up on Erowid[28] (b)so just "Myths" then? Eyejuice 18:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oral consumption

"In order to release its psychoactive properties hashish can be eaten raw or mixed with water but marijuana will only be absorbed into the bloodstream by blending it with ethanol or lipids."

This isn't true. Marijuana consumed raw will work within anything from 1 to 10 hours, but it does work, and well. Though it bothers me that this myth is still perpetuated, my edit would probably count as 'original research'. 84.53.74.196 17:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes you need to source it. I totally disagree. We need to change the title too, smoking is also oral consumption, SqueakBox

I can't actually seem to find a source for your view either... Nor an explanation for why hash would have other effects than marijuana when eaten raw (why wouldn't hash need to be blended with ethanol or lipids?). As for the title, perhaps 'gastrointestinal' or 'enteral' consumption could be better, as opposed to 'pulmonal'? I'm just making things up now. :) 84.53.74.196 21:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This abstract with a ridiculously long title says that cannabis has a non-psychoactive version of the compound that changes to a psychoactive compound when heated. It does not state that ALL of the cannabinoids found in cannabis are nonpsychoactive before cooking. Eyejuice 23:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Mm, i did my research when I wrote the piece so I'll have another look. I have no idea why hash can be eaten raw and it works and grass not but it certainly seems to be the case, SqueakBox 23:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The Temple of the Screaming Electron answers the question pretty well. If most hash is processed this way or by other methods of isomerization then it would definitely explain why uncooked cannabis has little effect by comparison. Eyejuice 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

How does that explain my situation then? 84.53.74.196 23:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

the cannabinoids in cannabis become psychoactive when heated cooked or smoked THCa -> THC. The cannabinoids in hash oil are orally active because acids and bases are added to turn the non-psychoactive cannabidol in to THC and THC into delta-9 THC. If there are low concentrations THC and not just THCa in the buds it would explain why some people report feeling effects from eating raw cannabis. Eyejuice 06:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Toxicity? Antioxidants?

The following appears unattributed in the health effects section:

The most consistent believable study results show that regular usage of cannabis has some toxicity to the hippocampus and may interfere somewhat in some short term memory tasks, and so usage with a diet high in neuroprotective antioxidants is recommended (many fruits and vegetables).

I am not aware of any reliable study showing toxicity in the hippocampus - I may be missing something right in front of my face. I tagged this for citation needed, but my tag got reverted in an unrelated edit squabble.

The antioxidant claim, while making sense, is also unattributed.

These are strong and significant statements and should not appear unattributed. I do not want to flag the whole section for accuracy dispute, so I am simply going to remove these two statements until citations are given for each of them. RadicalHarmony 15:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, we need more people removing unverified information from this article. Cannabis is surrounded by bad science and mistaken preconceptions. This article needs to be regularly pruned. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ganjes river > ganga

Hi, I've inserted this twice, and within seconds it's been removed. The second time I included a reference to a printed work that says this is true ( where I learned of it ), although even a passing glance should be enough to convince most people this is true. The second time I added this, the page's history log called my addition "vandalism." I'm baffled at how anybody could reach this conclusion, but more to the point, I'm trying to add a fact I believe to be true to an article where that fact is worth mentioning. Perhaps there needs to be a consensus here, on the article's talk page, for others to realize that I'm trying to improve an article that's of great personal interest to me. This comes from Flashbacks, an autobiography by Tim Leary, who did much research in the tradition of a Harvard and University of California Berkeley professor into the history of ganga, to use at his trial for having possessed the stuff. I consider this to be a valid source, even if a friendly one, because the man, having earned and handed out Ph.D.s, certainly knew how to do valid research. SeattleChronic 00:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a citation saying it is Sanskrit for Hemp[29]. Timothy Leary is not really an etymologist. Perhaps we should look at more sources. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right that Leary wasn't an etymologist. But the fact that his research led to this conclusion means you couldn't be more right when you say Perhaps we should look at more sources. This definitely makes me curious for the truth of the matter. SeattleChronic 22:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be acceptable to add that Leary came to this conclusion and the name of the text in which he mentioned it. RadicalHarmony 04:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but alongside the reference to the ancient origin to the term. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you wait for 4:20 to post that? Cheers! SeattleChronic 19:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol, no that was unplanned HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

POV map

Ummm, has anyone taken a good look at the US map of legality? The caption for yellow (i.e. Arkansas) reads: "States with BOTH rednecks and redneck law." I'm all for a sense of humor, especially at the expense of rednecks, but this to me smacks of nPOV violation. Is this how the author made the image or has it been vandalized somehow? User:IrishJew (having trouble signing on) 140.180.166.176 23:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this map appears without the yellow on the Legal issues of cannabis page. Avraham 23:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, someone did that as a joke. Now fixed to point to the same map as the page you pointed out. "Irish Jew"? Oy, begorrah! Wahkeenah 23:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry to hear your ancestors were Protestant, but admitting it is the first step to recovery.  :p Avraham 07:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

dime bag

Not an expert at either wikipedia or pot, but in my area we call half of an eighth a "dimebag" or just a "dime." Two dimes making an eighth and two eighths making a quarter, etc.

I put my comment here rather than changing the page because I am not sure, but I did want to raise the point.

Peace! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.87.40.207 (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Its a dime bag becuase its supposed to cost $10, hence the dime (though the amount you recieve can vary depending on where you get it and the quality).Sklarface 23:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert myself but I know my weed. A dime bag is 1 gram. its will set you back about ten bucks but that isn't the reason behind the term. A dime consists of 10 cents as a gram consists of ten points. Then again I'm just a stoner. What do I know?? Peter 08:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

wow peter u must be high right now 1/8 is 3.5 grams a dime bags 1/2 that ten bucks dime=ten

Dime bag is meaningless gibberish to most non Americans. 3.5 grammes is less than an eighth, SqueakBox 23:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A "dimebag" or "dime" is between 0.7 and 1 gram. It costs $10. It is not half of an eighth. An eighth literally means 1/8 of an ounce (roughly 28 grams) making an eighth between 3.5 and 4.0 grams. Eighths are usually sold for $40. Between a dime and an eighth is a "Dub" or "20 sack." A Dub is half of an eighth and two times a dime making it between 1.6 and 2 grams. Which costs $20. -Mike

Where exactly? remeber that (a) non Americans dont even know what a dime is and (b) prices vary considerably even within the US let alone throughout the world, SqueakBox 02:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think also the term varies on location in New York we call it a dime and then the larger is called a dub

Addiction

I removed to section on addiction as it lacked citations and contradicted current research. The article Health issues and the effects of cannabis deals more with this and has the following citation:

"Addiction to cannabis does not involve neurotoxicity such as it was defined in chapter 3 by neuroanatomical, neurochemical and behavioral criteria. Thus, former results suggesting anatomic changes in the brain of chronic cannabis users, measured by tomography, were not confirmed by the accurate modern neuro-imaging techniques. Moreover, morphological impairment of the hippocampus [which plays a part in memory and navigation] of rat after administration of very high doses of THC (Langfield et al., 1988) was not shown (Slikker et al., 1992)."

Please provide citations for such claims, and understand that Cannabis has a lot of bad science attached to it, remember to search for the name of the study to see if it has been debunked(many have). HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a drug

Shouldn't we merge this article with Cannabis, because Cannabis isn't a drug. Its just a plant and if you should so happen to set it on fire, then yes, there are some affects, but its a natural plant. 88.107.64.167 21:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is a drug. Try offering some to the police round your way and yopu'll find that at least legally it is a drug, SqueakBox 18:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the unergistered editor (IP 88.107.64.167) - this article is about a drug called Marijuana, also called Cannabis after the plant it's made from. Cannabis itself is a plant, and its article should contain taxonomic information, just like basil, rosemary, or for this matter poppy. Whether the actual Cannabis plant is considered a drug in certain places is a legal issue, not relevant to the merging or seperating of articles... Odedrim 22:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen any reliable source saying it is not a drug. Every study I have seen relating to Cannabis calls it a drug. This is not just a legal interpretation, but the use of the scientific community, also the dictionary seems to match this interpretation. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And a lot of users also think of it as a drug, SqueakBox 01:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I would even go so far as to say there is an existing consensus that it is a drug. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Opium isn't a drug, but if you happen to set it on fire, there are some effects, but it's a natural plant. Alcohol isn't a drug, it comes from a natural fermentation process. If you happen to ingest it, there are some effects. Tobacco isn't a drug, etc... Nothing that grows naturally is bad for you. Nothing that requires conscious effort to consume is a drug either.--Loodog 02:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Nothing that grows naturally is bad for you" is the biggest load of crap I've ever read. I'd start with, oh I dunno, deathcap mushrooms and see if that still applies.

Anyways, "cannabis isn't a drug" folks, there's a separate article for the cannabis sativa plant. This is clearly about the drug derived from that plant that is commonly called "cannabis" colloquially and scientifically. -- Scientizzle 06:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh: When I die and go to hell, it be will filled with people missing my sarcasm.--Loodog 12:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Man...did I miss sarcasm? I hate that. My apologies--I do love good sarcasm. Sadly, it often doesn't read out in print form, especially when there are so many super-pro-legalize-cannabis honks that frequent this page and the article with such nonsense. In any case, if I read your comment with a nicely sarcastic voice in my head, it's quite funny. :) -- Scientizzle 15:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Strange paragraph

I would like to remove the following paragraph:

There is no scientific consensus as to the level of possible harm caused by cannabis consumption. A UK parliamentary commission found it overall less harmful than tobacco and alcohol. The available research has so far made no clear reproduceable conclusive results showing permanent damage of any kind to the brain or nervous system. Whether there is possible damage to the short term memory areas, and the level of harm, has not yet been established conclusively, and some studies point to enhancement of particular types of memory.[1] Clearly cannabis has a complicated effect on memory, but its effects have been shown to vary from case to case, and whether it is in total harmful or beneficial is still unknown and may depend on the user's biology and point of view. What is known for certain is that it has effects on the hippocampus[citation needed] and memory, as this area of the brain has receptors for cannabinoids, both those produced by the body itself, and those consumed through cannabis.

It seems to me to say "cannabis is not harmful, but it is. Studies have shows it to be, but studies have shown it not to be, here's some assumptions that have no citation." The 'information' contained therein seems to be otherwise discoverable from the rest of the article, and seems to have very little actual facual content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sim (talk • contribs) 01:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

The paragraph does seem to say much without claiming anything. It looks like 80% original research. If you remove it, see if that citation in it has any useful information for the article. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be great

It would be great if you added this (or a smaller portion of it) paragraph: A 1998 French governmental report commissioned by Health Secretary of State Bernard Kouchner, and directed by Dr. Pierre-Bernard Roques, classed drugs according to addictiveness and neurotoxicity. It placed heroin, cocaine and alcohol in the most addictive and lethal categories; benzodiazepine, hallucinogens and tobacco in the medium category, and cannabis in the last category. The report stated that "Addiction to cannabis does not involve neurotoxicity such as it was defined in chapter 3 by neuroanatomical, neurochemical and behavioral criteria. Thus, former results suggesting anatomic changes in the brain of chronic cannabis users, measured by tomography, were not confirmed by the accurate modern neuro-imaging techniques. Moreover, morphological impairment of the hippocampus [which plays a part in memory and navigation] of rat after administration of very high doses of THC (Langfield et al., 1988) was not shown (Slikker et al., 1992)." Health Secretary Bernard Kouchner concluded that : "Scientifical facts show that, for cannabis, no neurotoxicity is demonstrated, to the contrary of alcohol and cocaine."[9] (from Health issues and the effects of cannabis)

right after this statement: Cannabis has a complicated effect on memory, and its effects have been shown to vary from case to case. Rats who were exposed to THC daily for 30% of their typical lifespan showed neurodegeneration of the hippocampus, an area of the brain associated with memory and learning.[40] Similar findings in humans have not yet been established, and some studies even point to enhancement of particular types of memory.[41] Additional research has shown that cannabis has neuroprotective effects, further demonstrating its complicated action.

for making the issue of hippocamal neurotoxicity in humans (which does not exist) clearer.. Thanks alot.. 88.154.134.38 18:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Done! have a nice day everone 88.154.134.38 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Do something!

Please do something about all the NIDA crap that is being put into this article, thanks. 80.178.135.23 16:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you can yourself. I will wait till he is finished before reviewing and deciding what is relevant/irrelevant. Please dont use the word marijuana when you mean cannabis, SqueakBox 17:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is better now I have tweaked it. This article is not about supporting either the pro or anti cannabis lobby and therefore WP:NPOV is particularly important, SqueakBox 17:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course it isn't, it is about science, and the studies cited there are no science.. they were conducted with substandard methodology and are obviously biased. 82.81.208.217 19:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That isnt strictly true, the science of the plant is at Cannabis. This article deals with the drug, from a legal, spiritual, scientific and human point of view, but certainly the science within this article needs to be sourced from reliable and credible scientific sources, SqueakBox 19:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, and the new additions to the health paragraph are certainly not sourced from reliable and credble scientific source, check it. most of the studies there have been debunked. 82.81.208.217 19:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be specific, point us to which studies and where they have been debunked. This will help us proceed. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

look at this [30] 82.81.208.217 20:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

and this [31] and this [32] 82.81.208.217 20:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

and it also contradicts some of the much stronger evidence in the oringinal paragraph.. 82.81.208.217 20:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well feel free to change it, SqueakBox 20:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

All of the sources used are from Peer-reviewed, established studies published in reputable journals such as Neurology, Journal of Immunology, and University programs. These studies are from neutral POV - not like the studies sourced from the "Journal of Cannabis" or sourced to "Maps.org" which is a pro-drug legalization site.

Yeah? and what NIDA is? a neutral researche center?! 82.81.208.217 20:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review? like this? [33]

[34] 82.81.208.217 20:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you show where these studies have been debunked? ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask you to look through are archives, some of the citations you are using have been found to have failed peer review, I can dig up the debunking of those later, but I have the flu now, they are in the talks archives. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles from JAMA, Neurology, Journal of Immunology, aren't de-bunked. If you have contradictory science, please list it. These studies should not be removed as they are solid and cited widely in the academic, medical, and policy community. Thanks.

Also, HighinBC - thanks for expressing your advocacy in this forum instead on in the article.

Wow this is way to much propoganda for this article.. I suggest reverting and protecting.

Elmang you have obviously never met a cannabis user, and your contributions are heavily biased. Cravings?! what do you think it is? Crack?!

The government can lie, and it usually does, but wikipedia can't. now what the hell peer review are you talking about? what journals? I only see NIDA.. I think I'll go and post some antisemite 'facts' in the article about Judaism, and bring Joseph Goebbels as a source.. 82.81.208.217 21:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please dont do that, see Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point but do feel free to edit this article, SqueakBox 21:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Should I feel free to remove all the NIDA assertion from the article? Did you evernotice that all the research that found adverse health effects of cannabis came from the united states goverment? 82.81.208.217 21:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed and have written to Elmang about US centrism, SqueakBox 21:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is much value in the slow revert, wait till he is done, then we can remove what is not supported by reliable sources. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you had to be an avid marijuana user to post content on wikipedia. I thought it was for everyone. I'm sorry. The only thing I would add is that the studies are not NIDA studies. They are articles from about 15 different peer-reviewed journals - so if there is a study which debunks each of those, please let me know. SqueakBox - thanks for the note aout the Americentrism - you're absolutely correct and will post correctly in future posts (if i'm allowed to post since apparently I am not allowed since I don't currently smoke cannabis on a regular basis) .

As I already mentioned, several of these citations have been addresses in the past, you can find the research in the archives. This has nothing to do with smoking pot or not, it is about citations. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome to post here in the article Elmang. I have some Rasta stuff on my user page but I have certainly never said I am a current user of the sacred herb (or made any comment either way) and I absolutely reject the idea that one has to be a cannabis user to contribute here, nor do I believe (from past collaboaration) that Highin BC thinks that either, SqueakBox 21:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Squeak - I didn't make that assertion about you. Someone else made it. Also - thanks for everyone's input. I wasn't aware that so much study was devoted toward debunking each of the studies which I have cited. I look forward to reading each published study which has "debunked" as you say what I have listed. I spend a fair amount of time reading scientific research journals relating to this issue, maybe there are some that I've missed which have done this work??

Evidently.. If you actually belive all the stuff you wrote in the article you know absolutely nothing about the phenomenon, and obviously never even saw someone under its influence. Oh, and for god sake would you stop calling it Marijuana!? it's called CANNABIS. the fact that a 'scientific' assey refers to cannabis by a derogatory nickname given as part of a propoganda program only indicates its author's bias. 82.81.208.217 22:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks for expressing your bias in this forum instead of in the article. Clearly you feel very emotionally about the subject of cannabis and it's difficult for you to be objective when you are so involved with it. As for your assertion that I "know absolutely nothing" about cannabis I would ask the following: Would I have had to murdered someone to be able to post information about homicide rates? Would I have to be a pilot to post information regarding aviation?

(as to your murder question, why do you think people spend years learning criminology?)

Yeah.. very much involved.. drug cravings and all.. I'm heavily addicted to marijuana, can't live without it 2 hours.. fact is, I havn't smoke cannabis in a long long time (half a year or more), and trust me, I do not have nor did I or any of my many friends have cravings or addiction whatsoever.. it's all propoganda.. we didn't have any adverse effect what'soever, and we smoked for years.. now we are just more moderate.. 82.81.208.217 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your anectodal experience with us. Unfortunately, anecdotal stories and reporting are just that - anecdotal. That is why the scientific, academic, and medical communities rely on science and research for objective information relating to controversial issues. There are many people, who say, for example, that they've smoked cigarettes for years and never developed cancer. Therefore, do cigarettes not cause cancer? No, because science shows otherwise. Thanks for sharing your personal (albiet non-scientific or peer-reviewed) experience with us.

of course it isn't scientific, but if you'll check, you'll see that you can find innumerable people that would tell you the same, and when a scientific study contradicts reality, it is flawed. anyway, you're studies are biased. 82.81.208.217 22:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, but remember, they're not my studies. They are studies from a wide variety of people which have been sourced by the academic, policy, and scientific research community. I'm not disputing that innumerable people will tell me what you tell me, but if that's the case, you'll have to source an opinion poll for inclusion in the article. Thanks!

