Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Withdraw Symptoms

Changed withdraw symptoms to something published by the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine. For now it's better then the Erowid list.Grason1129 06:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved some stuff, changed some stuff

There was a lot under the cancer section that didn't belong there (as far as I could tell.) I also changed some of the more informal wording that was in the article and deleted a sentence that wasn't necessary.I think I may have messed up the citations though.Vesperal 19:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Source on Tashkin?

References 66 through 70 are about a new report from Tashkin that updates the old one from 2000. Yet i can't find the actual report anywhere among the references. Most of the references give me some sort of argument error that i don't understand. The ones that are present are news articles that don't cite any sources.

  • Do a search on "UCLA Medical Center Donald Tashkin". There is even a video on YouTube with an interview of Donald Tashkin. A little Google searching will get you lots of answers.

Neutrality

I do not feel that this article has a complete NPOV-- it seems to talk an awful lot about the positive side effects of cannabis, than the negative ones. The wording of some of the setences suggest that cannabis doesn't cause cancer, nor does it exasperate Schizophrenia. I call for these sections to be partially rewritten, with a more NPOV. What are your thoughts? Unconscious 21:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the positive sides of cannabis are much more tangible than the negative, hence much more could be accurately written about them. I have never come across any respectable published studies that suggest cannabis causes cancer. Cannabis certainly can exasperate psychosis in individuals predisposed to schizophrenia, and I think it would be good if more were written on that, as long as it is made clear that cannabis does not cause schizophrenia. These are some of my thoughts. Birdtrain 11:36, 29 April 2007 (PST)

Cannabis smoke actually doesn't cause cancer, according to epidmioligical evidence (despite containing numerous carcinogens and irritants), but it does exacerbate schizophrenia, and if it is implicit in the article that it doesn't, the reference to schizophrenia should be rephrased so it would be as accurate as known to science. Let The Sunshine In 18:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither have I ever come across studies that state that Marijuana "causes" cancer, although, I wouldn't be surprised if it increased the risks. I've seen a few studies stating exactly that, however-- as well as a few saying that it will cause anyone to develop Schizophrenia regardless of predisposition or not. The whole 'Schizophrenia' side of things is still very much a mystery, so that ought to be made a bit clearer on the article. I agree, Let The Sunshine In, the Schizophrenia quote should be rephrased. Unconscious 22:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested, look at the health issues and the effects of cannabis article, it has a great, long section about the relationship between cannabis use and a change in mental health (e.g. schizophrenia outbreak). Let The Sunshine In 23:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
That would be quite interesting, yes. I'll be sure to check it out. Unconscious 18:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my two cents. Peoples main complaint is that most of the comments suggest cannabis is good and there are very few negative effects. 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 facts from peer-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 from the NIDA it is clearly not solid evidence. Lets face the fact, just because the government or some organization released an article doesn't make it fact. Do the research and check the peer-reviews. They just don't hold up. I've found so many white papers (I'm a scientist) from government agencies that are clearly biased and fail peer review. The fact of the matter is, yea, pot has some bad qualities. but for 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.66.166.153.197 07:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

First, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Second, I agree that just because an article portrays a subject as being mostly positive does not make it biased. However, the effects of smoking cannabis have not been studied in near the detail as the effects of smoking tobacco. I am not sure what type of scientist you are or what papers you have been reading, but in my experience the vast majority of studies that have been done indicate that there are some significantly negative side-effects to smoking cannabis. The clinical, peer-reviewed studies that I have examined, far from presenting cannabis as a "pretty benign harmless substance", instead present a picture of the strong potential for brain damage and respiratory difficulties if it is smoked. Your mileage may vary, but I have not seen scientific, peer-reviewed studies that present unlimited cannabis consumption as benign. I encourage you to present the research, here on the talk page. Ursasapien (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm the guy who you responded to (check the history same ip). I dont have an account here, therefore im not sure how to sign my comments. Also im not sure what you meant when you said add four tilde since looks at other posts i dont see them using four tilde, so im a bit confused. Otherwise id be happy to sign my posts if you can clear that up. In response, I am a Computer Engineer who specializes in AI R&D. I never claimed to be a scientist that had any authority on this topic. I only mentioned it because i do have expiernce in reading, reviewing, and validating white papers in general. However as a hobbiest i have touched on biology and pretty much every area of science to some degree. But none of that is relevant. I never said marijuana is harmless. It has its negatie effects (all of which have been pointed out on this page that i am aware of). You claim brain damage, every bit of research ive done on the subject suggests that there is minor memory loss that goes away when you quit (suggesting there is no brain damage, just temporary effects). In fact several studies hint at the fact that cannabis actually helps prevent neurons from dieing off. Id love to hear of any papers clearly showing brain damage that has not been debunked by peer-review. In one of my college finals (not worthy of a citation on wikipedia of course) I have even cited many sources supporting this assertion. So please, if you have any paper that has stood up to peer-review clearly showing brain damage, present it to me, to the group. Im sure if you can support the paper with peer-review it will make it into the page. By the way you say unlimited consumption of marijuana is not benign, of course not. You can even die from unlimited consumption of water, but it is still benign. I know from my personal expirence of interviewing 10 doctors for my college paper about cannibis, they all agreed that it wasnt a significant health risk aside from a few points (all illustrated here).66.166.153.197 07:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, i figured out how to sign, and added it66.166.153.197 07:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually i did say it was harmless, but i didnt intend "it had absolutly no bad effects" only "the bad effects are minor and few". My fault i should have been specific66.166.153.197 07:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Respiratory difficulties I can see (breathing smoke hurts the lungs, no doubt), but I've never read *anywhere* that marijuana causes brain damage at any dose. I'm pretty sure, although I may be wrong, that THC will cause cardiac or respiratory arrest long before it causes permanent brain damage. --Utopianfiat 21:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the article is promotive of cannabis rather than factual. Considering my marijuana smoking friend just recently got admitted to a mental institute for schizophrenia and PP disorder (paranoid personality disorder) I would like this article to be more factual than promoting a substance that can ruin lives and ambitions. It's also worth noting, marijuana smokers have the highest rate of throat cancers. Also a recent psychiatrists in a British paper admitted 4/5 of his patients who complained about depression had a history of marijuana use. Even the Dutch scientists who attempt to squash the Swedish study admit marijuana can trigger schizophrenia and genetically predisposed users. Marijuana is certainly not safe, and from personal observation it makes people dopey. I haven't come across one world famous scientist or mathematician who uses marijuana. --78.86.117.164 19:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is very well written, and does not seem to be promotive to cannabis. Your marijuana smoking friend is part of a large group of people that use THC. Does your British paper state how often, and whether they have used marijuana recently? Its most likely safe to say that majority of people in western countries have used marijuana at some point. Just because certain people don't use it doesn't make it bad. THC and Cannabis are not nearly as bad for you as just about anything else that you can do. You have a much higher risk (I assume)of being hurt from being an Adrenaline junkie than a pot smoker. Majority of marijuana smokers do it on a safe basis, and are contributing members to society. I see no reason to change any of the info in this article. I still think marijuana is safe. Cite one source that has stated that someone has died from use of it, that has gone on a shooting spree from it, that is a major threat to society because they've used it etc. Coupled with the fact that its not addicted, and really the only downside I've noticed (personally) is you lose a little bit of lung capacity. My father is a long time user of it. Also his eye doctor theorizes that because of marijuana use and his eye blood vessels getting more blood that his eyesight had gotten a major boost from it during his normal life. Marijuana is like chemotherapy. The benefits much greatly outweigh the risks of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.45.65 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Paranoia induced by cannabis