82.81.208.217, a person's experience with Cannabis is not relevant as any information drawn from that would be original research. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

debunked studies

Cancer of the respiratory tract and lungs may be promoted by marijuana smoke.[41] A study comparing 173 cancer patients and 176 healthy individuals produced strong evidence that smoking cannabis increases the likelihood of developing cancer of the head or neck, and that the more cannabis smoked, the greater the increase.[42] A statistical analysis of the data suggested that marijuana smoking doubled or tripled the risk of these cancers.

The first of these studies have been debunked by Tashkin himself [35] (Evidence appears on the article), the second study is debunked here [36].

Cannabis has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens.[43] In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 percent to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. [44] It also produces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form, levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells.[45] Cannabis users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking Cannabis may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco does.

This is harshly debunked by these studies: [37] [38] [39], again, by Tashkin himself.

Thank you, I was going to look those up myself. I think it is safe to say we can reject those studies. Unlike most subjects there is very much bad science surrounding this one, and peer review and debunking needs to be taken into account. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

True.. very true indeed :-)

Some adverse health effects caused by marijuana may occur because THC impairs the immune system's ability to fight off infectious diseases and cancer. In laboratory experiments that exposed animal and human cells to THC or other marijuana ingredients, the normal disease-preventing reactions of many of the key types of immune cells were inhibited.[46] In other studies, mice exposed to THC or related substances were more likely than unexposed mice to develop bacterial infections and tumors

What do you know.. another rebuttal.. ' “There is no evidence that marijuana users are more susceptible to infections than nonusers,” conclude Lynn Zimmer, PhD and John P. Morgan, MD, in their book Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts (Lindesmith: New York. 1997). They devote a chapter to claims of immune system damage. Citing over forty studies published in professional journals, Zimmer and Morgan conclude that “scientists have consistently found no difference in the transformation in T-cells from marijuana users and nonusers,” and “using other tests of cell-mediated immunity, researchers have also found no consistent difference in the immune responses of cells taken from people who use marijuana and those who do not.” '

One study has indicated that a person's risk of heart attack during the first hour after smoking cannabis is four times his or her usual risk.[49] The researchers suggest that a heart attack might occur, in part, because cannabis raises blood pressure and heart rate and reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood

and here we go again: 'This study was presented at the American Heart Association conference held in March 2000, but was never published. An American Journal of Nursing article (April 2001) by Mathre, notes that the study, (Mittleman MA, et al "Triggering of myocardial infarction by marijuana." Circulation 2000:101(6):713; concludes that further study into this possibility is needed.'

now, about the gateway drug thing that he writes there, there is a paragraph for it, and the study already appears there. about the addiction thing, it needs more looking into, and I got to go now.. but anyway, you can't put into such a (supposed to be) short paragraph such behavioral complexity. see you later, (-: 88.155.49.10 13:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you HighinBC.. it looks much better now. 88.155.49.10 13:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

and for future reference, this documents contains all the rebuttals you need for the NIDA studies [40]. 88.155.49.10 13:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed all the debunked stuff. The NIDA website contained no information to back up the information added to the article. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

True. and you'd better keep the paged locked, it is and always have been constantly vansalised. 88.155.49.10 13:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis has a complicated effect on memory, and its effects have been shown to vary from case to case. Rats who were exposed to THC daily for 30% of their typical lifespan showed neurodegeneration of the hippocampus, an area of the brain associated with memory and learning.[41] the source here doesn't lead to a study but to another NIDA document, and therefore unless a proper study will support the statement it should be removed. 88.155.49.10 13:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

moreover, the bernard coushner report seems to contradict this statement. 88.155.49.10 13:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that these studies are reported by the U.S. National Institutes on Health makes them reliable enough for inclusion in this article. Argos'Dad 22:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Cut gear

In Europe, there is currently an epidemic of marijuana cut with Taiwanese roadmarking materials, and ground-up glass, silica and sugar. In some areas of France and the United Kingdom, it is difficult to get marijuana that has not been cut with these substances. (March 2007) The health effects of smoking these substances is not yet known, but the French government's health ministry has issued an official warning and has a telephone hotline for people who do use this marijuana, recommending them to see their doctor and have their throat and lungs checked. People have been hospitalized with symptoms such as coughing up blood.

Quote from the UK Department of Health "The Department of Health has recently received information suggesting that batches of herbal and 'skunk-type' cannabis have been contaminated with microscopic glass-like beads (or possibly ground glass). Laboratory testing has since confirmed a number of cases from a number of different parts of the country, in which cannabis appears to contain microscopic particles of glass. We have no information on other types of cannabis such as resin." (March 2007, see link below)

Would someone please help me add something about this? I don't write very encyclopedic

• UK governement official warning <http://www.info.doh.gov.uk/doh/embroadcast.nsf/vwDiscussionAll/297D9740D0412C9D802572650050A4A0?OpenDocument>

• French government warning reiterated by CIRC <http://www.circ-asso.net/paris/pages/alerte.htm>

• UKCIA on hashish adulterants <http://www.ukcia.org/activism/soapbar.htm>

• UKCIA on weed with ground up glass beads <http://www.ukcia.org/library/contam/default.php>

• Images of European marijuana cut with different powdery substances <http://www.droguesnews.com/album-314209.html>

i've added some info. there's also a stub of a separate article regarding this worrying development, which will either get merged in here, or developed further --Kaini 18:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Better Pictures

I have some better pictures of marijuana that are very high detail and resolution. I think I will post them instead of the one on the site. Does anyone have an opinion.

Bold text== Sativa is rope, indica is dope ==

There are three recognized subspecies of Cannabis sativa: Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa, C. sativa subsp. indica, and C. sativa subsp. ruderalis[25]

Where does the link say anything about subsp. ruderalis? According to the taxonomic treatment that most people adhere to (which disregards the last 30 years of scientific evidence), there are two subspecies of C. sativa and four varieties. According to this model, so-called "ruderalis" is really C. sativa subsp. sativa var. spontanea. dghjhjhjhjhjhjhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhjjjjkjkklujgjhyhjhjhjyjyjyjyjhgjhjhjhh It's ironic that most Cannabis aficionados adhere to this model when its chief architect was overtly biased toward treating Cannabis as a single species because the laws at that time (1970s) prohibited C. sativa, but not C. indica or C. ruderalis. In fact, he didn't even include any wide-leafed "indica" strains in his studies! What most Cannabis users call "sativa" is really "indica", and what they call "indica" is something else. Sativa is the stuff they make rope out of. GeorgeLTirebiter 03:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you are entirely accurate. Frankly you are making a lot of assumptions and I don't quite understand your overlying point. I am pretty sure that most people who smoke Cannibas are consuming a cross of sativa and indica as 100% indica or sativa strains are unlikely to be found.Testerer 03:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please point out the assumptions that you think I am making. From my perspective those are conclusions that I reached after reading the scientific literature. What I am saying is that recent scientific evidence shows that the narrow-leafed drug strains (like the Mexican, Jamaican, and Thai strains of the 1970's) and European hemp and are not as closely related as you and others apparently assume. If that is the case, then it makes no sense to call them both "sativa" (if you don't think industrial hemp is "sativa," then what is it?) If that is not the case, then what scientific evidence can you point to to support your position? Lamarck concluded the same thing over 200 years ago and assigned the name C. sativa to European hemp, and C. indica to narrow-leafed drug strains from India, but apparently he wasn't familiar with the wide-leafed drug strains. Now we know there is this other group from the Hindu Kush. Does it make sense to call them "indica?" Like I said before, what most Cannabis users call "sativa" is really "indica", and what they call "indica" is something else. Sativa is the stuff people make rope out of. Whether they are assigned to different species, subspecies, varieties, biotypes, or some other category isn't particularly relevant to this discussion. GeorgeLTirebiter 13:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

i tihnk you should make sure this is not encouraged

Ancient History

I created the sub-catagory Ancient History as it seemed someone attempted to do so but incorrectly when the catagory was shown with the double = sign on both sides. It also appeared that someone attempted to vandalize this page by adding If you smoke marijuana for more then ten years straight,it is proven by doctors you will become mad homo, I deleted this portion.

Health issues section is not NPOV

The Health issues and the effects of cannabis article isn't about tobacco, so why is the summary we have here? -- General Wesc 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're objecting to the other article then take it to that talk page. The fact that it mentions tobacco is not relevant. When it does mention tobacco what it says is for instance "Unlike tobacco, cannabis has not been shown to cause emphysema or lung cancer." which is showing it doesn't cause emphysema or lung cancer. Simply using tobacco as an example doesn't hurt POV.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can find information not supported by it's citation please point out specifically what it is. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Complete rubbish. Most users inhale it as a combustible substance, which includes Carbon Monoxide and a host of other chemicals. There is no reason why marijuana would not also cause or contribute to lung disease and cancer. --Darth Borehd 01:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Slang

Please dont add slang terms for cannabis to the opening. We could fill the whole page with people's slang but then it wouldnt be either readable or encyclopedic, plus its a violation of NPOV. There are at least 100's of slang terms and the consensus is to only include non-slang terms, ie those used officially, in order to remain within NPOV and not generate problems, SqueakBox 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: make a page of cannabis's slang names and make it a new article. That way, everyone would be happy. 24.11.106.133 22:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

edit of my above comment... Also, replace all slang terms referring to cannabis as a drug with one word to make the article more uniform and more believable. 24.11.106.133 23:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

(To the editors: I'm not sure where this belongs, under slang or etymology or literary references, but I think it may be interesting, given that "pot" is perhaps the most common slang expression for marijuana.)

When I first read this novel several years ago, I supposed that "potiguaya" was some plant known as such in the region of Texas and Mexico, smoked for its euphoric effects (but not marijuana), whose name entered the English lexicon as "pot" to refer to marijuana. But it appears that potiguaya and marijuana are one and the same...

In Nelson Algren’s great novel A Walk on the Wild Side (1956), on p.101 of the Thunder’s Mouth edition (third printing, 1993), Algren’s protagonist Dove Linkhorn, an East Texas drifter, gets some temporary work helping to paint the smokestacks of a freighter. He is hoisted up by ropes and pulleys in the painter’s chair to begin work. Here's the quotation:

When his stomach had steadied he remembered something and found, in the bottom of a Bull Durham sack, just what he was looking for: a palm-full of light green potoguaya (sic) and a couple of brown papers. “Wasn’t told nothin’ about not smoking on the job,” he argued sensibly. And at the first drag felt the chair rise an inch. “Let her rise,” he thought, “the higher we go the higher the pay.”

Some suggest that ‘potiguaya’ or ‘potaguaya’ is a contraction of ‘potación de guaya’ (literally, drink of grief), an infusion of marijuana in something alcoholic. I don’t find ‘guaya’ by itself in the references, or anything similar for ‘grief’ or ‘troubles’, but I speculate all the same that ‘guaya’ for some Spanish speakers is a cognate of the Italian ‘guaio’ or ‘trouble’, even though the first is feminine and the second masculine.

As for the first part of the word, this seems a possible but not necessarily probable contraction. True, one may speak of drinking one’s grief when one really means ‘drinking away one’s grief’, but I suggest the following:

‘Poti’ or ‘poto’ in Spanish may derive from ‘podar’, i.e. ‘to prune’ (trees, bushes, etc.) - to take away, remove, etc., just like the Italian ‘potare’, which has nothing to do with drinking. (The Italian ‘potare’ comes from Latin ‘putare’, to clean or to make neat, whereas ‘potabile’ or potable comes from the Latin ‘potare’, to drink.) As such there is no contraction, just the common verb-object construction of compound words. (There is only the simple abbreviation of ‘potiguaya’ to ‘pot’, apparently a gringo thing.) Thus ‘potiguaya’ is not far semantically from the Italian ‘scacciapensieri’ for ‘recreation, distraction’ but more literally something that ‘dispels or drives away (unpleasant) thoughts’ and also for the musical instrument known variously as a Jew’s harp, jaw harp, or mouth harp. (For many of us, it seems to me, etymology is a ‘scacciapensieri’.)

I welcome any confirmation or correction. Allenschill 12:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The term "pot" comes from the other meaning of this word; a container. In french, weed is called "shite", which means "shit".

A good Article?

I find it hard to believe that this is really a good article. Look at how it starts.

"Cannabis (also known as marijuana or ganja in its herbal form and hashish in its resinous form) is a psychoactive product of the plant Cannabis sativa L."

• what is with the 'AKA marijuana/ganja in it's herbal form?'
• aka 'hashish in its (which should be it's) resinous form' (which isn't entirely true or descriptive, actually has quite little to do with cannibas itself.)

Hey, actually its is possessive and it's means it is. You got it reversed. AaronMC 03:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Aaron

• "is a psychoactive product" a product? I thought Cannibas was the plant Cannibas Sativa, Indica etc..? It's a product now. Cannibas is a psychoactive product of the plant Cannibas?

Is it just me or does this sentence seem a bit nutty. I haven't quite dissected the rest of the article but I do hope it is not this misleading and amateurish. Any thoughts? Testerer 20:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. In botanical manuscripts, Cannabis is used as a generic term to include all species, subspecies, varieties, and all other groups or individuals belonging to the genus Cannabis. The way "Cannabis" is being used to lead this article is slang, and does indeed sound "a bitty nutty." Instead of Cannabis, I suggest substituting something like, "The crude drug produced from strains of Cannabis belonging to subspecies C. sativa subsp. indica (= C. indica Lam.), also known as marijuana ..."

In botanical manuscripts latin names are usually given in italics, so I have followed that convention in my editing. Please read the rest of this article before you decide if it's good, and let us know what you like or don't like about it. By the way, it's is a contraction of it is. Its (without the apostrophe) is the possessive form of it. GeorgeLTirebiter 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That said, an entry in the Merck Index reads:

Cannabis. Indian hemp; Indian cannabis; marihuana; marijuana; bhang; ganja; charas; kif; hasach [sic]; pot. Dried flowering tops of pistillate plants of C. sativa L. (C. sativa var. indica Auth.).

However, the Merck Index is "an encyclopedia of chemicals, drugs and biologicals," and the term Cannabis is clearly used in a restrictive sense to refer to Cannabis used for drug purposes. This can be seen by the synonym Indian hemp, and the taxonomic reference to C. sativa var. indica. Thus, the term Cannabis to refer to Indian hemp isn't exactly slang, but it is somewhat ambiguous and doesn't sound right in the first sentence of this article. Why not say C. sativa L. subsp. indica (Lam.) Small & Cronq. from the git-go, and avoid the ambiguity? The purpose of taxonomy is to delimit groups (taxa) and assign them names that mean the same thing to everyone, so they can be referred to unambiguously. Since the majority opinion of the editors of the Cannabis articles seems to be that Small and Cronquists' taxonomic treatment should take precident, then the name given above is the correct one.

In the botanical literature, the first time a taxon is mentioned the authority who coined the name is also given. Thus C. sativa L. subsp. indica (Lam.) Small & Cronq. informs the reader that Linnaeus coined the name Cannabis sativa, Lamarck coined the name C. indica, and Small and Cronquist reduced C. indica to the rank of subspecies. Thus, the reader should refer to Small and Cronquists' circumscription of C. sativa subsp. indica to determine what subset of Cannabis the author of the article is referring to. GeorgeLTirebiter 03:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the clarification I made to the use of the term Cannabis in the first sentence is a good compromise? GeorgeLTirebiter 13:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This article isnt about Cannabis sativa. Its about the drug cannabis. Which is, of course, a product, both from a supply and denmand and from a legal perspective, SqueakBox 23:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Drugs are biologically active chemical compounds. Cocaine, morphine, and aspirin are drugs. Erythroxylon, Papaver, and Salix are not. Why do you think Cannabis is any different? THC is a drug. Cannabis is a plant genus. Marijuana is a medicinal herb, or a psychoactive herb, or an entheogen, or any numer of things you might wish to call it, but it is not a drug. It is easier and more emotionally charged for "anti-drug" crusaders to lump marijuana in with cocaine and LSD etc. by calling it a "drug," than by using a proper description. Likewise, some pro-marijuana advocates think marijuana is a perjorative term, so they refer to it using the generic name Cannabis. However, not all Cannabis plants are considered "drug-plants," so the term is ambiguous when used this way. I understand your point that in the context of this article, one can infer that Cannabis refers to drug strains of Cannabis or products thereof, but why not define your restricted use of the term at the outset so that everyone is on the same wavelength? It is not "superfluous" to be precise with your language in an encyclopedic article. It might not earn you much street cred, but academics and anal retentives (is that redundant?) do it all the time. Heh.

Here is another suggestion on how that might be accomplished:

"This article is primarily about the psychoactive drug Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol(THC), and the THC-containing herbal preparations marijuana (also called ganja) and hashish produced from the plant C. sativa L. subsp. indica (Lam.) Small & Cronq. (= C. indica Lam.). Marijuana consists of dried mature inflorescences and subtending leaves of pistillate ("female") plants, and hashish is a resinous product consisting primarily of glandular trichomes collected from the same plant material."

My previous suggestion, "Cannabis used for recreational or religious/spiritual purposes ..." accomplishes the same goal without getting bogged down in taxonomy, which is fine by me. Does anyone besides me and Testerer have a problem with the first sentence of this article? Peace out. GeorgeLTirebiter 15:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A drugs is a substance that has an effect on the body, Cannabis does, Cannabis is a drug, it also contains drugs, but is in itself a drug as well. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So by your definition potassium cyanide is a drug, and so is a cayenne pepper? GeorgeLTirebiter 01:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the debate is whether or not Cannibas is a drug. I don't think that really matters. I personally do think think of smokable Cannibas as a drug, but I must admit, according to wikipedia it clearly is. any biological substance, synthetic or non-synthetic, that is taken primarily for non-dietary needs. What I feel needs to be addressed in this article is a better explanation that Cannabis (drug) is merely a category of substances derived from Cannabis; these substances include, here are wikilinks to their articles... Right now, it seems pretty narrow and assuming. It reads to me more like original research than anything universally fitting to the subject. I personally find it a bit funny that there are more articles in wikipedia devoted to cannabis than you can count- I wouldn't wanna forget the cannibas portal. I'm not sure with so many articles the improvement of just one makes that big of a difference. I do however hope someone takes the time to edit and improve upon the article. Archive away. Testerer 03:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Time to archive this page?

This page is getting long in the tooth. I suggest we put it in the Archives and start a new one. GeorgeLTirebiter 11:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If you feel tyhe need to please archive in Archive 3. Too many archives equals more difficulty in finding things, SqueakBox 19:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and archive it, I can use my bot to make a single page index of all the archives. I do agree with making each archive fairly large, Archive 3 has plenty of room. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added the archive index, it will automatically be updated as new items are archived. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested

If there is a good reason not to keep this article permanently semi-protected I would like to hear it. It is constantly vandalized. Why do we put up with this? GeorgeLTirebiter 16:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That is an issue that goes far beyond this article. The reason we keep articles open is because our founder has said this is the encyclo[pedia anyone can edit and we are trying to live up to this ideal, SqueakBox 16:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not a good reason. Anyone can edit a semi-protected article. Why do you think we have the ability to request semi-protection if we aren't supposed to make use of it? GeorgeLTirebiter 17:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont oppose semi protection sometimes but I dont think wikipedia policy encourages permanent semi protection and this a policy issue not an issue for this article. BTW I actaully think to fulfill what wikipedia's owner is aiming towards is a good reason, SqueakBox 18:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So do I , but what is ideal in not always practical. Whenever I post an edit, first I have to examine all those other posts to see if any of them have anything useful to contribute. I have better things to do than be a spam filter for all those irrepressible goof balls GeorgeLTirebiter 19:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I support a semi-protection for a few days at this time. I would do it myself if not for being involved in a content dispute. A request at WP:RFPP would get the attention of an uninvolved admin. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have made a request that an uninvolved admin review the need to semi protect this page at WP:RFPP, the gentleman I am currently in a content dispute with has an account old enough not to be effected by this semi-protection, so that is one concern gone. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit Skirmish

There (still) seems to be a skirmish going in which an anonymous editor claims that the health issues raised in a NIDA report have been "debunked", so they deleted seven paragraphs of this article. My view (after spending several hours providing links to the original articles) is that this is not acceptable. If the anonymous editor actually read the papers cited in the NIDA report and can point out flaws in the experimental design or analysis then please do so, but simply pointing to other studies that have differing results does not prove that the original study has been debunked. If you can point to a statement by Tashkin, say, where he admits that marijuana isn't nearly as big a cancer risk as he previously asserted, that is a lot more persuasive than simply stating that marijuana hasn't been shown to cause cancer and pointing to your own cherry-picked studies.

I looked at the dubunking claims in Archive 3, and some of them are bunk themselves, like this one:

and here we go again: 'This study was presented at the American Heart Association conference held in March 2000, but was never published. An American Journal of Nursing article (April 2001) by Mathre, notes that the study, (Mittleman MA, et al "Triggering of myocardial infarction by marijuana." Circulation 2000:101(6):713; concludes that further study into this possibility is needed.'

Here is a citation and link to the article that 88.155.49.10 says was never published:

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/103/23/2805

Mittleman, M. A., Lewis, R. A., Maclure, M., Sherwood, J. B., and Muller, J. E. 2001. Triggering myocardial infarction by marijuana. Circulation 103(23): 2805-2809.

Furthermore, the fact that a researcher states that more study is needed shows that the researcher is forthright and is not claiming that their conclusions are definitive for all time. In the field of biology, few studies are. What is interesting about the above cited paper, which I pointed out in my edit, is that the authors acknowledge that heart attacks triggered by marijuana are "rare."

I added a couple statements in my edit that address the problem with the NIDA report:

Editor's Note: The citations given in the above seven paragraphs were all referenced to a single source.[59] It is not clear whether the original articles were read by the author of the above paragraphs, or whether the information presented represents the interpretation of the authors of the summary report.[60] Links to the original articles (or abstracts) are provided herein.

Most cannabis research in the USA is funded by government agencies that publish position papers that only cite research studies that report negative consequences of cannabis use.[60][59] In light of this, some people question whether these agencies make an honest effort to present an accurate, unbiased summary of the evidence, or whether they "cherry-pick" their data.

If all this wiki article cites are cherry-picked studies that show that marijuana is harmless, then this article is not NPOV and will not be taken seriously. GeorgeLTirebiter 02:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Here we cherrypick by methodology and peer review, not result. there is no room in this article for studies with substandard methodology or studies that was not published. 88.154.146.37 13:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In the head and neck cancer studies, for example, the tobacco element was not isolated. there is a lot of bad science revolving around the subject and we need to take only the studies with the best methodology. 88.154.146.37 13:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

GeorgelTirebiter is absolutely right. I have gone through all the peer-reviewed studies which show harm (after all the section is called "health consequences" and all of them are strong, credible sources. If the only studies that are to be presented in this article are ones that cherrypick in favor or marijuana being harmless, than it is biased and not a neutral point of view. I welcome other editors to list any contradicting studies in the article if they do, indeed, exisit. Elmang

Futhermore, the statement that the US Gov't only funds studies that report negative consequences is false. Here's just one example of this not being true, in 1999, the U.S. Government commissioned and funded the Institute of Medicine study which found potential in the use of marijuana to treat illness for pain. Elmang

If you are referring to my statement above, then that is not an accurate representation. I said "most research is funded ...," not that the US Gov't only funds studies ... Admittedly I do not know the actual statistic so it would be more accurate to say "much research..." I also did not say that those agencies only publish position papers that only report negative consequences, but I believe that is true of many of those reports. There seems to be a cottage industry of cannabis researchers who feed at the teat of anti-drug abuse agencies in the Federal government. I have no proof that those agencies are biased toward funneling grant money to labs with a track record of producing results that put marijuana in a bad light, but given this administration's track record it would not surprise me in the least. I think my statement is a fair one (after changing "most" to many), but I welcome other editors to improve upon it, or prove me wrong.

Also, when 88.154.146.37 refers to "peer review," who is he/she referring to? How many of us here have PhDs or medical degrees? GeorgeLTirebiter 18:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

88 is referring to the numerous citations held at Talk:Cannabis_(drug)/Archive_3#Do_something.21 and talk:Cannabis_(drug)/Archive_3#debunked_studies, a previous conversation about this very thing. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Cannabis_(drug)/Archive_3#Do_something.21, this was addressed that last time you added all of that, and most of that is from archives when other people tried to use those studies further back. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you dont get to cherry-pick the studies you don't like. See comments by George above.

Please read WP:RS, we do have standards for the sources we use. When a study has been debunked and discredited by peer review it ceases to be a reliable source. Please stop reverting your additions. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Cannabis_(drug)/Archive_3#Do_something.21 contains numerous citation discrediting the sources you are using. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I suggest you reword your anti cannabis comments in the health section to fit in with our NPOV policy, the way it was framed made it sound as if the anti cannabis POV was solid fact. I dont disagree with adding this material but in an NPOv manner which means not making it sound as if it is the truth, SqueakBox 16:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

After reading that page, it reinforces the credibility of the sources which were cited in the article. In addition, nowhere in that page does it say "when a study has been debunked...." If you have studies which show contrary claims, please add them to the article. thanks. Elmang

I suggets we work out on this talk page how to add the new material in a neutral way, SqueakBox 16:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please address our concerns about your citations instead of just re-adding it over and over. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

From WP:RS: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" ... "Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim... claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community." ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact is those claims are very much against the prevailing view of the relevant academic community, that is the issue here. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not againt the prevailing view of the relevant academic community. Yale, JAMA, NIDA, UK government? That's where the studies come from, is the academic community. It would be more accurate to say that it is not the prevailing view among cannabis users.

Eg your opening statement "Long-term cannabis use can lead to addiction for some people; that is, they use the drug compulsively even though it often interferes with family, school, work, and recreational activities" is not only unsourced but even sourced would still be an opinion and therefore it needs to be stated that this is an opinion, whereas it has been presented as incontrovertible fact, SqueakBox 16:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not opinion. It is from the largest survey on drug use in the United States which is often cited by even the most pro-cannabis of groups: "According to the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), an estimated 21.6 million Americans aged 12 or older were classified with substance dependence or abuse (9.1 percent of the total population)" The question in the survey is based on the DSV-IV criteria which is what the medical community uses as the standard definition for being addicted to a narcotic. Elmang

Those surveys are based on people looking for treatment, and here is the catch: the people looking for treatment are offered to do so as an alternative to going to jail[Jacobs, J.B. and Zimmer, L., "Drug Treatment and Workplace Drug Testing: Politics, Symbolism and Organizational Dilemmas," Behavioral Sciences and the Law 9:345-60 (1991). ], so it would count as coercion, and therefore these surveys are not reliable. 80.178.77.213 17:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is opinion. Both pro and anti drug advicacy is opinion. Sociology/psycholgy doesnt produce facts in the way hard sciences do, SqueakBox 17:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous - You're confusing surveys. The NSUDUH survey does not link the addiction question to people who are in treatment or seeaking treatment instead of jail at all. It asks the question based solely on the DSM-IV criteria, which the medical standard for determining addiction. It does not base that number on anything having to do with actual numbers of people in treatment or if they've gone throught he criminal justice sytem at all. You're confusing your arguement with the one people often make about data from the Treatment Epidsode Data set, which does include responses from people seeking an alternative to jail. Even then a majority of those (according to TEDS) still meet the medical definition for being addicted. Elmang

In terms of presenting things as fact remeber that the laws against cannabis have a distorting rol, eg making supply difficult encourahges an addictive mentality (you'd probably find a load of sugar addicts were sugar products banned etc). The fact is this is a highly disputed issue out in the world and that is what we must present, not being partial and presenting that as hard fact, SqueakBox 17:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's disputed when scientific sources finding addiction come from multiple places and studies. Regardless, shouldn't the effects of its legality be addressed in the legality section? This is about health consequences.

Going about this all wrong...

Hold on folks...the most important thing to do here is let the reader decide whether any claims are to be believed or not. That is, if a study is referenced that claims that cannabis is addicitive from a reliable source, a counter-claim supported by a different reliable source can be referenced immediately afterwards. To only present sources that have been "vetted" behind-the-scenes by a lot of non-experts is to introduce WP:POV. If NIDA says it's addictive and a study in Neuropsychopharmacology says it's not, that is what we write:

NIDA and other groups contend that there is evidence that cannabis is addicitve.^[1][2][3][4] However, some studies claim that no clear evidence exists and that the consumption of other drugs with cannabis causes the physiological signs of addiction.^[5][6][7][8]

That way everybody, prohibitionists to NORML, can have their properly sourced say in the matter. We don't decide the "truth" here people, we only present what others say is the truth, as long is it follows WP:A. -- Scientizzle 17:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Thank you. GeorgeLTirebiter 19:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Are there any non-experts here? SqueakBox 18:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd admit that I'm officially a non-expert, as I don't research cannabinoids, nor their receptors, only a related class of GPCRs. I would say that I'm rather familiar with, and have ready access to every major scholarly article concerning cannabinoids due to my academic standing.

My point is, this here isn't a debate amongst cannabis researchers, but a content dispute concerning all walks of "interested parties", each with different knowledge, histories, credentials, and pre-established POVs. -- Scientizzle 22:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You clearly are far more familiar with the scientific aspects than I am but this article is also about the legal, political etc aspects, I guess my take was that we all have different knowledges but in this article that is needed because we cover a wider grasp, IMO, than one type of expertise is likely to cover. What with Essjay expertise is a hot subject right now, SqueakBox 22:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I hear you loud and clear, and I welcome everyone else's contributions on the topics about which I'm most and least familiar (legality, cultural use, etc.). The Essjay thing certainly makes me wary of flashing credentials to gain an "upper hand" or whatever here or anywhere else. Let's get to work and try to make this article neutral and well-sourced. -- Scientizzle 22:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Scientizzle, I agree wholeheartedly. That's why I object to the removal of my sourced content. It's reliable, if anyone disagrees or wants to post the viewpoints of others PLEASE do so.Elmang

Can we please work this out on the talk page first. Elmang was presenting paragraphs of anti cannabis prose but what we want is to mix together the pro and anti, as scientizzle suggests. I have no issues with anti cannabis material here but not whole chunks of it on its own, SqueakBox 17:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Such information needs to be presented in the context of it's academic standing, the same goes for any other information in the article. The information does merit inclusion, but not in the manner presented. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I suggest we work it out on the talk page. Edit warring only harms wikipedia, SqueakBox 18:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I see citations saying that the US government has declared X number of people addicted to the drug. However, if you look at scientific work, you will see that there is no evidence of the addictive nature. The US court orders people into recovery programs for "Cannabis addiction", but this is a legal point of view, not a scientific one. Legal issue are one thing, but health issues are seperate. Perhaps a wording that more accurately reflect what the citations are saying would clear this up. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Right from the top of the next citation "Withdrawal symptoms following cessation of heavy cannabis (marijuana) use have been reported, yet their time course and clinical importance have not been established." ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim "People trying to quit report irritability, difficulty sleeping, and anxiety" is cited to [41], which does not support the claims. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim "They also display increased aggression on psychological tests, peaking approximately 1 week after they last used the drug" is cited to [42] which says "it is still undetermined whether withdrawal after chronic use results in changes in aggressive behavior in humans" ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If it says that, then why don't you cite it in the article instead of removing it all together high in BC? Elmang

It seems much of what is being added is contradicted by it's own sources, as well as already existing sources in the article. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why don't you post where in the article it contradicts itself instead of removing it. The language comes from a credible sources as listed in the wiki policies.

Back to your claim about court ordered treatment - the facts i have presented in the article are completely independent of that phenomenon because it relies on the medical definition of marijuana addiction instead of treatment rates. Elmang

What medical definition of marijuana addiction, where? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For starters, here: From the DSM-IV "On the continuum of drug/alcohol use, abuse, dependence (addiction/alcoholism) the criteria for determining addiction to drugs or alcohol and/or alcoholism is clearly spelled out by the American Psychological Association in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). The definition is key to intervention with drug/alcohol abusers as it classifies abusive drug/drinking behaviors and impacts on the type of treatment that medical insurance will cover. Reflected in the definition is the current research on brain chemistry. Important for us are the guidelines that are offered by these definitions so that we, in turn, can identify drug/alcohol (SUBSTANCE) abuse and drug/alcohol addiction (SUBSTANCE DEPENDENCE).

The term drug encompasses alcohol and, from this point forward, alcohol is included in the term “drug”. In turn, the DSM-IV uses the term “SUBSTANCE” to encompass drugs of abuse, medication or a toxin; for our purposes we shall limit the discussion to drugs of abuse. The DSM-IV-TR (text revision of 2002) continues using the same definitions as DSM-IV of 1996.

SUBSTANCE ABUSE:

           One or more of the following:

   * FAILURE TO FULFILL MAJOR OBLIGATIONS
   * USE WHEN PHYSICALLY HAZARDOUS
   * RECURRENT LEGAL PROBLEMS
   * RECURRENT SOCIAL OR INTERPERSONAL PROBLEM

With SUBSTANCE ABUSE the user has a choice: he/she uses in spite of illegal, unsafe consequences, or inappropriateness of the drinking/drugging experience." From: http://www.tcnj.edu/~adep/factsheets/dsm2.htm Elmang

Ok, but you cannot take that definition, and a second source that lists numbers of people that received treatment, then combine them into a new position. I see no indication that these medical definitions were the one's used to put people into treatment.

It seems you do have valid information to contribute, but you must stick to what each source says, and you cannot combine sources to put forward a new position. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides, define addiction as "RECURRENT LEGAL PROBLEMS" is a real US point of view. How can a medical definition include legal problems? That is like saying, if you keep doing it when it is illegal you are addicted, that is law, not science. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not grouping sources, I was asked to list how my claim wasn't opinion. It was not opinion because it was not me defining what addiction is, it's the Internationally-recognized DSM-IV definition. And that is how the source defines addiction. I will revert my previous inclusions. You are free to add it. Thank you. Elmang

I suggest against reverting again, you are in danger of violated our WP:3RR rule, and the concerns on this talk page have not been addressed. I will be more specific in a moment. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop changing the subject (and using that wiki policy to threaten me and stifle my ability to cite claims in an article with credible sources.)

I am not changing the subject, I am staying very much on it. I am simply warning you that there is a policy that you are in danger of breaking. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

More specific. The citation [43] does not say which definition it uses for addiction. There are many definitions for addiction, and the ones that include "breaking the law" as a form of addiction are one of the loosest definitions of addiction out there. You cannot combine a definition of addiction from one source and apply it to another that does not explicitly claim that is the definition being used. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Since it is clear we disagree, perhaps it would be helpful to wait a day or so and see if other peoples opinion on this matter clear the situation up. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's dissapointing that your goal is to discourage other people with valid views from using wikipedia. You do not own this article. Also, how are YOU not in danger of violating the WP:3RR rule? Elmang

If you read WP:V you will see that it is the responsibility of the person seeking inclusion of information to provide valid sources, not the responsibility of those seeking to remove it. I am not trying to discourage valid views, it is more I find your additions are not supported by citation, which I am demonstrating. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim "One study has indicated that a person's risk of heart attack during the first hour after smoking cannabis is four times his or her usual risk." which cites [44], which says "Smoking marijuana is a rare trigger of acute myocardial infarction. Understanding the mechanism through which marijuana causes infarction may provide insight into the triggering of myocardial infarction by this and other, more common stressors.", it mentions nothing about "4 times the risk". ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The risk of myocardial infarction onset was elevated 4.8 times over baseline (95% confidence interval, 2.4 to 9.5) in the 60 minutes after marijuana use. The elevated risk rapidly decreased thereafter.

Is your copy different from mine? GeorgeLTirebiter 20:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I did miss that part, my apologies. Though, what it is saying is not that myocardial infarction is 4.8x as likely in the general populations, but rather that people with acute myocardial infarction an average of 4 days after infarction onset. Big difference. The summary of the study explicitly uses the term "rare trigger of acute myocardial infarction", which directly contradicts the interpretation as it was added. What is says basically is that if you had a heart attack recently then smoking cannabis increases the risk future attacks. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim "Some adverse health effects caused by cannabis may occur because THC impairs the immune system's ability to fight off infectious diseases and cancer." cites [45], there is nothing about the immune system in that study except "A second cannabinoid receptor, the CB2 receptor, was identified by Munro et al (1993) in macrophages in the spleen and is also present in other immune cells.". ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim "Cannabis has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens" which cites [46], really says "This complex regulation of CYP1A1 by marijuana smoke and the Delta 9-THC that it contains has implications for the role of marijuana as a cancer risk factor.". ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You said: "If you read WP:V you will see that it is the responsibility of the person seeking inclusion of information to provide valid sources" That is exactly what I have done. You then proceeded to remove the content altogether. The burdern is on you in the article to list competing claims. Your bias is overwhelming and unfortunate. Elmang

I think I have done an excellent job of demonstrating that you citations do not support your claim. This is not a bias of mine, but what the sources say. Instead of calling me bias, lets wait for others to read the arguments you and I have made. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim "Cancer of the respiratory tract and lungs may be promoted by cannabis smoke" which cites [47], really says "A strong physician message to users of marijuana, cocaine, or both concerning the harmful effects of these smoked substances on the lungs and other organs may persuade some of them, especially those with drug-related respiratory complications, to quit smoking." ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

How is anyone supposed to judge when you've removed all the cited research claims completely? Elmang

Simple, there is a revision history containing your version. Also, I have listed the claims and citations I am disputing on this talk page. Also they are not really cited claims if the citation does not support the claim. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is more important to me that this article be cleaned up and better organized by using subsections and an outline format that is more conducive to worldwide readers. I've removed the most glaring error in Cannibas slang because it was unreferenced, like most of this article. Though many references are listed, the quality of most of them remains in question. Government sources that have a vested interested in disinformation and propaganda should be looked at very closely.