Yes, it is true that cannabis induces paranoia. Is this fair to say only because it is illegal to buy/ sell/ smoke? I believe that if it were legal (or deemed moral), escalated paranoia would not be considered a side effect.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.73.65 (talk • contribs)

Yes, of course. It's a well-known fact that Dutch marijuana smokers never get paranoid.--Loodog 04:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
[citation needed] ;) I don't think 'paranoia' is an identifiable side effect. Hypervigilance, maybe. --Utopianfiat 21:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think it can exacerbate paranoia in someone who is already paranoid (either naturally or as a result of breaking the law), but it may not cause paranoia in and of itself as a direct chemical side-effect.

From personnel experience smoking in Amsterdam is much less paranoia inducing, i watched some guys get beat up by the cops while i was high with weed in my pocket knowing it was legal and completely calm. Had this same situation been in a very unfriendly state in the USA i would have had a panic attack.Grason1129 18:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we can cite your experience as scientific research? I'll be the peer that reviewed it. The outcome is pretty impressive, for 100% of your sample turned out to not have any panic attack (which is more or less the same as paranoia of course) while 'seeing cops beat up some people'. Unconventional, but effective research!--Cruzlee 21:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


Paranoia based on its illegality? Lol. Sure if one is smoking on the streets and paranioa while buying on the streets, sure, but the idea that one gets paranoid of the police smoking in the privacy of one's own house in the great majoprity of countries is laughable. Best to look at the cause of the paranoia, may be pointing out something wrong or out of place in one's life, SqueakBox 19:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, in any case, this would all fall under the category of original research. The article only makes passing reference to paranoia as a side-effect anyway, at least that I could see... --Jaysweet 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I think most paranoia is caused by the teenagers who are afraid of getting caught by their parents. 4.176.117.245 04:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
A creative and well-supported idea. Someday, someone will think of something so profound, run studies to show it, and cite you as the primary inspiration.--Loodog 06:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

An attempt to reinterpret: what of the virtues of Creative Paranoia?

l. The world is complex and full of problems and paradoxes: today it is appropriate to be paranoid (peering-eyed) and examine everything with the courage of your cannabis.

2. Function of the cannabinol is to increase the velocity of associative memory, to confront your consciousness with a vaster quantity of dug-up detail(s) to be compared, interpreted, and responded to decisively.

3. It is then instinctive to slow down in an effort to give oneself more time to process all this associatively remembered detail-- and thus the psychologists think they are observing a "slowdown in reaction time" etc.

4. Yes, cannabinated drivers experience this "slowed reaction time", and to compensate they drive slower too. This used to be celebrated in books about "defensive driving." (A practical solution is: serve your toke not before car driving but before a lumbering ride on the heavily loaded freight bike.)Tokerdesigner 22:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol, you think just because it's illegal they say marijuana causes paranoia? Oil is legal, and we all know fatty foods make you fat, then again some people can get away with eating too much fat. Cigarettes are legal and we all know it causes cancer, but some manage to smoke all their life without being affected. There are always exceptions to side effects. Marijuana does cause paranoia, it's a well known fact, however, everyone is different, some get too paranoid, some feel comfortable. And it's not teenagers who get paranoid of getting caught, you are confusing the type of paranoia marijuana causes to that of normal paranoia. Marijuana induced paranoia is unjustified, e.g. you might walk down the street and think people are looking at you. The problem is marijuana makes you too self-aware and self-analytical (did i say this right, did i do this right) in excess to that of normal human behaviour, which in effect, causes paranoia. --78.86.117.164 19:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Purple Buds

Hey all I just had a quick question: why does some marijuana have purple buds? At least in my area, purple has become associated with really good dro (hydroponically grown marijuana), but my one friend says the buds become purple due to a lack of oxygen. Anyone have any knowledge? --MKnight9989 13:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No clue. I have heard of a particularly good quality as "purple haze".--Loodog 17:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This is my personal observation, and opinion based on what i know on the subject. But basically, its a gentic quality. Just like some people have blond, black, or red hair, the same is true for marijuana. Marijuana is breeded for certain characteristics, and like any other characteristic the color can be bred as well. The reason i say this, as opposed to oxygene deprevation like you suggest, is the fact that all the breeds that exhibit purple hairs will do so under almost any healthy growing conditions. Now i your asking what chemical of physical structure in the plant itsel produces the purple pigment, thats diferent. Im not sure what chemical(s) are to blame, but from observation it seems pretty clear it is the hairs that are purple, not the leaf meterial. Debeo Morium 09:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Purple buds generally indicate that the plant is a Cannabis Indica rather than a Cannabis Sativa or a mix of the two although, not all indicas are purple.