Is it not possible that this article be treated and explained as Cannabis (drug) equaling a category of drugs that are all derived from Marijuana? Giving examples of each and their common street names. It seems like this article is being held back by speculative criticisms regarding health affects founded on shaky science. I would strongly suggest that all claims in this article supported by only government sources in the cases that said governments actually prohibit responsible adult cannibas usage be removed from the article with great haste. Clearly NPOV issues are at hand and I feel we might avoid much of what is debatable regarding health issues considering how many unreliable government sources are used in this article. Testerer 19:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[EC] I find this comment to be a little counterproductive. Anti-estabishmentism is not the point of this article or encyclopedia, either. If a reliable source is presented, and NIDA is, as per WP policy, it's valid for inclusion of an arguably important viewpoint, scientific- and policy-wise. Again, We don't decide the "truth" here people, we only present what others say is the truth, as long is it follows WP:A. If a valid study counters the claims presented, add a phrase and reference that states such in the article... -- Scientizzle 22:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree this article should be supported by science, not politics. Defining addictions as "RECURRENT LEGAL PROBLEMS" for example is a ridiculous, politically based, POV with no basis in science. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is actually about cannabis the drug which means it needs to support both scientific and political statements, all "attributable to a reliable source" and written in a neutral way. We musnt not abandon the political issues in trying to make for an overly scientific article nor must science be ignored, SqueakBox 21:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that. Political sources should not be used as citations for medical claims, not when we have medical claims to the contrary. Now mentioning that "a particular political body has X definition for addiction, and by that definition Y amount of people are effected", that is fine. But not saying "Y number of people were addicted", or "this is the definition of addiction". ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Alleged slang

It took a lot of deabte to agree to include martijuana and ganja in the opening. Neither is a slang term, the first is the word for cannabis the drug in the US and the second is the word for cannabis the drug in India and Jamaica. it took a lot of effort tor each this consensus, please read the archive before reverting me again annd be assured it was iother users who insisted in putting in marijuana and if it is deleted they will put it in again, SqueakBox 22:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I remember the debate, I agree, they are good there. Perhaps the citations used in that debate can be used to cite those statements when they are returned. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, especially since they're both well-established terms and we have redirects for both "marijuana" & "ganja" to this article. -- Scientizzle 22:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Not true either, Ganja doesn't redirect here at all.Testerer 01:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, someone is going to need to cite some references on the commonness of those terms. Chances are most people don't say marijuana. They say pot or grass or bhang or dope etc, does anyone have any ref's to back it up or is it just original research that probably doesn't represent a worldwide view?

Not to mention

"also known as marijuana or ganja in its herbal form and hashish in its resinous form"

This also isn't referenced itself. I mean, hashish is the resinous form of Ganja? Is it? I thought hashish is something you made, through many, many different methods from Cannabis. I think someone said above, Ganja is a slang word used in 3rd world countries but would probably not be recognized in say, Mexico or Switzerland. Only by English speaking persons are these colloquialisms understood. The word Marijuana has it's own shrouded history and why that name was given to Cannabis, a little bit of research would likely discount this term entirely considering it's origin and relation to Cannabis.

Secondly and most glaringly, Hashish is not "Cannibas in resinous form" that simply is not true and entirely misleading to the reader. A big difference from the actual article on hashish

'Hashish (from Arabic: حشيش ḥashīsh, lit. grass; also hash or many slang terms) is a preparation of Cannabis composed of the compressed trichomes collected from the Cannabis plant.'

This article needs some help. It doesn't need inaccuracies and speculation or regional thinking. Lack of solid information as well as a worldwide view are what needs the most improvement. Testerer 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm off to go be busy in the "real world", but I'd ask you to check out, if you haven't already, Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 3 for the looong discussions that occured on this topic just a couple month ago. Many of your points were discussed back then. -- Scientizzle 23:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think regionalism is very important in wikipedia. Ganja and marijuana are, along with cannabis, official terms, eg those used by law enforcers who certainly dont use slang terms. And it is for this reason that we reached the consensus to include these terms. As for hashish, this is also known as cannabis resin (the legal terminology in the UK where resin is more common than bush), so to describe it as cannabis in resinous form seems enmtirely correct to me given that thisa rticle is about cannabis as drug (which isnt the remit at hashish), ie different articles requitre different descriptions, SqueakBox 23:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

On Marijuana from this very article:

"The name marijuana (Mexican Spanish marihuana, mariguana) is associated almost exclusively with the plant's psychoactive use."

This is nonsensical, what is this supposed to mean?

"The term is now well known in English largely due to the efforts of American drug prohibitionists during the 1920s and 1930s, which deliberately used a Mexican name for cannabis in order to turn the populace against the idea that it should be legal, playing upon attitudes towards race. (See 1937 Marihuana Tax Act)."

OK so it was propaganda, a made up term, slang (IE: Not it's actual Biological name, Cannibas Sativa right? It isn't Marijuana Sativa, Marijuana Indica? Ganja Indica? Didn't think so.

"Those who demonized the drug by calling it marihuana omitted the fact that the "deadly marihuana" was identical to cannabis indica, which had at the time a reputation for pharmaceutical safety.[63]""

So it was disinformation when it was used initially and sadly many people (including several editing this article) are willing to pick up the torch where William Randolf Hearst left off?

On Ganja, from NIDA:

"here are countless street terms for marijuana including pot, herb, weed, grass, widow, ganja, and hash,"

OK, I'll agree to get rid of the Ganja and Hashish in its resinous form mentions? How's that for compromise? If NIDA is to be accepted as a source in this article, then it should not be cherry picked for favored information.

But wait just one second...

"as well as terms derived from trademarked varieties of cannabis, such as Bubble Gum, Northern Lights, Fruity Juice, Afghani #1, and a number of Skunk varieties."

Fruity Juice? Trademarked Varieties? Uh... maybe NIDA is full of crap and run by former DARE officials after all. Note that the article says "varieties of cannibas" and not 'varieties of marijuana or ganja'.

If this article uses the term Marijuana and then uses the term Marihuana later on, it is inconsistent and seemingly unreliable. If this article wishes to make bold, unreferenced claims based on a limited discussion of a few people, it will be edited extensively and factual, referenced material will replace speculation. Again, so much of this article is not referenced and so many complaints have been made about it's bold fallacies that I must hold my position. Not based on my own region or opinion, they call it herb where I'm from, or Grass. Sometimes smoke or trees or headies.... If this article wishes to redefine Hashish it should at least match up with the Wikipedia article on Hashish, it doesn't it is far from it frankly. As for NIDA's take on this very subject, it is filled with NPOV issues and is overall, entirely unreliable given it's political agenda. I think WW and Unref tags should aid this article greatly until it is edited more accurately and thoroughly. Testerer 00:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Ganja and marijuana are, along with cannabis, official terms, eg those used by law enforcers who certainly dont use slang terms." If this is the kind of argument being used to justify inclusion we are in for some trouble. Law "enforcers" don't use slang terms? Again, do you have a reference for that or what?

Again with the phony "logic"

"It took a lot of deabte to agree to include martijuana and ganja in the opening. Neither is a slang term, the first is the word for cannabis the drug in the US and the second is the word for cannabis the drug in India and Jamaica"

Martijuana(sic) is the word for Cannabis the drug in the US? Then why did you just call it Cannibas, can you prove that it is in fact 'THE' word in the US? Ganja is 'the' word for Cannibas in India? Really? Got a reference that will back up either claim? Surely you mean it is "a" word or "a" name, which, if not it's actual name(Cannibas), would tend to constitute slang right? So much of this article is speculative and contains original research, I too wonder in amazement that it ever received a good rating. Testerer 00:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You are the only one who has misscalled cannabis cannibas in this section. I'll get some sources. I dont think we are here to prove as if this were a science lab but the fact that so many editors have insisted on introducing the word marijuana in the opening is enough for me, and they ahve endlessly sourced this in the now archived discussion, SqueakBox 01:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do read Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 3#"Marijuana", revisited which took place very recently and just because it is archioved does not mean it is not relevant. its highly relevanyt and indicates that a lot of editors are arguing a different line from yourself, SqueakBox 01:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I dont believe we contradict the hash article. The hashish article states "The resin reservoirs of the trichomes (sometimes erroneously called pollen) are separated from the plant via various methods." indicating that it is indeed resin which from our point of view dealing with cannabis as a drug, we certainly shouildnt mention the "trichomes" because they are emntioned at hashish (though I have long adviocated merging hashish here), SqueakBox 01:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia isn't a democracy friend. It will get cut if it isn't referenced and there are references that provide counter evidence. NIDA says Ganja is slang. This very article explains that Marijuana/Marihuana is a made up term. What we are talking about is Cannibas (drug), drugs/substances derived from Cannibas Sativa or Cannibas Indica or perhaps, though very unlikely Cannibas ruderalis. Not what some countries refer to it as. The fact that Marijuana is a very popular name in the US and Canada does not mean it is "the" name. If this were a Scientific discussion or article as other's have suggested, we would of course abstain from slang entirely and instead focus on Biological terminology based on taxonomy right?

All of that is beside the point, the fact is, this article with or without slang is highly unreferenced and full of inaccurate information. It will be fixed in time, we can debate each change to this extent if you want, but the tides of progress and improvement are inevitable. Sorry guys, Hashish isn't the Resinous form of Cannibas. Hashish is a solid and Resin is not a solid. We aren't talking about terpene components removed by distillation' right? That of course would be Rosin. NOTE: I've read the archived discussion in question and many people actually disagree with your view of inclusion.

I did see a lot of lackluster arguments like:

"North America is a big continent."

Then why is slang from India and Jamaica included?

""Marijuana" is a valid enough term to have widespread usage in the very peer-reviewed publications that make this article more informative than the average fanboi page. I think that alone asserts its validity as a proper name to be presented."

Valid enough? I thought it was either or.

"Note: "ganja" hits 5752 articles in PubMed, although only 3 of those do not have "cannabis" & 5 don't have "marijuana"...this indicates to me that very few publications exclusively refer to this drug as ganja. This doesn't mean I don't agree think it may merit mentioning, though...just some further information."

It's called meta data.

"Sure here's a quote from everyone's favorite source, the U.S. government: "researchers asked teens if they had used marijuana or hashish (another form of marijuana)" [25]. It's from one of their delightful anti-drug websites. Regardless of your feelings about the America's war on drugs and the government's peculiar choice of words, I just want you people to know marijuana is used as a broad synonym for cannabis in official sources.-"

I'm pretty sure that drugabuse.gov isn't the most reliable, unbiased, NPOV source out there.

"All we need to say (preferably in the opening sentence), is that for many outside of North America marijuana refers to the dried leaves/buds, while in North America marijuana has become virtually a synonym for cannabis. No confusion, problem solved. Then, later on in the article, if you and Thoric want to write about the nefarious, racist history of the word marijuana, do so, but try to maintain a non-preachy, NPOV tone.-"

Is this some sort of 'let's make a deal or what'? Dried leaves/buds? talk about not entirely accurate.

"I've always thought of it as slang, but apparently not: Ganja"

Linking to a dictionary definition. Well wikipedia isn't a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia, and in Wikipedia Ganja has a different entry.

"I also bolded marijuana and ganja to give them equal weight with cannabis. Can we all live with this version?"

No we can't because bold or not, it is still misleading and petty to include such slang as actual, scientific terms for something that has a real name. My daughter make love her "binky" but Suprise- it's a pacifier. Testerer 01:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We are not a democracy but we base our decisions on consensus. And hashish is called cannabis resin, eg [48]. You are ruight that slowly this article makes its way forward and if you delete marijuana someone will replace it soon enough, it always happens, SqueakBox 01:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: "slang" vs. "scientific term", in Archive 3 you'll find that I did plenty of searching on PubMed for various terms, and marijuana was very common, often absent of "cannabis" (vice versa as well). I've no opinion either way on "ganja"--it's rarely used in scientific publications--but marijuana is, and should be in that first line...especially since marijuana redirects to this article. -- Scientizzle 03:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW who is NIDA? If its American ganja may well be slang in America but it isnt everywhere, including the Oxfor Dictionary which I have used a s a source but whuich was provided by another editor, SqueakBox 01:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Can a good article include totally wrong data?

This really walks on my nerves that this is considered a good article. Indeed it is one of the worst in the whole wikipedia. Maye throughout editing in time it has lost its cutting edge because people actually change little details and this leaves no space for a good and general view for the user. As a doctor I was really disapointed how useless the part on medical complications was. Drugs with history of less than ten years and usage not at all comparable to a widespread usage of Cannabis are much better documented throughout Wikipedia. How about some actual WRONG data? Look at the legal bits... There's a map showing for example it is decrimminalized in Iran. HUH? Are you sure? In iran if police arrests you with half a gram of canabis, you will be fined AND beaten by strap AND go to jail! I guess it is the toughest penalty for it in the world. Alright, we are all here to make Wikipedia more reliable, but more and more people discussing a page does not necessarily mean it is growing better and better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.15.21.141 (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

I totally agree with your sentiment. I, and others will hopefully improve this article in the future. Testerer 23:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree those maps are very outdated and based on dubious, or unknown, definitions. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should develop some kind of quick question or cognitive exercise that you have to answer correctly before you can edit any page. there are too many immature morons out there —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.178.208.77 (talk • contribs) 18:10, March 18, 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fine as it is. Do you have any specific suggestions? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Dispute

please outline your reasons for putting on the dispute tag (otherwise my bet is someone will remove it), SqueakBox 01:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone reading the discussion page can tell that the accuracy of this article is disputed seriously by enough people that readers should know that this particular article should be viewed with greater skepticism considering the ongoing dispute. The dispute tags are added so that readers are given the best information about an article when reading it. Again, solid references in this article and less speculation might improve it greatly. It is obviously the victim of squatters so it makes it even more important that dispute tags be added.Testerer 01:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant and mean specific examples. Generalisations wont help at all as we dont know how to improve the article in order to get the tag removed. What squatters? I trust you dont refer to wikipedia editors as squatters, see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Certainly cant see what the article has to do with squatters? SqueakBox 01:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)\

Get rid of inaccurate speculative information like:

• Cannibas/Marijuana aka (Hashish in it's resinous form). is misleading and not accurate.
• Stop using bogus sources like the "recreation drug information home page" to try and prove your edits.
• Stop using the dictionary to write an encyclopedia.
• There is confusion when many people view Marijuana as the name of a plant and not necessarily Cannabis (drug)- that's not articulated at all.
• Statements like this sound like original research because they are not referenced

"Humans have been consuming Cannabis since prehistory, although in the 20th century there was a rise in its use for recreational, religious or spiritual, and medicinal purposes."

This is a huge claim to make yet there is no references. I doubt you could have any at all anyways because it attempts to show a rise of Cannibas use (not marijuana or ganja mind you) since prehistory!? How could this not be disputed.

This article also has weaselly statements like the following

"The production of Cannabis for drug use remains illegal throughout most of the world through the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, while simple possession of small quantities is either legal, or treated as an addiction rather than a criminal offense in a few countries. The laws in the United States vary from state to state, some having decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana although it is still a federal crime."

It starts out saying how most of the world Cannibas is illegal (which is changing fast and is questionable itself) while jumping to Cannibas laws in the US without doing a fair job of describing anything at all. It also doesn't reference itself, like so much of this article.

How about the subsection called "Immediate effects of consumption"

doesn't that feel a bit like speculation, original research?

I could literally post dozens more examples but all in all, this article is a mess, full of speculation, does not match up too well with other wikipedia articles that cover the same or included topics. This article attempts to redefine things within the context of this article and not from a fair, worldwide, honest perspective. Testerer 02:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm signing off now but will respond in the morning, as I am sure will other editors. I think the more examples you can give the better, SqueakBox 02:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How about getting rid of the maps that are clearly misleading and ultimately useless. Either something is legal or it's not. To say "Essentially" legal discredits the entire map. To say "often unenforced" is just as bad. Why is most of Africa listed as "probably" illegal. The fact that these maps remain is proof enough that this article needs help. It is not encyclopedic at all and will improve greatly from more editing. The tags are there merely to allow for more discussion and provide readers with more complete information. Thanks again, after all LOST is on.Testerer 02:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Testerer, you raise some good points. I went through and edited some of this article so it would be more readable, but tried not to throw out too much stuff because I didn't want to step on too many toes without consulting other editors. I tried to define the use of the term Cannabis in this article, but met with resistance and I don't want to get into an editing war. I don't think statements that are undisputed have to be referenced. If you find false or misleading statements in this article, then be bold and change them. You don't have to ask us for permission. I agree that those maps are clearly wrong and should be updated or deleted. There are plenty of references that show Cannabis has been used since pre-history, but the part about it increasing in use in the 20th century is poorly worded. The statement could be qualified to indicate that marijuana (hashish, etc.) use increased in the USA and certain other countries in the 20th century. I do not know the statistics. This article should not focus primarily on the USA, but there do not seem to be many editors here from other countries who can fill us in on the details about other locations. You are correct that non-authoritative sources should usually not be referenced (I won't say never), unless one is specifically referring to information that appears in the popular literature. Some of the references are to newspaper articles that report on recent scientific findings. If an article interviews an author of the scientific report then it can be informative, but in general it is better to reference the primary source. The journalists who write newspaper articles almost always get a few things wrong. There was a big splash about Rasta several months ago that fizzled, apparently because the authors released their findings to the press before they were published in professional journals and (I am guessing here) the Rasta claim didn't make it through peer-review. Thanks for pointing out some of the deficiencies in this article. Now how about doing some research yourself and contributing to it? GeorgeLTirebiter 14:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis seeds

I see the sentence stating that Cannabis seeds can be openly purchased throughout much of Europe was removed by HighInBC because of a lack of reference. As far as I know it is a true statement. Here is one reference: Baker, P. B., Gough, T. A., and Taylor, B. J. 1982. The physical and chemical features of Cannabis plants grown in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from seeds of known origin. Bulletin on Narcotics 34(1): 27-36.