This page Lightstorm gives a good indication of what I'm talking about. Notice the purple buds. --MKnight9989 13:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

While that color is clearly not caused by the hair. My guess still goes to a genetic trait. Coloring is one of the easier genetic traits to amnipulate in any species.

Bud will turn purple if it is grown in low temperatures or if the strain has that genetic trait. It has no indication of quality. Anthocyanin is also a large contributor. From marijuana botany: "For purple color to develop upon maturation, a strain must have the genetically controlled metabolic potential to pro duce anthocyanin pigments coupled with a responsiveness to environmental change such that anthocyanin pigments are unmasked and become visible. This also means that a strain could have the genes for expression of purple color but the color might never be expressed if the environmental conditions did not trigger anthocyanin pigmentation or chlorophyll breakdown. Colombian and Hindu Kush strains often develop purple coloration year after year when subjected to low night temperatures during maturation. Cold temperatures might interfere with phosphorus uptake resulting in a deficiency. Phosphorous deficiency will result in anthocyanin build up."

US Map of Cannabis Decriminalization/Medical acceptance

Can somebody update the map to include New Mexico? I don't have the know how to.

Please do not use this Talk page to promote a cause

Someone has been repeatedly re-adding a plea to contact Congress about medicinal marijuana. As much as I may or may not agree with this POV, this Talk page is not the place for such a plea. This is not a forum to discuss marijuana, it's a forum to discuss the Wikipedia article about marijuana. --Jaysweet 18:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We aren't American either so specifically US causes are well outside our scope as Jaysweet says, SqueakBox 18:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Article edit to promote a site

In external links I saw a new link added entitled "Bibliography of scholarly histories on cannabis and hashish". It turns out the article is nothing more then a "bibliography" without an actual article. Another words, just a list of document. It isnt very useful, and points to an article in a blog. Seems to me this was added more so to promote the blog then to provide a useful external link. I didnt want to remove it myself, but i think it should. Debeo Morium 19:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete it, SqueakBox 19:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Did and done, woot i am now a contributor, lol Debeo Morium 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I posted that bibliography so that those interested in making informed contributions could do so more easily. It's unfortunate that it was not understood as a "good faith" contribution. But since it was "original research" (I am a PhD student in the history of psychology), where else should I have put it? JTBurman 22:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Im not an authority on such things, but from my opinion, no where. It didnt seem like original research to me, cause unless i missed something, It was just a list of names of papers with not much of a rhyme or reason to it. My suggestion would be to post the link here, and let the others decide if it is something that has merit somewhere. Debeo Morium 02:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The contribution was to provide a vetted list of peer reviewed, scholarly histories of Cannabis and Hashish. It's a starting point for those Wikipedians who have access to university libraries and who wish to add scholarly material to their contributions. (It is clear from the existing page, for example, that nobody here knows about the relevance of Moreau de Tours.) Additional value is provided by the fact that the bibliographies were compiled by a researcher trained in the history of psychology; it's not "just a list." In any case, the original post can be found here. JTBurman 03:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The original blog post has been updated to include article abstracts, with a view specifically to increasing its usefulness to Wikipedians. If no one objects, I will now link to it from the article page. To check the updated bibliography, find it here. JTBurman 15:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My main problem with it is that i dont see the point of a list of research papers, and quotes from them without much interpretation or personal analysis. If there was some coherent point made in a research paper that used these references int eh bibliography then yea, thats cool. But what there is right now isnt anymore useful then 5 minutes on google from my perspective. Of course lets wait to hear from a ew other people, if i the only one who winds up thinking this i wont oppose it. The key is, do most people find that link to be a helpful resource to add? I don't. Debeo Morium 16:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
In fact, now that i look it over more completely, it seems to be the same article you tried to add before that got shot down. The only difference seems to be that you copy and pasted the first paragraph from each reference below it. Doesnt seem to make much of a difference from how it was before personally. However you did mention that it could be helpful for people looking to contribute to this article in the future. Perhaps then it would be good to keep it in the talk page and even flag it so it wont go into the archive. Since the talk page is geared toward contributors and the main page is geared towards educating/readers. Debeo Morium 16:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm just trying to help out. The resource will continue to be hosted at our site for the foreseeable future. If anyone cares to use it, feel free. JTBurman 21:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Intoxication" vs. "The High"

One of these is encyclopedic and the other is not. Someone doesn't want it read intoxication because "intoxication" only applies to "bad" drugs whereas cannabis is a "good" drug, oh, wait... I forgot, it's "ain't no drug" either. The slippery slope process of euphemizing this article into weed-user friendly colloquialisms has to stop. If you are *high*, you are intoxicated due to cannabis. Yes, the word "intoxicated" has connotations; deal with it. In the interim, I'll agree to keep this as "mental effects", but this is imprecise and not what is meant. I'm reverting it to "intoxication" pending a discussion here.--Loodog 21:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  • "Intoxication" is a perfectly good word. The definition in Intoxication is crap, really; a better set comes from answers.com:
  1. Stupefaction or excitement by the action of a chemical substance.
  2. Exhilaration, excitement, or euphoria.
  3. Poisoning by a drug or toxic substance.
Now, in my experience, the first and the second are rather accurate; and some of the shit I smoked in the '70s would fit #3, but that's a different issue entirely... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (ec)Mental effects is indeed imprecise. Arguably though both high and intoxication are POV, SqueakBox 21:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Whole-heartedly agree with changing it back to intoxication. Despite your "weariness" with Wikipedia that you mention on your user page, you are more patient with it than me it seems. I'd given up :)
And to add a point to you folks out there who only want to say ridiculously positive things about marijuana: That isn't any more productive than the folks who are saying ridiculously negative things about it. The only way there will ever be a rational public policy in place regarding marijuana is if people start discussing it rationally. Not only is it unencyclopedic to put these wild claims in here, but it doesn't help your cause either. It hurts it. --Jaysweet 21:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
In common language in the US (I'm not sure about other counties), being under the influence of marijuana is referred to as "being high" (or a slang word) in contrast to "being intoxicated" to refer to being under the influence of alcohol. a "high" is usually used for illegal substances.  hmwith  talk 14:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you source this? What we really need are sources for what the effect is described as by users, law enforcers and others, SqueakBox 15:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm reluctant to provide sources -- because, from the above discussion regarding my bibliography of histories, this is apparently not deemed a "contribution" -- but the following journal articles will likely answer any questions you may have:

  • Adamec, C., Phil, R. O., & Leiter, L. (1976). An analysis of the subjective marihuana experience. International Journal of the Addictions, 11(2), 295-307.
  • Bromberg, W. (1934). Marihuana intoxication. A clinical study of cannabis sativa intoxication. American Journal of Psychiatry, 91, 303-330.
  • Burns, M. & Sharma, S. (1976). Marihuana "high": A first-time effect?. Psychological Reports, 38(2), 543-546.
  • Halikas, J. A., Goodwin, D. W., & Guze, S. B. (1971). Marihuana effects: A survey of regular users. Journal of the American Medical Association, 217(5), 692-694.
  • Rossi, A. M., Kuehnle, J. C., & Mendelson, J. H. (1978). Marihuana and mood in human volunteers. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 8(4), 447-453.
  • Tart, C. T. (1970). Marijuana intoxication: Common experiences. Nature, 226(5247), 701-704.
  • Wilson, S. R. & Maguire, F. (1985). Self-esteem and subjective effects during marijuana intoxication. Journal of Drug Issues, 15(2), 263-271.

However, these findings need to be read through the results provided by:

  • Cowan, J., Neidert, G., & Miller, L. (1982). Marijuana and memory for feelings. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry, 6(1), 63-73.
  • Mathew, R. J., Wilson, W. H., Turkington, T. G., Hawk, T. C., Coleman, R. E., DeGrado, T. R., & Provenzale, J. (2002). Time course of tetrahydrocannabinol-induced changes in regional cerebral blood flow measured with positron emission tomography. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 116(3), 173-185.
  • Paul, M. I. (1997). The effects of marijuana on the phenomenology of communication in two person groups. I. The questionnaire study on subjective experience. Journal of Melanie Klein & Object Relations, 15(2), 179-193.
  • Stark-Adamec, C., Pihl, R. O., & Adamec, R. E. (1980). Contributions of individual differences to subjective intoxication. Psychological Reports, 47(3, Pt 1), 863-869.

And, if this is something that interests you (either academically or recreationally), I also suggest you check out the following:

  • Brook, J. S., Balka, E. B., & Whiteman, M. (1999). The risks for late adolescence of early adolescent marijuana use. American Journal of Public Health, 89(10), 1549-1554.
  • Mainous, A. G., Martin, C. A., Oler, M. J., Richardson, E. T., & Haney, A. S. (1996). Substance abuse among adolescents: Fulfilling a need state. Adolescence, 31(124), 807-815.

These may not all be available through the university's electronic resources, so you may have to visit the library in person. But they are definitely all relevant. -JTBurman 03:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Lethal Dose?

Does it say somewhere in the article that there is no lethal dose of marijuana? If it does I missed and I apologize. If the article doesn't mention this, don't you think that this is a important fact to mention? 70.54.111.29 02:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis_(drug)#Toxicity. Try your browser's "find" function on the word "lethal".--Loodog 02:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Ctrl F for most browsers, SqueakBox 15:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There IS a lethal dose. THC has a toxicity level. The only problem is that it is impossible for a human to consume this level of THC in the amount of time required to die.What's up Dr. Strangelove 07:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Classification of marijuana

Can someone create an image from this? As it is it is horribly difficult to read and takes up a huge amount of space. Actually it is also under mediation for being unsourced on psychoactive drug (the diagram is unreferenced and false; plenty of people oppose it; it can and will be removed in accordance with WP:V until it is sourced)199.125.109.99 23:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

After long discussion the diagram was chucked as WP:OR. 199.125.109.21 05:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I called OR on this, and the user has since provided sources on the page. Obviously, said sources should appear in this image also, and be checked.--Loodog 02:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Even if it was sourced it needs to be redone as an image so it does not take up so much space on the page. It is very confusing and hard to read, and some of the text is on top of each other. 199.125.109.133 16:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MKnight on this one. I wouldn't describe "the munchies" as an increase in appetite, but more of an augmentation of the sensations one experiences while eating (i.e. one feels a different, heighthened perception of flavors, textures, and smells of food after smoking cannabis). Eating in and of itself has been shown to trigger the "reward" function in our brains, so it seems logical that it would be a pleasurable activity when one is under the influence of marijuana. The thing I find odd is that the connection between the stomach and the brain seems to be interrupted when one is high, as if the stomach fails to relay the signal to tell the brain that it's full. I'll try to find some sources for all this. Dosed1.0 21:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The Selling

Is there a section or article on the selling of marijuana ? What i mean is that the selling of marijuana has many cultural concepts to it that i think are interesting and also relevant to this article. In America you have a Dime Bag ($10 for marijuana) which is used in rap videos and the like. Is there an article on what a Dime-bag is? (it's apart of Drug and Hip-Hop culture or Black Culture) In New Zealand you have "Tini's" ($20)or fiddy bags ($50) andtini houses where you go to buy them not to mention etiquette. Ounces are probably the most common form of distribution to dealers (or high rollers). Yea, just thought i'd see. I if i missed it then don't even worry. Savre 04:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it should be in there. Although im not to sure how youd be able to do it while citing refrences.