Seeds from which Cannabis can be grown in the United Kingdom may be derived from three principal sources: (a) from seed sold within the United Kingdom for fish bait or bird seed... Seeds sold legally within the United Kingdom have been shown to have poor germination rates ...

It is my understanding that viable Cannabis seeds can be purchased openly in the UK, but it is illegal to plant them (I realize this is an old ref and maybe things are different now). Someone told me that Cannabis seeds can be purchased at pet stores in Holland as bird food. They are even in some bird seed mixes sold in the USA. I don't know about elsewhere in Europe. Perhaps HighInBC thinks the sentence was referring only to viable Cannabis seeds of drug strains? GeorgeLTirebiter 13:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the reference, feel free to re-add the information with the citation. I only removed it as it has been marked as needing a citation for some time. Good work. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh who want weed seeds? How bout this...go to the lamest dope boy and buy a sack then there you go, you got mo seeds in the sack than weed. Feel me!?

Not feeling you no. Most experienced smokers would know that "lamest dope boy" with stuff full of seeds will likely either have crap "Jamaican" Sativa similar, badly grown outdoor varieties. People buy seeds so they can get the best possible quality hybrid strains for indoor growing. Sativa will not grow well indoors. I can confirm buying of seeds is legal in the UK, but only for use as bird seed or fishing bait. Although who would spend £40 on 12 seeds for fishing is a good question of course. CJK

Actually the UK law does not say you have to use seeds for fishing or bird seed it merely says you cant use them for growing. The day the law becomes that prescriptive is unlikely to arrive. Jamaican is rubbish? That is a POV as is the idea that we all live in cold places, SqueakBox 15:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The Edit War Continues

I see Elmang has put the NIDA references back in. Unfortunately, Elmang has included the version with all the references pointing back to the NIDA report. I spent several hours searching out the abstracts or full reports and pointing the references directly to them. I also put in a statement saying that all of the references in the above paragraphs were from that report, and that it was not clear whether the author of those paragraphs (apparently Elmang) actually bothered to read the original studies, or whether those paragraphs came directly from the report. It is wiki policy to inform the reader if one has not read a reference, and is referring to someone elses interpretation. Perhaps that is why Elmang pointed to the NIDA report for all the references. I don't know. I have no problem with those studies being in this wiki article, but I have a problem with some of Elmang's statements regarding those reports, such as Elmang's failure to note that the actual incidence of heart attacks triggered by marijuana in the cited study were reported by the authors of that study as "rare." Also, I have a problem with such statements as, "In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 percent to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke." One should be very careful about citing the results of a single report as "fact." It depends on how the study was performed. What is being compared to what? Is that on a per-weight basis of condensed smoke? I propose reverting Elmang's version of those seven paragraphs to my updated version that points to the actual references, and disputes some of the findings. Before I make that reversion, I will wait a day or two to see if Elmang or others respond to this notice of intent. GeorgeLTirebiter 15:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, revert his additions unless they are properly cited. We have gone through this before with him twice. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Elmang's edits verge on vandalism. not only the reliability of the studies is much disputed (Tobacco use is not isolated, substandard methodology, very controversial definition of addiction etc.), the citations obviously distort (as proper for NIDA) the original study (that may or may not have been published and peer reviewed, and was probably funded by NIDA), and knowing this, Elmang keeps returning the paragraphs. this counts as vandalism. LetTheSunshineIn 17:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

NIDA is an acceptable source

Yes, the National Institute on Drug Abuse is a branch of the National Institutes of Health, through which it is funded by the American government, which may or may not have a vested interest in the coninued illegality of cannabis (etc.) and promoting the view that the drug is harmful. I think any reasonable person can see that.

But that doesn't make claims by NIDA unacceptable for this or any article. Consider that NIDA, with a budget over a $1 billion (which is claimed to be ~85% of the world's spending on drug abuse[49]), is an important funding and research agency for the USA and stands as an influential organization for research and policy thoughout the world. Thus, even if the official NIDA stance on a drug is influenced by the political climate, that doesn't mean that such claims are inappropriate here.

As I stated above:

The most important thing to do here is let the reader decide whether any claims are to be believed or not. That is, if a study is referenced that claims that cannabis is addicitive from a reliable source, a counter-claim supported by a different reliable source can be referenced immediately afterwards. To only present sources that have been "vetted" behind-the-scenes by a lot of non-experts is to introduce WP:POV. If NIDA says it's addictive and a study in Neuropsychopharmacology says it's not, that is what we write:

NIDA and other groups contend that there is evidence that cannabis is addicitve.^[1][2][3][4] However, some studies claim that no clear evidence exists and that the consumption of other drugs with cannabis causes the physiological signs of addiction.^[5][6][7][8]

That way everybody, prohibitionists to NORML, can have their properly sourced say in the matter. We don't decide the "truth" here people, we only present what others say is the truth, as long is it follows WP:A.

Rather than delete every (properly added) NIDA source and chastise anyone who adds them, since they are sources that meet WP:A, find reliable counterclaims. NIDA's POV is particularly relevant as it shapes a significant portion of the world's research and drug policy.

I'm not singling anyone out, nor judging the quality of any specific NIDA material. this is just a caution that rejecting a source because you don't like 'em is counterproductive to the project. -- Scientizzle 16:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted the NIDA essay in question. As I see it, the problem is that this is a secondary source that may have its own original synthesis. I think the way to include this info is to add it source by source, and not try to paste chunks of the NIDA essay in unchanged (I think you mentioned a similar sentiment earlier). Many assertions are probably already made in this article so in many cases we don't need to add a ton of paragraphs, only add citations. -- Diletante 04:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your reversion of a well-meaning, but inappropriate addition was certainly correct. It was a literal cut-n-paste from the NIDA site. That, however, was not what I was referring to above...My verbose plea above was in response to a number of editors' attempts to remove any and all citations from or about NIDA. NIDA is (understandably) strongly disliked by pro-cannabis folks, and distrusted because it must represent the current state of drug research whilst not contradicting the government's legal stance on any substance...

My note above was simply to assert that info from NIDA is reliable (as per WP:RS) and, as such, readily eligible to be included. This was an attempt to prevent people from wholesale removal of sources they disliked and rather find sources that effectively counter any NIDA claims (of which there are a plethora).

As for your interpretation of the reverted cut-n-paste, I think you're a little mistaken about secondary sources...secondary sources are, by definition, synthetic accounts based on other 1° & 2° sources. You're right that to paste chunks of the essay isn't correct, but that's more for copyright & continuity/flow/aesthetic concerns, not because of its own original synthesis. The essay from which the text was taken is a perfectly appropriate source to cite. — Scientizzle 15:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah thanks for clearing that up. Sorry if i put my comment in the wrong place, I came late to this discussion because I only looked at this talk after I reverted that edit. The point I was trying to make is that pretty much all the claims that NIDA makes have citations. So if we are going to include the NIDA claims we might as well "cut out the middle-man" and use those citations directly, verifying them of course.

In a somewhat related matter I just noticed that the NIDA website faq says "NIDA's products are in the public domain and can be copied as a whole without seeking permission from NIDA. Also, text selections and graphics that do not have source citations listed beside, above, or below them can also be used without permission." (empasis added by me)-- Diletante 02:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that, in general, it would be better to cut the middle man & link directly to the source. NIDA's site does have its advantages, though. Many people have little-to-no access to scientific publications and that can limit the readership's (and our editors') ability to verify statements within the article and correct, clarify or refute as needed. Additionally, it's useful also as a conduit to the USA's official stance on drugs of abuse. — Scientizzle 02:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Good points, I agree. -- Diletante 02:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

NIDA has a link to the UCLA Medical Centers 2000 study on mice that were injected with THC, but they do not seem to have a link to the 2006 UCLA Medical Center's study showing that their original findings, after being tested on humans, were incorrect. This, in my opinion, shows that the NIDA does not want to report correct findings, even when Medical Doctors such as Donald Tashkin from UCLA show evidence, from studies performed on humans, that marihuana does not seem to cause cancer or tumors. The 2006 study claims that THC might actually kill off old cells, which might mutate and cause cancer. This is just a claim at this point. UCLA is testing DNA to see the exact effects on the human body from marihuana use. Nly8nchz 07:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Assuming it's true (NIDA's selctive citation, not the sudy results), none of that changes what I've written above. NIDA is still a reliable source as defined by WP:RS. This article isn't built on only NIDA sources, so there's no shortage of alternate viewpoints and NIDA-uncited studies. What you've got is a potentially relevant criticism of the institute (or at least its webmasters). Again, the proper thing to do is present an authoritative, cited argument for an alleged effect of cannabis, and counter it with cited criticisms and counterexamples to the claims (giving no undue weight to fringe theories). If NIDA claims that cannabis causes cancer, that's an important viewpoint, as it helps drive government action & public opinion. If there are recent studies that refute such claims, that's important to note as well. There's no sense in presenting Tashkin's 2006 results without the framing of why they might be important or controversial! Let the reader decide... — Scientizzle 15:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed?

I don't think that because a terminology dispute the whole article should be tagged as disputed. if you think that there are factual inaccuracies in the article, do fix them. Let The Sunshine In 18:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree the tag is not needed. Most of the disputes here are without basis, and the few that are, are being handled very well. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

then remove it please Let The Sunshine In 19:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A NIDA Research Report on marijuana abuse mentions an unreferenced "series of studies" of rats exposed daily to an unspecified amount of THC for 30% of their typical lifespan that showed neurodegeneration of the hippocampus, an area of the brain associated with memory and learning

There is no room for unreferenced series of studies in wikipedia.. please remove it and state that cannabis temporarily impairs short term memory (i'd do it but the page is locked) Let The Sunshine In 19:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a shame that someone would arbitrarily remove such tags without a real discussion. A disputed tag in many ways is a good thing because it helps readers know what is going on behind the scenes. Imagine how much good info about the responsible improvements to this article that readers are alerted to with such tags. Additionally such disputed tags and unfortunately marginalized "terminology" or "factual inaccuracy" issues are not diminished because tags are hastily removed. Many good points have been brought to light in discussion and to blindly remove dispute tags is irresponsible. The main problem with this article is that it is not in fact about "Cannabis (drug)". Most of the article has no symmetrical relation to that subject it all. Of course the history of the Hashishans is more than briefly covered, and even though there is already a well formed article on Medical Cannibas- that subject is again redefined in this article. Did you know the legality of Cannabis (drug) in Hong Kong is also covered in this article? Let us not mention that, Spiritual Use of Cannabis- already having it's own highly informative article- is also defined in this article about "Cannabis (drug)"- because as a reader I really want to read an entire page on Medical Use instead of actually reading the Wiki Article on Medical Cannabis. Such redundancy does not befit a good article. Look at the discussion pages as of late. A few days does not somehow fix the article. The tags are fair. Testerer 06:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"please remove it and state that cannabis temporarily impairs short term memory (i'd do it but the page is locked"

Why? Because you said so. You have a link to prove that? This is why this article is clearly disputed. Too much original research along with copious redundancy. :) Testerer 06:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Original reseach? are you serious?! it isn't even disputed. but if you want, I'll give you a link.. Let The Sunshine In 12:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC) about the tag, it's misleading, it makes the readers think that the facts that are written here are lies, when you only claim they are irrelevant, I ask you too change it to something more appropriate. Let The Sunshine In 12:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO, all the article is entirely about cannabis (drug), and it doesn't matter in what preperations of it; Hashish, Weed, Bhang, it's all Cannabis (drug). Let The Sunshine In 12:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hashish should by rights be merged into this article, IMO, SqueakBox 17:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

according to what you Testerer says, this page need more than all a cleanup. Let The Sunshine In 12:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

removal of references & names

someone removed this study i think "(2001-09-01) "Neuroprotection by 9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, the Main Active Compound in Marijuana, against Ouabain-Induced In Vivo Excitotoxicity"...its in an older version of the page if someone wants to retrieve and paste it back...and the new intro on terms I think is not so good...it was "Cannabis (also known in its herbal form as herb, buds, & ganga (typically by today's users in the states), and as marijuana or grass & pot (typically by users in europe, older users, or by the press & authorities). It is also known as hash in its resinous form)"...the fact is I used to live in the states for many years, and knew many many people that smoked cannabis from several diverse areas of the states, and people really never, hardly even once, called it marijuana, it was almost always refered to as herb, buds, or else ganga...it is almost always the authorities that call it marijuana and the name was picked up by the scientific establishment too i suppose...of course there are many code words for it, but the non-coded words and that are typically used arent included anymore!...adding the words pot, grass, and marijuana is also valid, but two of these are generally used by those in opposition to cannabis "pot" and "marijuana"...I think you need to be a little more current and explain these distinctions for the 6 commonly used words...83.78.128.62 18:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

the neuroprotection is mentioned here, the first time in the medical use paragraph (prevention of Alzheimer's desease, the claim is attributed to another study of neuroprotection), and the second time in the health issues, where it's unsourced and the study that you mentioned should be put their.

About the names, you are absoloutly right, but the fact that there is a formal use of the name 'marijuana' (as much as I hate it), but herb and buds are two of hundreds of regional slang names, makes it mandatory to mention 'marijuana' but inappropriate to selectively feature a few slang names.

Let The Sunshine In 19:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes exactly, it should go by that uncited sentence, it actually was there, but an editor removed it with no explanation, i was tracking a frequent "Ann Coulter" editor's past edits and noticed he removed that study from the article with no explanation. As to the names, your argument is sound, I'm just saying that I've been all over the states and only heard a couple names for it used frequently and consistently, those being herb, bud or buds, and ganga...I agree the marijuana name should stay, I was for putting the 6 really common names its called by, two of those happen to have more negative connotations, marijuana and pot, the other four, grass, ganga, herb, and buds are rather neutral it seems...if i was to add a seventh I would add dope, another word with negative connotation usually used by american police, but that one can be confusing as its used for several other drugs too, and most specifically heroin i think, so i wouldnt add that one, yet ganga is called by that on occasion...83.78.136.13 22:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well we certainly wouldnt want just American names were we to use slang though IMO we should not use slang names at all, and the current opening is based on that premise, SqueakBox 22:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Another example is this subsection title:

"Relationship with other illicit drugs"

Well this is clearly not written from a NPOV, nor it is worldly is having a fair representation of Cannabis considering many more countries are legalizing or decriminalizing and to use the term illicit unfairly groups Cannabis with chemical based drugs such as Heroin and Cocaine. This is not only disinformative but yet another reason the Dispute tags are fair. The subsection title itself leads readers to believe Cannabis is an illicit drug, I dispute that and I would recommend a change.Testerer 06:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then fix whatever errors you find, don't tag the article. anyway, in most countries cannabis is controlled, even if it is dicriminalized. illicit doesn't mean criminal, it means not legal, and it most countries, it isn't legal yet (I sure hope it will be..). Let The Sunshine In 12:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This article needs urgent cleanup

Over the months people, mostly stoners, added a lot of crap into this article... it requires urgent attention. Let The Sunshine In 15:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the stoners have completely taken over this article. Elmang

I concur with you. My edits have been reverted in hours and at least a few times within minutes. I have other articles that need my attention and I am fed up trying to clean up the pro-bias prevalent in the article. --Darth Borehd 01:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis intoxication article

I would like to start a article on cannabis intoxication but i am not a stoner so i have little idea what its like, so if there are any stoners that could help that would be good.The Right Honourable 09:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good idea (there is also an article about the psychedelic experience). I'll help if I find the time. Let The Sunshine In 12:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The feeling of being high can actually be quite difficult to describe. It can vary from a simple pleasant feeling throughout your body all the way to a mild delirium(If used in large excessive amounts which I wouldn't recommend)An example from my own experiences would be numbness, mental hallucinations(i.e. The feeling of walking when you are not). Shaking of the knees, twitching, paranoia in some cases.Ishiyma Eloc 23:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like more than just cannabis, surely cannabis is what you get every time and mental hallucinations like that are rare, SqueakBox 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I check to see if my marijuana is laced or not. So far its never been laced and those are some of the effects that I've felt. Whether you believe me or not, that's your choice.Ishiyma Eloc 23:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That is so stupid. Who the hell twitches n all that shit from smoking? What the hell was you smokin on...crack? Weed makes you feel good inside and out. It may not make evrybody feels the same anyways. You was smokin some laced shit. How did you check it?...cuz the only way to check is to fire that shit up and smell what the fuck it smells like. If it's like this burnt rubber smell then you was on some laced shit...ok!

Hmm. I will not be drawn into an argument over other people feelings or percieved sensations, or hypothesizing that their dope was laced. Everyone has a different experience. Please note that different varieties, different growing methods and even different methods of ingestion ALL have a strong link to the effects that are felt. There is therefore no easy answer to this question....Here are my own views, which I have restricted to the most obvious effects I notice for the majority of varieties I have smoked. The primary feelings associated with MILD cannabis intoxication (i.e. 1-3 spliffs for an experienced user, less than 1 spliff for a novice) are: feelings of well-being and relaxation, a perception of enhanced awareness of sound and visual detail, mildly decreased concentration, increased lethargy (strongly dependant on variety and "ripeness" of the cannabis plant at harvest time), time seems to pass more quickly (a function of the other effects no doubt. I can watch hours of rubbish TV and not get bored) and libido is moderately increased. The strong relaxing effect, which seems to affect the self-awareness of the brain similarly - but much less strongly - than alcohol, depends on the user and the cannabis smoked. Along with the other effects, it tends to lead to more relaxed interactions with those around you, often marked by improved mood, decreased anxiety and heightened enjoyment of stimulus. (You are more likely to laugh at bad jokes, or find poor conversation amusing! These effects all tends to reduce substantially once a smoker has been using the drug for a sustained period) STRONG intoxication (i.e. 4 spliffs or more for experienced user, 1 or more for novice) leads to stronger feelings of the same type as those mentioned above, but with vision and concentration much more severly impaired. Memory is more obviously affected, with short-term memory effects apparent to the user. This only affects the creation of memory whilst under the influence, with memory function returning to approx. normal within 4-6 hours. The effect of "Munchies" varies from person to person, and tends to diminish with continued use. Reports of paranoia and panic attacks are valid and real, however my personal experience is that this is triggered by environmental factors with the lack of clear cognition whilst intoxicated increasing susceptability by encouraging a feedback loop of negative thought. i.e. Cannabis does not cause paranoia, but reduces our ability to "resist" and dispel paranoid thoughts. This can be exacerbated by feelings of increased sensitivity and awareness, which can be seen as unusual, with negative implications. (I call this "unchecked feedback"....Feeling your own heartbeat strongly can be enough to trigger a paranoid reaction, which, unchecked, can in turn spiral such that you notice it more, which further increases heart rate and so on...) Also, in my experience, feelings of depression can also be strengthened by regular cannabis use, however this seems to be due primarily to the effect the drug has on social interaction, such as the tendancy of regular users to introversion and reduced social engagement. The debate on the psychological effect of cannabis tends to place insufficient importance on these functional factors, as well as the fact that people more susceptible to mental instability are more likely to feel compelled to use cannabis as a crutch to "provide" short term happiness in the first place. I could go on to be honest, but I'm out of time!! (CJK - 22 March 2007)

"The right honourable gentleman is indebted to his memory for his jests, and to his imagination for his facts." --Richard Brinsley Sheridan

Well I can tell you the only actual scientific study to date was done through a unified effort of UoO and UoW. The only real effect is an acceleration of the metabolism (hunger, fatigue, and bliss) and a layer of THC induced fat that lines the cells of your brain (minor psychosomatic effects in some people). The fat is temporary for anywhere to day to a few months after smoking, depending on your rate of metabolism. All other articles are based off of this research and as with all 'retelling' of stories, they become misconstruded. ~BK 134.39.114.194 17:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Knife in the picture?

Why is a knife considered to be part of the "Variety of cannabis-smoking paraphernalia." I could see scissors, but a knife? Chewbacca1010 18:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone uses a knife to finely dice the weed? Babylon pride 23:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The grass? I was gthinking more along the lines of cutting the hashish, SqueakBox 00:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

But only a dealer would have the need to do that. Perhaps we should remove the pic? SqueakBox 00:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I regularly use a jack-knife to clean my steel bowls when they get completely full of resin, and know many others who do also -Moss Ryder--71.97.162.13 15:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but what is a jack-knife? SqueakBox 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hot knife (smoking)? -- Scientizzle 00:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Agghh! Clever man, its been so long since I've seen hashish I plain forgot about that, though one would need 2 knives, SqueakBox 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You guys are a bunch [censored], the knife is used to scrape resin, you [censored] Don't put your [censored] inputs with an obvious undertone of rude [censored]! -------((Me))

What rubbish! The knife is far too big and anyone desperate enought o scrape a pipe for resin knows yoyu dont do so with a knife lol, SqueakBox 15:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol I love these people.. Let The Sunshine In 12:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

One, Squeakbox, I don't think it's right to censor the person. If they want to swear and look like a moron, let them. Especially since they misspelled things. I reverted it. You took out major parts of the comment which isn't right - stupid idiot, for example, isn't something that should be censored. If you really /need/ to censor it, do it with *s. (I mean, we're commenting on a Cannabis (drug) article for crying out loud and with you being the main commenter. I'm guessing you've heard fuck and shit before.) Second, you can scrape a pipe with a knife. You just need to be careful. And it can be that big. Just you use the tip. It's not like a five foot knife. Babylon pride 15:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not censoring, I am removinga personal attack which is policy. Do not re-add it or you could be considered to be making a personal attack yoyurself. We absolutely need a nice atmosphere to discuss things here. Just because we discuss cannabis does not mean we are all tokers etc! SqueakBox 15:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 15:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually we do have a no personal attack policy "stupid idiot" is not allowed. This isn't about censorship(that is when someone tells you what you can't say on your website), this is about having basic rules of civility. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

With the tip of the knife you would scrape the tip of the pipe and perhaps the bowl. A needle or ideally a long very thin metal object would be what one would use to clean a pipe, SqueakBox 15:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally would not want to scrape a pipe with that knife, that is not kosher. You would have far more progress with a paper clip unfolded. ~BK 134.39.114.194 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The knife is used to smoke cannabis. It's called 'hot knives' where you heat up a knife untill it's glowing red, the put a peice of hash or bud onto it and suck the smoke through a tube/cigarette or whatever.

That would take 2 knives and I would wager that kinife in the pic has not been exposed to heat because it would mark the knife, SqueakBox 19:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Theory of not getting high the first time

What's the deal with so many people not getting high the first time? I have found three different reasons:

a) No proper inhaling b) Getting high is a learned behaviour so it takes some time to notice the 'high' c) Not proper weed is used.

I find all the reasons quite inadequate, considering the huge amount of people that don't get high the first time i don't see how it can be explained with these reasonings. I tried to research internet but I couldn't find any reliable information.

This should go to Talk:Cannabis (drug), not here. If you could have sourced it we could have added it there though we dont try to figure out things ourselves here, we are an encyclopedia not a university, see Wikipedia:Attribution, SqueakBox 00:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sorry maybe wrong place but i didn't mean to ask for your own theories only if someone could point out some research found in internet.

I have no idea but the phenomenon you describe does, IMO, unquestionably exist so maybe its just a matter of looking harder. I have to say of your 3 theories that a and c can be discountyed completely, a because cigarettem smokers experience the same phenomena and there isnt the slightest evidence that poor quality cannabis affects this phenomena. Why not move the whole section to the other article talk? SqueakBox 00:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a well knows phenomenon, with no actual basis in science. In my experienced opinion, people who do it for the first time without an experienced friend don't get high, because of the following reasons: They can't inhale it properly, they don't know how to prepare the substance properly, and they don't know to operate the smoking device properly (how to use a bong, pipe or how to roll a joint), and they don't know how much substance to use. When people smoke cannabis for the first time with the help and guidance of an experienced user, they do get high.. very very high. Let The Sunshine In 17:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that certainly isnt my experience and certainly people who do know how to inhale have the same problem whiel preparation is very simple and cant deter anyone. Its sourced references we need to put this phenomenon in the article, SqueakBox 22:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Even people who smoke tobacco don't necceserily smoke it right. I don't think there is any scientific basis for that. If you can find a reliable source to attribute it to, do add it of course.. Let The Sunshine In 16:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont believe, other than inhaling, that there is a right way to smoke cannabis, SqueakBox 16:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think I was high when I first smoked it, but I was happy laughing and eating a lot. I just didn't know what to expect, so I didn't notice, I just thought I was in a good mood. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

My first time smoking I laughed a little bit then fell asleep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.152.221 (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes I thought I was getting high for a couple of weeks on good weed and then when I smoked hash the first time I realised I hadnt been getting high at all, and that was one of the most memorable nights of my youth, SqueakBox 19:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't get high the first time because your brain releases chemicals to compensate for the THC. It never does this on subsequent occasions.

--Zubedar 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get high the first time either. What's the deal here? Just thought you'd like to hear my opinion.

Article too bias

I know a ton of weed users are probably writing up this article but still. This makes weed sound like almost always a good thing. It needs to be balanced, especially since the final word about it has not been made yet. More mention needs to be made of it's negative effects. It's too slanted to the so called "positive effects" or "no terrible effects" of weed. I know there are probably a ton of weed users online but still. bootleg42 2:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is not supposed to encompass all the health effects because it would be way too long. there's the Health issues and the effects of cannabis article. When you refer to the terrible effects, what effects exactly do you mean? can you source them? Let The Sunshine In 12:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We are often told this article is bias. But which facts are not supported by citation? Which negative effects can you attribute to a reliable source? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Bootleg, you're perfectly welcome to edit the article to include any and all negative effects, so long as they're relevant and you cite reliable sources. Pubmed is a great place to do research. Jolb 18:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As has been pointed out previously, all attempts to do so in the past have been reverted within hours. Sources that support the scientific and medical consensus that marijuana, especially in combustible form, is dangerous to human health are straw-manned as "propaganda" by proponents and excluded in favor of the few sources that counter the viewpoint. I have edited the article in the past including sources from NIDA, the AMA and others only to have the original text re-inserted despite of its flagrant violation of the NPOV policy by the marijuana advocates that monitor it. Until something is done to reign in the obvious pro-bias in the article, attempts to correct it to a proper NPOV article are an exercise in futility. --Darth Borehd 01:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I keep hearing people say that, but I don't see this actual scientific research. Sometimes people call up certain studies that have been considered unreliable by peer review, but the studies that are actually supported by reliable sources are already included. The fact is there is a lot of bias, and down right phony research in this field. You can usually type in the name of a study into google and find out what other scientists think of the methodology. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I took a look over this article myself, this is probably the most biased article I've seen. I'm not trying to say whether stuff is right or wrong, but...well, just look at it. ~90% of all mentions of the effects of cannabis say it's a good thing...that peole compensate for their lack of coordination while driving, that it drastically improves memory, that it has no potential for addiction, that the brain is genetically made for the reception of cannabis specifically, that people will develop tolerance to any possible change in the body's chemistry caused by cannabis, etc. There are maybe one or two instances in the whole range of cannabis articles where it is even mentioned that cannabis might possibly have any kind of negative side-effect other than disorientation, loss of motor coordination, etc. Even if one were to just write in that many people believe cannabis has certain negative side effects, and if those were listed, would go a tremendous way to making this article more neutral point-of-view.

I just wanted to add my two cents. Peoples main complaint is that most of the comments suggest cannibis is good and the rest and there are very few negative efects. How does this suggest bias. If there was an article on well balanced diet that had 100% of comments suggesting a well balanced diet was good for you would that make it bias? Of course not. What we need to ask ourselves is if the article presents acts from peeer-reviewed studies, and if such facts are removed. I went through the history to decide for myself. The fact is, every time a fact is removed that had a cited source, even fromt he NIDA it is clearly not solid evidence. Lets face the fact, just because the goverment, or some organization released an article doesnt make it fact. Do the research and check the peer-reviews. They just dont hold up. Ive ound so many white papers (im a scientist) from goverment agencies that are clearly biast and fail peer review. The act of the matter is, yea, pot has some bad qualities. but or the most part, it is a pretty benign harmless substance. Any objective view that actually does the research would have to agree with this article.

Weed ain't no drug!!!

209.66.200.83 (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Lol, then I geuss Cocaine and Morphine aren't drugs either.. Let The Sunshine In 15:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, weed is clearly a drug.Caughtinthe middle 16:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC) but this talk/article wouldn't be of much value to a user (stoner) who also needs a mentally healthy environment, free of demeaning stimuli, from which personal agendae cannot be easily separated. Caughtinthe middle 17:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If weed wasnt a drug it wouldnt be illegal. Nor would it get you high. Parsley isnt a drug but neither does it sell for $US200 an ounce in some wealthy places, SqueakBox 17:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Weed is a drug. It is not illegal in all places in the world; some of these places have laws and ethics codes roughly comparable to the United States, which I presume is the place from which you are assuming it is illegal. It's still a drug, but many drugs are not illegal, and many things that are illegal aren't drugs. 68.228.89.148 18:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wasnt thinking about the uS, a country I dont really know, myself. Can you point out one place where the supply and cultivation of cannabis as a drug isnt illegal at all? SqueakBox 19:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Examples of things which are illegal but which are not "drugs" abound in the world around us, like fireworks. Bud would get one high whether it was legal or illegal. Caughtinthe middle 17:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes but gunpowder is illegal for other reasons as is making a loud noise at night in some places. But if weed werent a drug it wouldnt get you high nor would it be illegal, SqueakBox 18:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

^^^U chat [censored] man. jus coz sumfin gets u high dunt meen its illegal. alcohol gets u [censored word for drunk] bt its not illegal n its not actually illegal 2 b high - bt possesion n usage is so it meks no sense - ima smoke bhudda til i die :

It is illegal to drink alcohol in Saudi Arabai. And to possess weed in many places though its not illegal to smoke in the UK. You havent given an argument, SqueakBox 20:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job Squeaky! i would write more but im headed out the door to go pick up a bag of weed:)

THC is a psychoactive drug. Weed is a psychoactive herb. If there is more than one psychoactive component in marijuana then how can you call it a drug? GeorgeLTirebiter 22:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For legal purposes etc it works fine. And indeed where legal it is sold as a drug and not as a psychoactive cocktail of drugs for obvious reasons. Peter Tosh sang Legalize It not Legalize Them and form a marketers' point of view you can see why, SqueakBox 22:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the "it" Peter refers to is the herb. If "it" is a single drug and not a "cocktail," then how do you account for the purported difference in effect between "indica" and "sativa?" Peyote contains several psychoactive alkaloids and its effects differ from pure mescaline. The native Americans who use peyote do not think of it as a drug or a drug cocktail, but rather as a sacrament. Why do you insist on defining the herb in legalistic terms? GeorgeLTirebiter 01:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to take you all into the mind of the type of pot user who likes to lie to himself:

A:I consume marijuana.

B:I don't partake in actions harmful to myself.

C:Drugs are harmful to people using them.

A+B+C ->D

D:Marijuana is not a drug.

Proof of D

Drugs -> Artificial

Artificial -> Harmful

~Harmful ->~Artificial = Natural

Natural=~Artificial=->~Drugs

You can also use this to prove that cyanide, tigers, and ocean water are innocuous and that antibiotics, aspirin, books, and all synthetic fibers are detrimental to your health.--Loodog 00:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Man, go check if your health insurance covers logic implantations.. Let The Sunshine In 00:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. When I die and go to hell, it will be filled with people missing my sarcasm and its use in a reductio ad absurdum while they claim to have IQs of >140.--Loodog 02:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol I did get your sarcasm, but it was such nonsense that It was funny anyway.. Let The Sunshine In 12:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your reductio at the very least needs declarative sentences, or "propositions," for which the symbols stand, according to E.J.Lemmon. Otherwise, any contradiction, i.e., P&-P, R&-R, (P-->Q)&-(P-->Q), derived from an assumption opposite your desired conclusion will appear to the disinterested eye frail, weak and puny, hair disheveled as though it had once promoted the starving artist image. Don't forget to discharge the assumptions! (Note how the short hair of the RAA grows long--[when no one is watching]--only to return to short again.) Dont trust it, Sunshine! Almostcut mylonghair 13:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A Drug is a substance that can change your metabolism, therefore, weed can be called a drug, thats not an opinion, its a definition, meaning that eighter you like it or not thats the way it is

All of the above is off the point. Regardless of above loaded tangents, a drug is an artificially synthesized substance, ergo Cannabinol is a drug, while Cannabis, as a natural substance, is not. The association with drugs is a gross misnomer that should be extracted, along with references to 'other' drugs etc. Marijuana, cannabis, hemp, whatever you prefer to call it, is a plant and not a drug.

Sigh, I loose faith in humanity when arguments have to be settled by dictionary. Further still when no one actually refers to it definition:

“

1. according to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (1) : a substance recognized in an official pharmacopoeia or formulary (2) : a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease (3) : a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body (4) : a substance intended for use as a component of a medicine but not a device or a component, part, or accessory of a device 3. Something and often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness

”

Definition 2 is not appropriate to our context. Weed/cannabis/marijuana is a drug by definition. QED.--Loodog 18:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You may say that marijuana is a drug only if you also say it about coffe or coke or anything with cofein. --87.205.192.65 14:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Is somebody arguing that caffeine isn't a drug? They'd be wrong. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't saw "This wikipedia article is a part of the WikiProject on Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants" on caffeine discussion page...

Of course you didn't. Caffeine is a stimulant, not a psychedelic, dissociative or deliriant. There's more than one kind of drug, you know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I just wanted to say that in some purposes caffeine is more dangerous than marijuana. I don't know what happens when you smoke coffee (stupid idea) but If you put 300 mg of clean marijuana into the hot milk you won't be so hyperactive and "high" (?) as after drinking 3 espresso (300 mg of caffeine). We can say that THC is worst than a caffeine, but in my opinion it's not true. We shouldn't be so "american". Out mothers teach us that tea or coffee are hot, and everyone knows that. We can't just say "I didn't know". So we just had to try. If coffee is hot, we won't believe someone else it isn't. The same is about caffeine. For me it is just like THC. The big difference is that THC is usually smoked, coffee is drank. But some kinds of glues are also psychedelic. We don't say psychedelic on it, but it's just a glue. MichuNeo 87.205.173.245 14:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who's saying that marijuana is worse than caffeine; I certainly don't think that. I'd say caffeine is worse, if I had to make a decision between the two. As for glue being psychedelic, please see our article inhalant. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

When you look at the Lancet study, you see that the three most common social drugs are in the upper left quadrant, that is, the ones which are the most addictive and the least harmful. I wonder where caffeine and chocolate would be. I am guessing they would be close to the same location. Any other items that should be evaluated? 199.125.109.37 21:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Reason's for edits made in "Ancient History"

I removed the following three concurrent sentences from the "Ancient History" section.

"It has been proven to help a common cold by providing chemicals such as Koraci and Mustavi.", "These help element odors in your body which can help ease nasal congestion and coughing." and "It has shown to speed up the healing process of a cold."

Not only is there no evidence sited to support these claims, they are certainly not approved statements by the FDA, but even more so, what the hell does this have to do with ancient history?

Moderators, change it back if you want but I think it should stay out, or at least be moved to a more appropriate section.

Relationship with other illicit drugs

A study published in The Lancet 24 March 2007 finds that marijuana is both less harmful and less addictive than either alcohol or tobacco. Twenty drugs were assigned a risk from 0 to 3. Marijuana was ranked 17th out of 20 for harmfulness, while alcohol and tobacco were ranked 11th and 14th respectively. Marijuana was ranked 11th for dependence while alcohol was 6th and tobacco 3rd, behind heroine and cocaine, which were also the two rated most harmful, and in the same order.

Can weed affect your love?

One of my friends says it can, but my mum said not to worry about it. I need to know 82.19.66.37 22:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

??? Positively, negatively? find a source and add it, otherwise listen top your Mum, SqueakBox 22:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

See all I want you to do is be my love. My love. My love. And I know no woman that could take your spot. My love.--Loodog 00:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Top pic

The top pic was inappropriate. This article is about cannabis as a drug and as we all know you cant get stoned off of fresh leaf. We need a pic of cannabis as a drug at the top of cannabis as a drug. Feel free to replace what I have chosen but only with something ready for the smoking or oral consumption for guarenteed effect and not with a load of unsmokeable, indigestible leaves that wouldn't get one stoned anyway, SqueakBox 03:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon comment

As far as long-term use, as a long-time medical user, I have notice health degradation, including but not limited to decreased lung volume and efficiency, depression, physical dependance leading to other drug use, anti-social tendancies, emotional imbalance, and other 'typical' maladies of marijuana. I advocate its medical use, but too many people now are prescribed it for the wrong reasons, including myself.