Are you kidding me?

Ounces are for high rollers, high rollers go for pounds not ounces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.74.186 (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude. Every highschooler and his brother can afford ounces. High rollers stick with QPs and pounds. --MKnight9989 12:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This ain't a guide on marijuana, its an encyclopaedic article. Sounds like many teenagers have become editors. Read the wikipedia guidelines --78.86.117.164 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Using Erowid's Effect List

I'm going to use Erowid's effect list for "Effect of Intoxication". The reason why is that a lot of the sources provided for many of the claims are from sources that totally violate POV (it wouldn't be much different from citating the DEA website for cannabis health facts, some of these websites are like that). Erowid is usually the most neutral drug source on the net as it explains the positive and negative so I'm going to insert its effect list. Zachorious 19:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"Erowid is usually the most neutral drug source on the net" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA--Loodog 20:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I agree, the effects list, and other data is very neutral. The site as a whole includes both negative and positive expirences and input. Granted it does cater to druggies, but thats only because its one of the few sites that is neutral and accurate. Debeo Morium 05:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The withdraw symptoms listed seem very vague. Some of these symptoms could come from a poor nights sleep or not eating enough fruit. How is "desire to smoke pot" a symptom of withdraw. You can not smoke for years and still desire to smoke pot. Well you get the idea. it also states symptoms can last up to 6 weeks, that seems a little extreme.
In "Negative effect of cannabis" it states "nausea, especially in combination with alcohol, some pharmaceuticals, or other psychoactives" As far as i know cannabis is known for it's anti-nausea properties. Alcohol, pharmaceuticals, and other psychoactives alone can cause nausea. It also states under Positive "reduced nausea, increased appetite (used medically for this)".
I reviewed the erowid.org page that the "Effects" section sites and it has no references. Please also read their disclaimer. I like erowid but it should not be taken as science it is based alot on input from it's user community. I think a better researched list of effects should be found as it is important information to get right. Grason1129 19:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
We had a list of effects ages back that caused endless contentiopn so i removed it and nobody reverted me. Unfortunately it has now been returned which I am not happy about as it just seems too controversial and dependent on individual ediotrs. How would people feel about deleting the list but perhaps replacing it with a section of written text about effects? SqueakBox 19:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
While it is true that marijuana is good as an anti-nausea agent, it is also true that it can in some people cause nausea. Ive seen people smoke so much they go the spins and puked. Granted it will more often make you less nauseous not more, but it does happen Debeo Morium 21:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
That's what I mean by contentious. And cannabis can clearly help with certain types of nausea but also cause it. I had one of the worst nights of my life whiting out on cannabis about 3 weeks after smoking my first joint. Its the same with the munchies as there are credible reports of cannabis as an appetite suppressant. I have experienced both and as I became a more experienced user the suppressant effect became more noticeable than the munchies, SqueakBox 00:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Squeakbox has a very valid point about slippery slopes here. Proposed change: only include medical side effects documented officially, like antiemetic properties and interocular pressure or whatever the hell it's supposed to do for eyes. Intoxication effects, perhaps we could just say they vary enormously from person to person and leave it at that. If someone wants to know what being high is like a) he can smoke weed or b) he can do a damn google search on effects.--Loodog 01:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Major pruning