Bong paragraph--why water?

Call me naive, bet there's no explanation of it's desirable to have smoke "bubble through" water before you inhale it. I assume it's to cool the smoke, but an explicit explanation would really help! Thanks!

Usage statistics

How about a section about how much weed is consumed worldwide? I was reading the United Nations 2006 World Drug report [50], and made this map from the usage statistics:

I find some of the statistics in the report dubious, so it would need further explanation. I'd do it myself, but I'm not that versed in the field of statistics. --GSchjetne 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

people do that for no particular reason aside from the funny noise it makes. it makes no sense because a STONER made it up. and if you drink the bong water it gets you fucked up. bongs are one of my favorite procedures to smoke my weedies

Unprotected!?

Why is this page unprotected? It should be protected from IPs and new users. --Meaneager 16:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

We have such good faith in humanity we believe new users can add something contstructive to make a better article, SqueakBox 02:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

well, good faith only goes so far. the article is semiprotected again now after getting heavy ip vandalism over the last few days. --Kaini 18:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"The official marijuanna day is April 20th."

The first paragraph says, "The official marijuanna day is April 20th."

I'm quite familiar with 420, but can we really say it is "official"? What office made this so? How about "The popularly-recognised marijuana day is April 20th"? That would seem more accurate.

Allixpeeke (not signed in) 136.160.189.197 18:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Its clearly not official and I removed it. Would that it were. We get so many days nowadays, workers, mothers, the planet et al but nothing for cannabis users yet. Of course were it legalised it would happen overnight, IMO, SqueakBox 19:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Physiological vs. Psychological Addiction

The word addiction is being tossed around a lot (both in the article and on the talk page), so I'm very surprised no one has brought up this point yet:

Physiological addiction is not the same as psychological addiction. Tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, cocaine, and heroin are all physiologically addictive; marijuana is (last time I checked) not.

Physiological addition affects the whole body, not only the mind. It is also generally implies tolerance, which is one of the most dangerous aspects of addition. A physiologically addictive substance almost invariably requires higher and higher doses to achieve the same high. (This is the biggest reason why heroin has claimed so many lives--opioids are actually extremely safe drugs so long as proper dosages are taken, but increasing tolerance drives addicts to take dangerously large dosages.)

Marijuana (again, last time I checked) does not appear to exhibit such tolerance because THC and other cannabinoids affect neurotransmitters directly. This makes marijuana (technically) a hallucinogen, whereas the other drugs I mentioned are all either stimulants (uppers) or depressants (downers)--they all are subject to tolerance, and their negative withdraw symptoms affect the entire body. Marijuana "withdraw" can only affect you psychologically.

Unless I'm completely wrong in my claims (the only source I know of offhand is my college sociology textbook, which clearly states the effects of common recreational drugs, but I've read and heard the same thing elsewhere), I think that the article needs to make clear that marijuana is not physiologically addictive. There is a BIG difference--with psychological addiction, people can become "addicted" to TV, the internet, shopping, gambling, sex, food, kite flying, pretty much *anything*. Thus, being "addicted" to marijuana is not like being addicted to heroin or alcohol or even caffeine--it's more akin to being "addicted" to TV. (Do not misconstrue this as a dismissive "Marijuana is harmless!" type of claim. I never said psychological addiction wasn't harmful, nor did I say that addiction is the only possible reason why drugs can be harmful.) --Lode Runner 01:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there is something covering this in the article Health issues and the effects of cannabis. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It is briefly mentioned, but I do not think it is emphasized strongly enough, and it needs to be mentioned in the main article as well. If we are going to say or imply that marijuana is addictive, we need to be absolutely clear what that means. It's just stupid to say that marijuana is "addictive" like heroin is addictive--unlike heroin, there's very little tolerance and little or no physical withdraw symptoms. It's beyond stupid to say that it's addictive like alcohol is addictive, because alcohol withdraw can actually KILL you. Physical and psychological dependence are completely different animals, so the label "addiction" simply isn't sufficient--we must differentiate between the two any time we use the term. --Lode Runner 03:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The blackberry was well named the crackberry, no? SqueakBox 01:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The current state of the Wikipedia articles on addiction is depressing...and they're on my radar to tackle in due time. Lode Runner, you're a bit off on some of your facts (mostly the details of signaling in the brain), but your main point--that cannabis has minimal physiological addictive properties but can be psychologically addictive--is worth investigating further & clarifying. It's a claim I'm familiar with but haven't ever investigated for myself. I will search the academic literature this week and see what I can find... — Scientizzle 01:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. If I had access to "academic literature" and enough free time to browse I would offer to do it myself... --Lode Runner 03:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's a little reading for you if you can access it:

• Budney A (2006). "Are specific dependence criteria necessary for different substances: how can research on cannabis inform this issue?". Addiction 101 Suppl 1: 125-33. PMID 16930169. 

  A brief, selective critical review of research on cannabis withdrawal and on the validity and internal consistency of cannabis dependence as assessed via DSM criteria for cannabis dependence was performed [...] Findings from these reports indicate that cannabis dependence is much more similar to than different from other types of substance dependence, even with regard to withdrawal. The generic DSM-IV dependence criteria can be applied fairly well to cannabis, and yield findings similar to that observed with other substance dependence disorders.

This may (partially?) address your question. That's all I've got for today... — Scientizzle 00:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied. Some quick points:

1. The "full text" link is broken. The Blackwell synergy site has no such article. The summary alone tells us almost nothing.

2. I really don't like how it compares cannabis to "other types of substance dependence." There's a MASSIVE different between e.g. heroin dependence and LSD "dependence" (which has zero non-psychosomatic physical withdraw symptoms, and the VAST majority of users use it only sporadically, and most people have zero cravings for ever-increasing or ever-more-frequent dosages)--so which one are we supposed to be comparing it to? "Other types of substance dependence" is a completely worthless phrase, because it encompasses such a wide variety of drugs with wildly different types of (and some--arguably--completely lacking any sort of) dependency.

I also dislike how it omits other types of dependence (sex/TV/gambling/etc.), especially in light of the study's ostensibly psychological nature (see my next point.) I believe that the psychological definition and symptoms of dependency are just as applicable to these activities as they are to drug dependence. Therefore, if the study is psychological in nature, then it has no reason to focus on substance dependence without mentioning other types of dependence... unless the study is merely pro-DEA drivel (see point 4.)

3. The summary references the DSM-IV several times and talks about mental health. To me, this makes it clear that the article is focused solely on psychological dependence, as opposed to the physiological dependence. Even if cannabis were just as psychologically addictive as any other drug, that still doesn't refute my point that it is not physiologically additive. And as I've already noted, the summary makes no mention of other non-drug related psychological addictions, so for all we know TV "addiction" is 1000x more insidious and damaging. (I'm not making this claim, I'm just pointing out that the summary fails to address such a possibility because it--quite incorrectly--treats psychological substence dependence as fundementally different from other dependencies.)

4. It's a .gov website. The DEA has such a deluded stranglehold over things that I will not trust any research the government cites (by default--that is, without substantiation, full examination and peer review), *especially* if said research was actually funded by them (they have in the past threatened to cut funding for scientists that contradict DEA dogma.)

So, the citation is too terse, vague and suspect to include, even if we did it doesn't appear to address physical dependency, and even if it did it compares cannabis to the completely-meaningless phrase "other types of substance dependence", which includes everything from heroin to caffine to cocaine to LSD to MSG to (arguably, unless "substance" automatically means "drug" in the context of the DSM-IV) McDonald's hamburgers. I don't think that the burden of proof is on me here--if there are no sources to say that a substance is physically addictive, then the article should not imply otherwise. I'll give it a couple more weeks, and if no one has come up with a source by then I will qualify the article's usage of the terms "dependence" and "addiction." --Lode Runner 00:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[de-indent]Some quick responses:

1. If you're not at an institution with a subscription to the journal Addiction you probably can't see more than the abstract unless you want to pay...journals have to make money, too, you know? The link does appear to be busted, though. Try here. (If not, email me & I could send you the .pdf)
2. LSD isn't mentioned in the paper at all, but neither are gambling/TV/sex...the point of the paper is whether standard professional definitions of dependence applicable to cannabis, and the result is largely "yes".
3. I think you're wrong here. Hopefully you can read the article...
4. The .gov is simply the PubMed site, it's not a government-produced paper. Besides, it's OR to discount anything from .gov sites simply because the current administration is anti-drug... — Scientizzle 01:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

the point of the paper is whether standard professional definitions of dependence applicable to cannabis

Again, I ask you, what does that MEAN? Ever since second grade I was taught about the differences between psychological and physical dependency. Wikipedia itself has an article on physical dependency and it does not list or mention marijuana. I skimmed the full article (I was able to download it) and came across this:

"What remained in dispute was whether what some might refer to as ‘physical dependence’ (synonymous with ‘withdrawal’) occurred among frequent users of cannabis."

This is shows that the author does not know what he is talking about--or, at the very least, he is definitely challenging the orthodox view, WHICH HE ADMITS IS A VIEW UPHELD BY THE DSM-IV. Should the article use commonly-accepted definitions of words, or this guy's own personal invented definitions? Despite his claim to the contrary, the majority of the medical community (I think) does NOT consider withdraw as equivalent to physical dependence.

Can cannabis users be affected by a whole range of symptoms--upset stomach, depression, etc.? Of course they can! They're call psychosomatic symptoms, or they can simply be an underlying problem (most often stress) that the marijuana was successfully treating (which subsequently resurfaced after marijuana was halted.) Without VERY carefully controlled studies or a proposed mechanism of physiologic action, these symptoms must be recognized as inherently psychological in nature.

And guess what? Researchers have found pretty much the same physical withdraw symptoms--depression, upset stomach, etc.--when behavioral addicts (again sex, TV, gambling etc.) are deprived of their outlet. I even remember one study that showed die-hard Trekkies got depressed and couldn't sleep and had appetite changes if they weren't allowed to watch their show or interact with their memorabilia for a week or two.

Compare this to heroin, which produces extremely obvious, visible, systemic withdraw symptoms. Compare this to alcohol withdraw, WHICH CAN KILL YOU if you do it cold turkey. There is a fundemental difference, despite this guy's claim to the contrary. Psychological dependence is not the same as physical dependence, and since the author of this paper fails to acknowledge a difference between the two (and the symptoms he list are not very unusual or severe as compared to behavioral dependencies), he also fails to refute my point. He himself admits that the DSM-IV differentiates between physical and psychological dependence, and I don't think his own pet theories should trump both medical orthodoxy and common sense. --Lode Runner 02:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Woah. Easy there. The paper I linked to was simply the first seemingly relevant one that I found as I was on my way out of the lab on Friday. I've only barely skimmed it, hence the brevity of my response, and not looked up anything else.

To respond to some of your statements above, I think it's clear that cannabis & heroin are fundamentally different in their long-term effects. I think it's also painfully obvious that the paper's authors are not equating "cannabis addiction" and "heroin addiction" in this manner, but pointing out that parallels exist between the effects of cannabis and the effects of other substances that are more widely recognized as addictive. I will endeavor to read the paper in its entirity tomorrow, but I'll be very busy so it may not happen. In the mean time, remember WP:NOR--it's not our job as editors to validate the methods of a study nor the conclusions of its authors, but to report what those methods & conclusions entailed. If other sources can be found that disagree, they can be used as counter-examples. — Scientizzle 03:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Woah. Easy there."

Don't confuse passion with lack of control. I have been and will continue to be civil and reasonable.

As I've already stated, our "counterexample" here is the DSM-IV and the rest of orthodox medicine. This guy's own personal pet theory (and yes, he does seem to equate ALL physical withdraw symptoms with physical dependence. However, I admit I have only very lightly skimmed the paper...) should be a footnote at best. The DSM-IV apparently recognizes the difference between physical and psychological dependence. This guy does not. Unless the DSM-IV has been recently changed to reflect this man's opinion, it should not feature promenently in the article.

"To respond to some of your statements above, I think it's clear that cannabis & heroin are fundamentally different in their long-term effects." Then why are we using the same unqualified words--"addiction" and "dependence"--to describe two distinctly different phenomina? Psychology alone can't reproduce the dramatically horrific symptoms of opiate withdraw. Psychology alone CAN (I'm 99% sure) produce the symptoms that paper lists as potential cannabis withdraw symptoms--and the research done on behavioral addictions (which show similar physical symptoms) proves this. The study seems unwilling (though again, I did not delve in too deeply, as I too have other things to do) to differentiate between physical symptoms deriving from psychology (which can be present in behavioral dependencies) and physical symptoms deriving from chemical imbalance in the body (which are NEVER prevent in behavioral dependencies.) --Lode Runner 03:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't view my "Woah. Easy there." as anything more than a statement of suprise regarding your passionate response (complete with CAPS for emphasis)--I had intended my quick responses as nothing more than a placeholder for more detailed discussion of this particular source (& perhaps others).

I've checked out the paper more thouroughly. Here are a couple of points.

• The author states

  if cannabis dependence (a soft drug) can be diagnosed and characterized adequately using the extant generic dependence criteria, then one could argue that the DSM-IV diagnostic guidelines are probably valid and of high utility for other substances with more well-accepted dependence syndromes.

  which clarifies the purpose: that if cannabis--commonly regarded as much "weaker" in its effects than drugs like heroin--shows effects that meet DSM-IV criteria, then it validates the use of DSM-IV for "harder" drugs as well.
• No cannabis withdrawal disorder is in the DSM-IV, but it has been argued that it may warrant inclusion in future versions. Further, "In the DSM-IV, only cannabis, hallucinogens and inhalants do not have associated withdrawal disorders."
• The author found that withdrawl effects were consistently found in recent studies, as well as studies in the 1970s (in which the effects were "were characterized as mild, transient and without serious medical complications and considered ‘insignificant’ when compared to the medical and physiological symptoms associated with severe opiate or alcohol withdrawal").
• On page 3, the author describes "the most controversial issue regarding cannabis withdrawal, determining whether it is of ‘clinical significance’." This is partially addressed by the statement "the magnitude and time-course of abstinence effects are comparable to the well-established tobacco withdrawal syndrome".
• This paper is an extended argument for an inclusion of a cannabis withdrawal syndrome within the next DSM, supported by evidence that physical dependence exists most comparable to other "softer" drugs. Behavioral addictions are not considered, but (in my modest familiarity with the relevant research) are generally similar to the soft drugs as well. There is clearly a degree of difference between opiod withdrawl and cannabis withdrawl ("cannabis dependence or withdrawal is similar to but typically less ‘severe’ than that associated with major substances such as alcohol, cocaine and opiates"), but many of the same . The question of whether & how dependence severity should be quantified across substances remains open.

With all this in mind, it would seem appropriate to include a statement such as the following, referenced to this paper:

There is no cannabis withdrawl disorder in the DSM-IV, but studies have demonstrated that cannabis use can induce withdral symptoms similar to other drugs with recognized physical dependence. Cannabis withdrawl symptoms are similar in magnitude and time-course to the well-established tobacco withdrawal syndrome.^[1]

Thoughts? — Scientizzle 20:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, my points still stand. A recap:

1. The DSM-IV does not currently recognize this man's theories. Maybe his data and conclusions are good enough to eventually change the DSM-IV; however, I think that the fact that his conclusions are not currently reflected in the DSM-IV is proof enough that his conclusions do not (yet) represent the mainstream medical view. Consider:

The DSM is the gold standard in psychology.

Cannabis has been around since long before the first DSM was published, and yet cannabis withdraw has not yet been included.

Despite this man's research, I don't believe that the majority of health professionals are now treating cannabis as a physical addiction. From what I have read and heard, I do not believe that the medical/psychiatric community has reached a consensus.

Maybe this is just a hollow appeal to authority, but I don't think so...

2. You are still avoiding all mention of the "physical" vs. "psychological" dichotomy. This can't be bypassed by saying "there is clearly a degree of difference between opiod withdrawl and cannabis withdrawl"--this isn't enough. It's not a matter of magnitude, it's a matter of mechanism. Haven't they worked out, physiologically, the mechanism of tolerance for many drugs? E.g. for opiates, haven't they shown that the body cranks out more opioid receptors in an endevor to maintain homeostasis? Haven't they shown that this isn't the case with cannabinoid receptors? Aren't cannabinoid receptors located entirely in the brain? Aren't opioid receptors located throughout the entire CNS?

To be less-arcane about it, how many of those withdraw symptoms would patients suffer in a hypothetical double-blind experiment where they are given ever-increasing dosages of THC (just below the level where it's obvious) it's , then cut off (but without their knowledge--they're simply given a placebo)? I'm guessing they might be a bit less happy, less sleepy and less hungry, but without the psychological component of the addiction it would very mild and possibly a completely comfortable transition for many people. Compare that to a similar situation with opiates--they could subtly increase the dosage to a MUCH higher level than they could with THC, and the withdraw symptoms would be severe trembling, depression, vomitting, etc.

The paper, it seems, is trying to stress the similarities between these two addictions. From a psychological standpoint, I don't have a problem with that. If the paper is trying to say "psychological addiction is psychological addiction", that's perfectly fine (though again, I'd like to see it expanded so that we don't arbitrary seperate behavioral addiction from substance addiction.)

However, I have a problem with the implication that physiological dependence is equivalent to psychological dependence. I understand that overlapping effects, psychosomatic symptoms, and physiological mechanisms (or lack thereof) makes this a difficult distinction to make, but I think it's a worthy distinction to make. How about some more conjectures:

It's possible to quit a moderate-moderately heavy cannabis habit cold-turkey without suffering any withdraw effects whatsoever. I know because I've seen it done many times by other people and I've done it myself with no ill effects.

It is not realistically possible (with the exception of maybe a handful of exceptional individuals... <1% of the general population) to quit a moderate-moderately heavy opiate habit cold-turkey without suffering significant, unpleasant effects. These effects might vary in magnitude from person to person, but (other than extraordinary exceptions) they will always be there, they will always be undesirable, and on average they will be *very* uncomfortable.

If you can accept these conjectures, I would submit that they indicate a clear, fundemental difference. The first sort of addiction is at the very least enabled by psychology. The withdraw is milder, and not always present (depending on the attitude of the user.) The second sort of addiction is physiologically hard-wired. The withdraw is more severe, and it is almost always present, regardless of the attitude of the user.