Article has been reduced from 81 KB to 47 KB by moving the largely duplicated info from effects and legalization to their respective sub articles. I would suggest doing the same to Health issues and the effects of cannabis as it is itself over 80 KB now. Cheers, and thanks for the invite but I have no interest in purchasing an account (Please use an account if you wish to be an anonymous user). 199.125.109.50 22:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor, we appreciate your contributions. Also, accounts are free. Regular contributors are encouraged to have one as most experienced wikipedians are generally more suspicious of anons. You also gain the ability to create new pages, rename pages, upload images, and edit semi-protected pages. More info: Wikipedia:Why create an account?.--Loodog 05:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi 199.125.109.50, I've restored a shortened version of the health issues section. This has only lengthened the article by 7 bytes - if it needs to be shorter chat here. --Dilaudid 21:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi you seem to have deleted my edits, and replaced the section with an unsourced Health Issues section which says Cannabis makes you high. I've reverted this - can you chat here before you delete my work? If you'd like the "Health issues" section left in that's fine - but I think it needs a bit of work first. Here it is:
The state of intoxication due to cannabis consumption is colloquially known as "high"; it is the state where mental and physical facilities are noticeably altered due to the consumption of cannabis. Each user experiences a different high, and the nature of it may vary upon factors such as potency, dose, chemical composition, method of consumption and set and setting.
Thanks, --Dilaudid 20:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Getting high is unarguably the biggest health effect and you deleted it when you put in the obscure information about mental health, which according to your reference only affects 4 out of 1000 users and which was already in the health effects article. So I just put it back. 199.125.109.21 04:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate that "getting high" may affect all users - but this is an encyclopedia, we are supposed to give weight to all aspects. Mental illness is of very great concern to those who are affected by it. Getting high is already addressed in the history and classification sections. If you want to remove content from this article to reduce it's size, which was your original rationale, then why not remove the other sections that have their own article? I'll leave this overnight for you to have a think about it. --Dilaudid 22:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess the point I am trying to make is that in order to get the article down to a reasonable size all the health issues and effects other than the basics were moved to the subpage, which goes on and on and on about many effects. Mental illness is covered on that page, however if you wish to give it more emphasis on that page please feel free. And while you are there, that page needs a lot of trimming, if possible, as it is itself very long - perhaps break it up into several subpages? 199.125.109.72 05:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've got no interest in editing the health effects subpage. I think that "high" - although it is an important addition to the article - is not a health issue. So I'll do a bit of work to move it around. WP:SIZE says there's no problem with the length of the article - but if you'd like to cut it down then lets cut down the cultivation and medical use sections. I'll keep the references to psychosis and schizophrenia. These are important for two reasons - a series of peer reviewed studies have been done to establish whether there is a link, and the studies seem to be misunderstood by most pundits, and also because they document a real and serious health issue to cannabis users. Let me know if you disagree with any edits, please don't revert my work again until you've decided why you are doing it - is it size or is it because schizophrenia is not relevant? --83.76.99.237 19:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
We have some major creep going on here with 47 k turning into 50 k, when the goal should be closer to about 35 k. Right now there is no link from "the high" to "effects", which needs to be fixed.(Fixed) I see no reason for trying to put everything into the main article when it is already covered in the subpage. I think that is called "main article fixation" or something like that, wherein editors insist on putting their edits into the lead paragraph or the main article instead of where they belong on the subpages. Here is my challange to you. Summarize in 50 words or less everything on the Health issues and the effects of cannabis page. And yes I am fully interested in sloughing off stuff from the other sections you mentioned. By the way, yes I am on dial up and editing (or even reading) a 50 k page is a royal pain. 199.125.109.21 05:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi 199.125.109.21. Sorry you have difficulty accessing on dial up. According to the wiki guidelines, WP:SIZE, at 45kb the prose length of the article is not large enough to justify breaking it up. The total length of the Health Issues section is now 1800 bytes, and it accounts for less than 4% of the article length. The Medical Use section accounts for 16%, so lets focus on that. Good luck --Dilaudid 20:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
As more and more people get broadband access it is easy to forget that not all of the world is so fortunate. For example one of the modems I have often used is a 2400 baud modem, 2.4 k, and as we approach a billion internet users it is best to not optimize pages for those few with 1024x768 and better screens and 56 k and faster internet access. Last I checked we were at 50 k, though, not 45 k. Now that someone has taken our fun away I won't be editing for a while, or not this article. It always amuses me how long people put up with this article being vandalized 50 times a day. It rarely seems to bother anyone. Actually it only seems like 50 a day. In the last month there have been about 100, so it is less than 5 a day. And there seem to be a lot less now that the page has been pruned. I'll be back when the page gets unprotected again. 199.125.109.133 03:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Great, I'll look forward to it. --Dilaudid 23:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think 199... has raised a good point - this article is maybe a bit unfocused. If no one objects I will try to move things around a bit, and maybe even delete some stuff. Chat here if I've screwed up your edits. --Dilaudid 23:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Relationship with other drugs

This seems a bit muddled. I've made major alterations to remove things and to try to make it more concise and to the point. This has been removed: <quote>With this argument in mind, certain activist groups such as NORML contend that legalizing cannabis would substantially reduce the use of other drugs by taking the distribution of marijuana out of the hands of criminals, and regulating it in a similar manner to alcohol or tobacco.[1] Government agencies such as the DEA, however, claim that legalization would do far more harm than good, and would likely cause a rise in cannabis use.[2] </quote> The reason I removed it is because NORML are actually saying that legalization of cannabis will reduce cannabis use. They don't mention the effect on consumption of other drugs (the research they quote does though). Similarly - the reference to the DEA is mainly about cannabis use, not other drugs. Perhaps this should go in the legalisation section? --Dilaudid 18:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC) --NORML has it right: legalization will reduce use because legalizing the herb will bring with it legalization of miniature utensils to eliminate wasteful rolling papers, wide-bowl pipes etc.-- see below (21).-- 66.99.1.162 01:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Methods of consumption

In this section the definition of hashish is incorrect. By definition hash should not contain vegetable debris,only melted glandular trichnomes because unlike kief hashish is heated vaporizing plant material.

Infrared Detection

How does Infrared detection work? Some people use infrared detection to find the plants. Is it because the plants give off heat or because the environment in which the plants are grown must be kept warm? Thank you and please do not add my IP to this comment. -"anon"

I guess it's because the lights that are used to grow the plants indoors, and they can give off a lot of heat. I also heard that the electricity usage is used to work it out. The electricity companies are supposed to have disclosed suspicious electicity bills where a constant high demand for electricity comes from a residential address --Dilaudid 08:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest putting detection of plants in the Cannabis article and not in the Cannabis (drug) article. 199.125.109.50 18:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if your concern for your IP is out of legal reasons, but anyone can look back through "history" and just read your IP off, even if you now delete your post. With regard to the original question, plants are usually grown under UV lamps, since, they need UV lights and wouldn't get it without sunlight. UV lights (aka black lights) heat up enomormously during operation, resulting in a very conspicuous electrical bill as well as a ton of heat which you can pick up as radiated infrared.--Loodog 18:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Once again, issues relating to growing cannabis are more appropriately added to the Cannabis article. 199.125.109.42 03:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that loodog has absolutely no idea what they're talking about. A basic look in any page on indoor HID lamps and growing would soon set that unbelievable ignorance right. UV lights aren't used in indoor growing situations, nor black lamps, but High Pressure Sodium or Metal Halide high intensity discharge lamps are used. Secondly, these lamps are hot, true, and this is the reason they emit a large infra-red component which must be dealt with. Thirdly, the electricity bill is not conspicious. Your toaster uses more power than most growrooms would. I know that this doesn't have anything to do with the article, sorry, but I work in hydroponics and orchids (in and outdoors) and just had to comment on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.104.8 (talk) 14:16, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Both high pressure sodium and metal halide give of UV light. In addition your toaster doesnt come anywhere near the power consumption of these lights. or a relatively small grow room or a dozen or so plants youd need a 600 watt growing light. This is equielant to the energy consumed by 10 normal lights, and quite a few toasters. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 20:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Good job working in hydroponics and not realizing Sodium and Halide HID lamps give off UV, buddy.--Loodog 21:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The glass bulb surrounding the arctube absorbs uv light emitted by these lamps Whilst true that most toasters wouldn't use as much power on a total electricity usage over a day, the wattage in a toaster is typically much higher than a small growroom. Your computer and screen probably uses about the same amount. In australia the kw/h price is such that the cost works out to about 30 dollars per 2 month bill cycle for a 400w lamp, and a bit under 50 for a 600w. Adding peripherals in the room you're looking at about 1kw/h of electricity being used for 12hrs through most of the cycle, (excluding the vegetative cycle of 18/6 on/off. And none of that excuses the ignorance about "blacklights". *rollseyes* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.104.16 (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Government Debate