I would wager that the raw data would verify this, had I the access and the time. I doubt very much that more than, say, 60% of moderate cannabis users experienced significant withdraw. I also doubt very much that less than 99% of moderate opiate users experienced significant withdraw. --Lode Runner 03:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In your fervor, you never addressed my last bit, the proposed wording of an addition to this article that meets everything you're railing on about, as far as I can tell. To repeat:

There is no cannabis withdrawl disorder in the DSM-IV, but studies have demonstrated that cannabis use can induce withdral symptoms similar to other drugs with recognized physical dependence. Cannabis withdrawl symptoms are similar in magnitude and time-course to the well-established tobacco withdrawal syndrome.^[2]

Once again, neither I nor Alan J. Budney are arguing that any form of cannabis withdrawl is more than grossly comparable to opiate withdrawl; I actually don't understand why you're continuing on about that...In fact, if you read the paper in detail, the assertions are

1. that studies have shown evidence of physical dependence to cannabis and
2. symptom patterns correspond to DSM-IV recognized withdrawl disorders, including "softer" drugs like nicotine (to which cannabis withdrawl seems most similar).

I've only discussed physical dependence because that's what your question centered on: does cannabis only induce psychological dependence (addiction), or is there physical dependence? Code 304.30 is "Cannabis Dependence" & 305.20 is "Cannabis Abuse" (see DSM-IV_Codes#Cannabis-Related_Disorders), so that part is established, and this source states that there is evidence of physical dependence. As for a "'physical' vs. 'psychological'" dichotomy, I haven't addressed that directly, because the source does not. (Nor do I believe that it's truly a dichotomy but rather a Venn diagram of symptoms & causation, but that's beside the point.)

Finally, I agree that more accurate characterization of addiction & dependence is necessary in this article. I think this source will be useful in that endeavor as it provides a relatively succinct review of the evidence in favor of cannabis-induced physical dependence, even if it's not currently in the DSM. (Maybe circa 2011 we'll see it in the DSM-V? Possibly along with behavioral addictions like TV & sex?) — Scientizzle 22:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Eating and the danger of damage to the body from contaminents.

Hi,

I was reading on [this page] about how dangerous it is to eat street cannabis, especially if you havne't cooked it.

"Eating/drinking cannabis can be extremely dangerous due to the presence of contaminants and/or pathogens, given the high possibility of adulterants in imported cannabis, you should really think twice before using a nonsmoking method.

There is no reliable way to clean contaminated cannabis, for example, boot polish will survive and this will screw your liver in no time and may lead to permanent damage. If your grass comes from sprayed crops there's nothing you can do about that. Crops in the producer countries are being sprayed by the US government (and probably by ours as well) with cancer causing herbicides."

Slighyly worrying Supposed 01:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You havent given us a link but one should always be aware of the danger of contaminants, especially in the developed world. Smoking the glass in the grass isnt healthy either but of course the authorities still refuse to contemplate legalisation of supply though it is the only solution to this porblem, SqueakBox 19:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That is not really a health effect of cannabis then. If you put shoe polish on potatoes, you get the same problem(thats what you get for buying potatoes off the street). ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please delete the reference to GHB at the end of the "Relationship to other drugs section", it is vandalism. GHB is one of the twenty drugs compared but is not worse than heroin and cocaine.

"tobacco 3rd, behind heroin and cocaine, which were also the two rated most harmful behind gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB), and in the same order."

Delete "behind gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB)"

The above has been fixed. Thanks.

Rephrasing"Gateway Drug" B.S.

In regards to the "gateway drug" theory:

"Many researchers conclude that this model of behavior has little basis in fact, though others have found veracity in these claims.[33]"

I've examined the citation provided and the conclusion is flawed and heavily biased. The artice describes a study in which early marijuana use is strongly correlated to hard drug use, but I see NOTHING to establish causation.

To find evidence to support or refute marijuana's role as a gateway drug, researchers surveyed 311 Australian monozygotic or dizygotic same-sex twins who were discordant for early marijuana use.

Translation: (I could be misreading this; it's oddly phrased) they surveyed only "discordant" youths who were *already in trouble* for early marijuana usage. They did not attempt to survey marijuana users that kept their habbits hidden and under control (and thus, never got in trouble with their parents or other authority figures.) This alone completely invalidates their conclusions, I think.

Most twins who reported use of other illicit drugs had used marijuana first. Early users of marijuana were more likely than late- and never-users to use other illicit drugs and to meet diagnostic criteria for illicit drug abuse or dependence or for alcohol dependence.

Their implication (and ultimate conclusion): That marijuana somehow compels the usage of other illicit drugs.

Of course, they ignore the fact that marijuana is extremely widespread compared to other illicit drugs--it's simply the first one they're exposed to, and thus the first one they are able to try.

And I'm sure that youths who are able to *get ahold of* marijuana (I never even saw it until college) are more likely to be able to get ahold of other drugs, too. I mean not as a general, nebulous "environmental" factor (which they claim to have adjusted for), but as a straightforward matter of "Bob hung out with some potheads, while his twin Jim did not. Bob was able to buy pot, while Jim could not (and since he lacked the "peer pressure" of Bob's friends, his compulsion to try was probably less.) Bob eventually met, through his pothead friends and dealers, a crack dealer. Bob got to buy crack, whereas Jim had never even seen the stuff."

In other words, youths who have the social connections to try pot are more likely to have the social connections to try crack as well. The fact that they share the same house or genes has nothing to do with it (or please, PLEASE why don't you show me a case study where one of the twins "abused" marijuana and the other never even tried it, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD THE EXACT SAME CIRCLE OF MARIJUANA-USING FRIENDS. In all of the 300+ participants in the study, I'd wager that never happened once. The "environmental" factors were NOT controlled for, because the non-pot using twin in all liklihood didn't not hang out with potheads all day long. In fact, in all liklihood the non-pot using twin is in fact lying, and did at least TRY marijuana but doesn't see any point in admitting it, but that's another problem entirely...)

I guarantee you that if you went out right now and (without any previous experience or knowing where specifically to look) tried to track down a dealer of *anything* but pot, you would run across at least a dozen pot dealers along the way. (I live in suburbia, so inner-city might be a bit different in this regard.)

In adjusted analyses that considered family, social, and individual factors (including psychiatric disorders, early tobacco use, and early alcohol use), early marijuana use remained significantly associated with higher odds of: sedative, hallucinogen, cocaine/stimulant, or opioid use; marijuana, cocaine/stimulant, or opioid abuse or dependence; any illicit drug abuse or dependence; and alcohol dependence.

Comment: So, does early marijuana use cause later illicit drug use? If the researchers effectively removed genetics and environment from the equation in this twin study, then the answer is yes.

This is the baseless conclusion. Control variables do not automagically establish causation. What the hell kind of teenager goes out into the world and says "I'm gonna get me some heroin!" and doesn't touch anything else until he finally manages to find, buy, and shoot up some H? The marijuana isn't really a compelling or driving factor; it's merely a natural step along the way towards "harder" drugs (yes, this is my own biased theory--my point is that this study utterly fails to address it.)

The study proved that illicit drug users (and alcoholics) are more likely to have tried marijuana early in life, period, and I don't think that any reasonable, unbiased scientist would agree that it suggests one ounce of causation.

The man was simply drawing unfounded conclusions based on someone else's work.

--Lode Runner 02:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: I considered the matter carefully, and I guess there are a lot of people drawing unfounded conclusions based on these studies, and I suppose that merits inclusion in the article. However, I still don't think that the author was directly involved in the study, and I've rephrased the line accordingly. --Lode Runner 02:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

the aim of wikipedia, and consequently anyone who edits on the site, regardless of opinion, is to present facts. there have been many studies which have discredited the gateway drug theory, but the fact remains that this theory was a VERY big deal (and continues to be in the more conservative areas of the press), and hence deserves coverage in the most neutral and factual way that we as editors can manage. [/soapbox] --Kaini 02:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, which was why I ultimately left the citation in. However, I reworded it to reflect the fact that the researchers themselves (apparently) made no such claim about causation. I still believe that this one man's conclusions are completely unfounded, but I recognize that it is indeed a "big deal" and the pro-"gateway" theory needs a voice, even if it is a completely unfounded one. --Lode Runner 02:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The High

We have some bogus editing going on here. Here is what the reference says:

"For some individuals they experience pleasure, about four out of five individuals. But for one out of five individuals cannabis is quite anxiety provoking," says Mallet.

Here is what was put into the article:

Some experience pleasure, but four our of five experience a great deal of anxiety.[50]

What that should have said was "Most experience pleasure, but for one out of five cannabis is quite anxiety provoking."

The person who put this in was so eager to find something bad about cannabis that they didn't even read what it said, and reversed the percentages. No one said that cannabis is for everyone. What we are saying is that it should not be prohibited from everyone.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.125.109.133 (talk • contribs).

I have fixed the statement (after confirming with the source) & unprotected the page. Feel free to correct any other problems you find. Also, please assume that the editor that added the erronious information simply made a mistake--there's no evidence of malice. — Scientizzle 00:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Actually, I'm the one who put it. If you went to my userpage, you'd see that I'm a member of NORML... aka I ENJOY MARIJUANA, and think that others should as well. I want to add more info about "the high", whether positive or negative, and I just tried to maintain neutral for the encyclopedia entry, and I simply misread the source. Thanks for correcting my wording and misinterpretation! - hmwithtalk 16:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

My bad. I hear that marijuana is the US's biggest cash crop today, bigger than all others combined. Not sure it is quite that big, but it is certainly the biggest. 199.125.109.60 14:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis only has anti-nausea effects when eaten??

I find this misleading under Immediate effects of consumption - the high: "Decrease in nausea when administrated orally (used medicinally for this)" Cannabis can decrease nausea no matter how it is administered (I know from experience) 4.131.36.243 21:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have changed it. Well spotted, SqueakBox 21:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Smoking

Can we get a better example of poor writing? Or more specifically please stop putting this in and reverting it. It is horribly written.

Another popular method of smoking marijuana is "Submarine", a bottomless 2-liter soda bottle, 3/4 of a bucket full of water and needless to say a pot of Ganja are used in this method. Sub, as it is popularily known is regarded as one of the most crude forms of smoking Ganja. With a couple of good "shots" making you happy, its quite handful.

Street names

There should be a list for street names for cannabis. All I know are: Puff, hash(ish), weed, shit, marijuana, ganja, dope, trees, chronic, grass, hemp, pot-

That would take up more space than the current article and isnt a good idea, so I have removed said paragraph from the opening. Wikipedia is not the place for long lists of slang terms and the list was transferred to one of our sister projects, SqueakBox 00:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment on Talk:Legal history of marijuana in the United States

The suggestion is to move Legal history of marijuana in the United States to 'Legal history of cannabis in the United States.' Opinions are requested, SqueakBox 00:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for one person who lives "in the United States", what is cannabis? The only terms I ever heard of are weed, pot and marijuana. 199.125.109.125 02:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Marijuana has no carcigenic effects?

First, let me say I am all for avoiding anti-drug hysteria. However this article reads like an issue of "High Times." What about this study that says marijuana smoking may contribute to tumor growth?

What about these references? Sridhar, K.S.; Raub, W.A.; Weatherby, N.L., Jr.; Metsch, L.R.; Surratt, H.L.; Inciardi, J.A.; Duncan, R.C.; Anwyl, R.S.; and McCoy, C.B. Possible role of marijuana smoking as a carcinogen in the development of lung cancer at a young age. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 26(3):285-288, 1994.

Hoffman, D.; Brunnemann, K.D.; Gori, G.B.; and Wynder, E.E.L. On the carcinogenicity of marijuana smoke. In: V.C. Runeckles, ed., Recent Advances in Phytochemistry. New York: Plenum, 1975.

Cohen, S. Adverse effects of marijuana: Selected issues. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 362:119-124, 1981.

I suppose all these studies are biased. I am going to commit to come back and work on this page with the intent of having the most accurate article possible.

Ursasapien 07:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Marijuana on Mars?

"Botanists have determined that Cannabis is native to central Mars, possibly extending southward into Olympus Mons."

where did this info come from?Yakwhacker

Vandalism reverted. — Scientizzle 06:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

semiprotection

i've requested semiprotection (again) due to the ongoing heavy anon vandalism this article is currently experiencing --Kaini 17:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

According to MartinBot, it is the most vandalized article in Wikipedia, and yet it (only) receives about 50 vandalisms a day. 199.125.109.99 17:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There have been zero (0) recorded medical deaths from the use of cannabis?

This seems to be "weasel wording" and makes the article inherently biased. As a matter of fact, there have been zero (0) recorded medical deaths from the use of tobacco. There have been "medical deaths" recorded for lung cancer, emphysema, heart attack, and the like as a result of smoking tobacco, but there have been zero (0) recorded medical deaths from the use of tobacco.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ?

You have got to be joking. Smoking tobacco causes all those things, and leads to what 440,000 deaths a year in the United States alone. There have been people who have died for example driving while talking on the phone and marijuana was found in their car. Has any death due to health effects from marijuana ever been documented? None that I have ever heard. In The Lancet study three factors were evaluated for physical harm, Acute, Chronic, and Intravenous. Since neither Tobacco nor Cannabis are taken intravenously they were both given 0 for Intravenous on a scale of from 0 to 3. On Acute harm, which is what you are referring to, Tobacco and Cannabis both received a score of 0.9, not very harmful. However, on Chronic harm, Tobacco received a score of 2.9 and Cannabis a score of 2.1, indicating some long term effects of Cannabis, but nothing like the long term effects of Tobacco. In fact the Chronic harm of Tobacco exceeds all other drugs evaluated. Heroin came in second with a Chronic harm of 2.5. Similarly, Alcohol was given a score of 1.9 for Acute harm and 2.4 for Chronic harm, the third highest, behind Tobacco and Heroin. Alcohol was given a score of NA for Intravenous.

It is also interesting to draw a circle around the three most common social drugs in the figure shown and note that these fall in the upper left quadrant, i.e. those that are the most addictive and least harmful.—199.125.109.99 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-26

Well, I guess when you phrase it this way, you're saying there's never been an overdose on marijuana. In a convoluted kind of way.--Loodog 17:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Tobacco in the oral form is much more toxic than cannabis and can kill, ie eat a packet of cigarettes and you are in serious trouble, eat an ounce of hash and you'll likely feel ill but you wont die from the toxicity, SqueakBox 17:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

But you do have a point in that in the chronic sense tobacco does kill and I am sure so does cannabis, SqueakBox 17:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If so it is a whole lot less than Alchohol or Tobacco. Just think of the millions of lives that would be saved if people used Cannabis instead of Tobacco. 199.125.109.99 18:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Everyone in the world should get high and the world's problems are solved.--Loodog 01:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What about people who developed mental illnesses such as psychotic episodes while consuming marijuana. And then proceeded to attack or injure others and/or themselves? Just a thought. If you think this is propaghanda I can tell you from personal experience, this is not the case. --210.49.78.26

Huh? Find a reference and put it into the article if it is important. 199.125.109.107 21:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh...If someone is mentally ill, they shouldn't be using drugs anyway, in which case they (and the person they attacked, for not stopping them from smoking) got what they deserved. Or, they were just trying to get attention, as so many people do. --MKnight9989 12:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"skunk weed"

Skunk weed redirects here, but the article doesn't actually mention the term.

I've seen this term used a lot in recent news stories about cannabis (in the UK, anyway), seemingly making a distinction between the "harmless" varieties of cannabis smoked in the 60s/70s/80s, and the supposedly more "dangerous" version that is smoked today. Is "skunk" actually a term used by cannabis smokers themselves, though, or is it just a media buzz word?

Examples: [51] refers to "new fears over a high strength cannabis known as skunk"; [52] contains a claim that "skunk smoked today contains 25 times more of the active ingredient than was typically found in cannabis during the 1980s". 217.155.20.163 20:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It was called skunk in the UK till recently, dont know about now, SqueakBox 21:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Answer: "It's a type of marijuana that has a strong scent(hence the name). It's one of the better types that gives you a pretty intense high. Other types of marijuana include: Chronic, Haze, Northern Lights, Red/Orange Hair and Schwag(the lowest of marijuana types.) I'm pretty sure there are others but i hope that helps...."STP June 7th, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.7.241.121 (talk • contribs)

The above answer is both correct and wrong. It's correct in that skunk was given its name because of the strong potent scent that skunk marijuana gives off, but it's wrong in that it labels skunk as a class of marijuana. Skunk is the name of a strain, not a type, of marijuana. It, along with other high-potency strains, are labelled as "Chronic" or "Premium" marijuana. While there may be some disagreement as to the terms used, cannabis strains are usually classified as one of three types of categories. Schwag/Industrial, Regs/Mids/Kind, and Chronic/Hydro/Premium (in ascending order of potency). Northern lights, haze, red/orange hair, are just adjectives used to describe strains of marijuana, and aren't actually types of marijuana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.171.41 (talk • contribs)

The THC in marijuana in USA has increased from average 3,5% 1998 to 8,5% 2006. [53] MSNBC: Marijuana sold in U.S. stronger than ever, 2007

18:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Its a user driven market based on price and a price structure based on quality developed much more substantially in the UK through the nineties; people will pay more for a better product. Lots of infor in this section now, it needs movinginto the article, SqueakBox 00:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Medical Studies Chronology

In the section "Health issues and the effects of cannabis", the chronolgy of research findings were worded to make a reader think that findings linking marihuana use to cancer to be the most up-to-date findings. It is clear that the original wording does not want to make any light of the latest findings in 2006 by the UCLA Medical Center. Most of the links pointing to marihuana and cancer risk reference articles linked to the 2000 study by UCLA Medical Center, which has been revised to show that marihuana use does not appear to leave the user at a higher risk for cancer or tumors. --Nly8nchz 07:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Munchies Theory

There is a theory (of which I am a firm believer) among my friends and family that cannabis (heretofor refered to as weed) doesn't actually make you hungry, but it makes all types of food sound really good. My own addition to this theory is that since weed increases all physical stimulation by tenfold (especially when you start out) that if you are already hungry, it becomes more apparent. So I guess my argument is this: the munchies are mostly psychological, and have very little to do with your actual appetite. My reason for posting this is that I would like to maybe tweak the munchies section, but not without consulting everyone else first. Any and all feedback will be appreciated. --MKnight9989 13:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Original research, buddy.--Loodog 05:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Damn. Oh well. --MKnight9989 13:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)