The paragraph "The official position of several medical organizations including the American Medical Association,[41] the National Multiple Sclerosis Society,[42] the American Glaucoma Society, the American Academy of Ophthalmology,[43] and the American Cancer Society[44] is that they do not support smoking the herbal form of marijuana for medical use.", cites references, which is good, but if you actually read the references, there is nowhere that says any of them do not support smoking the herbal form of marijuana for medical use. I think this paragraph uses weasel words to make a point that is not supported by the links.Nly8nchz 03:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Then you are free to throw up a {{tryharder}} tag, which flags a piece of information as not supported by the references provided.--Loodog 03:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nly8nchz (talk • contribs) 04:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph concentrates almost entirely on the Government Debate in the USA, totally ignoring political stances towards marijuana in other regions of the world. IMHO, it should be largely merged with the section "Medical Use" in Legal history of marijuana in the United States. 217.193.145.202 20:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


One more thing

WHO censored a positive cannabis research Booze and cigarettes have been found more dangerous than cannabis products. According to a study made by the World Health Organization cigarettes and booze have been found to cause, for example, greater addiction than cannabis. According to the magazine in which the study was published (New Scientist) WHO had planned to release the findings of this study last December, but had instead for political reasons decided to classify the results. From a scientific point of view there was no reason to classify the results.

..article that went something like this (sorry had to translate from Finnish) was apparently made my AFP-Reuters. I just can't find anything about it. Censorship huh? Perhaps someone with access to the latest New Scientist can confirm this? Let's make something of it ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.232.114 (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Methods of consumption

Here I note that in the article smoking is not given a section of its own, although it is referred to briefly under "vaporizer", "eating" etc.

Perhaps, after the others, a Section 4.4 should be added, titled:

    "Smoking--- Reconsidered"

It is in the public interest to further harm reduction by making sure everyone knows the difference between more and less harmful methods of smoking, and that while no smoking is as harmless as a vaporizer, one method of smoking, the utensil known as a toker or one-hitter, can be almost as harmless and is very cheap and portable.

"Cannabis Culture" really tobacco-pushing

The most harmful of all smoking methods is the hot-burning overdose cigarette, which was developed and heavily advertised to maximize the profits of the tobacco companies. The popular "joint" represents a triumph of the tobacco industry in getting their overdose system ratified by marijuana users at the latter's cost. (I note that in the article "Cannabis Smoking" the Wikipedia devotes several times more space to describing the "joint", how to roll one, etc., and illustrating same, than to the one-hitter.) Thus in its worst respects, especially "casual" thoughtless overdosing, "cannabis culture" is really a form of tobacco merchandising which has largely gone unnoticed by the public with results that are conveniently blamed on the cannabis.

L.S.M.F.T. = Life-Saving Minimum Firing Temperature

The new section "Smoking-- Reconsidered" should point out that a minimum burning temperature can be achieved by using a long-stemmed utensil with the narrowest possible crater diameter. This reduces loss of herb nutrient almost as well as the much more expensive vaporizer, and reduces exposure to carbon monoxide (by far the most dangerous toxin in all smoke and the cause of many effects blamed on the cannabis). A long, long stem means the smoke has a long distance to cool down before reacing your trachea. The fact that the public seems to be ignorant as yet of these important issues is shown by the fact that currently (2007) two cigaret companies are marketing fatter cigarets with the absurd claim-- evidently believed by many teenagers-- that "wider" = "smoother".

Unfortunately, with all due respect to traditionalists, most "traditional" hookahs, bongs, chillums etc. have too wide a bowl, resulting in burning the herb too hot, with waste and health hazard attributed to cannabis.

Pro-Tobacco "Drug Enforcement"

Providing correct information on the above will have an impact on the debate seen on this page and elsewhere, whether cannabis is a "drug" or not. Is water a "drug" because an overdose will drown you? Ironicly the narrow-crater anti-overdose utensils which could solve this problem are mostly either "illegal" or considered so by the public-- much to the advantage of the tobacco companies who don't want any such thing widely promoted. If "a smoke" meant a 25-mg. toke in a miniature utensil instead of a "light it once and use it up" 700-mg. cigarette, what would happen to their profit margin?

So, for example, I know one person who won't have a toker in his car because, "What if the cops found that, they'd confiscate my car!"

Describe Mini-Utensil in Article

The Wikipedia can make an important contribution to public health, and maybe help save 5 million lives a year, by finding a way, in its entries concerning cannabis, tobacco, smoking etc., to inform the public on the need to replace all dangerous overdose smoking modalities with an anti-overdose utensil. A valuable by-product will be that those of us who value riefer will have freedom to smoke our herb of choice, and as much OR LITTLE herb as we choose, at long last. 66.99.1.162 01:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Find a reference and add it to the article. Toker is not even mentioned in the Cannabis smoking article, by the way. Make sure you add it to both that and the effects article. 199.125.109.107 15:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Add the subsection Smoking after the paragraph that ends with "alcoholic beverages that are consumed", and before the subsection "Vaporization":

===Smoking===

Main article: Cannabis smoking

199.125.109.107 15:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - seems reasonable, though if you have a summary of the article that could be placed in that section, it would be ideal. :) Nihiltres(t.l) 16:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Indian link (disambiguation)

{{editprotected}} I am working on getting rid of links to disambiguation pages. In the history section, I suggest you change the Indian link to Indian.--Rog 04:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is only semiprotected to edit. --MZMcBride 04:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
So that means I'm the only one who can't edit? Here is a thought - instead of saying "A common view is that" (if there is any future of marijuana as a medicine, it lies in its isolated components), which does not appear in the reference, how about: "While the Institute of Medicine suggests that if there is any future of marijuana as a medicine, it lies in its isolated components and their synthetic derivatives, it is commonly thought that cannabis will be legalized within 5 years." Note also that "cannabinoids" does not need to be mentioned as it is implicit. 199.125.109.93 20:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

US Debate

Article reads: "Cannabis is a drug. It's history blah blah... It has medical uses. Any BY THE WAY, here's the American political climate on it."

In a general summary article about the drug, it's absurd to be so specific as to dedicate an entire section to how these facts are spun politically in one country. I'm removing this.--Loodog 02:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you on that one.
I also believe that the small medical cannabis summary section on this page is entirely US centric, and needs to be changed. The use of medical cannabis is not controversial anymore to any doctor or medical association. It might be controversial to right wing individuals in the USA, but those in the field of medicine do not find it controversial at all, only those doctors who fear to lose their medical license because of government interference with the Doctor | Patient relationship would not support cannabis if it helped their patient. The medical benefits of cannabis should be discussed and not the controversy, that needs to go into the medical cannabis article in the USA section, or the legal history of marijuana in the United States. Medical Cannabis has been around so long, I really don't think focusing on the United States laws or US based Pro-Cannabis organizations is what should be done. The medical benefits should be listed as reported by scientific studies, and medical organizations, let them go to the medical cannabis article in the US section to learn about the illegality in the United States. This is a global encyclopedia.

--The Pot Snob 21:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is completely written by "pot-heads." It is a total disgrace. It might as well say, "YO DUDE! SMOKE WEED! ITS GOOOOD!" As a matter of fact, it often does read this way. There is almost zero accurate information about the drug. Like any drug, Cannabis has some dangers and benefits. However, if we continute to be on the extremes and battle, this article will always be resigned to be absolute garbage. Ursasapien (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


Here's my take on it. As in everything Food and Drugs, the USA are hugely influencial in the world. Any major change of policy in the US is sure to affect European policy, and in turn the third world, and, well, the whole world. This is the reason why I think this section should stay, even if it could be trimmed down and moved to its own article. There is a definite need for a more global seciton about legality, and this could be a sub seciton of it. About the need to state the real advantages and disavantages, there is a controversy about it (I wouldn't call five major medical associations saying it's no use "not controversial at all").SidiLemine 11:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)---

Additionally, I support your removal of the Legalized, Decriminalized, Illegal (Uninforced), and Illegal subheadings. First, we need to establish some definition of these terms and then we need some citations to form an accurate list. I live in Ohio, USA and if cannabis has been "decriminalized" here, they need to inform law enforcement. I think people are still being arrested in New York and Mississippi for cannabis possession, as well. Ursasapien (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, I completely agree

The Section on Medical Cannabis should not be United States Centric at all because it was one of the most used medicines around the world in extract form up until the 1940's. Marinol is widely in use today which is synthetic THC, and I do not believe that it is controversial at all to prescribe marinol to a person who is going through chemo therapy.

The only controversy comes from smoking cannabis for medical purposes, and many people who take marijuana extracts in food form under Prop 215 in California, and are not smoking it, and are doing something that was a common medication for thousands of years in most cultures. I see no controversy in that, in fact cannabis extracts have no ill effects other then a mild euphoria, and it is probably the most safe medicine for these people. The IOM study only makes refernece to smoked cannabis as a form of relief, and does not take into account the benefits of consuming the full line up of chemicals in a single dose in food form.

Many physicians around the world understand and recommend smoked cannabis for those patients who would otherwise be stuck on opiates for pain, have a terminal illness, or need immediate relief from nausea because marinol takes two hours to work.

Marijuana is a lovely leafy plant that makes you feel amazing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.63.88.20 (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should start by making the paragraph about any controversy at the bottom and an accurate timeline showing the major drug companies patent of marinol and the illegalization of cannabis in synch on the page. Also we should list the year that those medical associations changed the tone on medical cannabis extracts. This will allow for the most factual and blatant information to be displayed about the medical cannabis issue.

So if controversy must be mentioned, let it be mentioned in the proper place in the section, in the proper order.

None the less, it is important that we list those ailments for which cannabis helps, and how it helps, before we mention controversy in a specific country.

I move to re-arrange the medical section into more of a resource, rather then a reiteration of information people already know, which is that cannabis is illegal in the United States.

If anyone agrees let me know.

--The Pot Snob 00:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


The controversy about medical cannabis is not about the medical benefits. The medical benefits have been proven, it is the recognition by certain organizations and countries that is the controversy. If we do have a allowance of this controversy to be discussed in this encyclopedia, we must keep our perspective entirely objective, and not some subjective political garbage.

LIVE FREE OR DIE

--The Pot Snob 00:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

To address comments by $yD!:
I don't believe there's one instance when US's drug policy has had any affect on other countries. Canada continues to keep it decriminalized, The Netherlands has legalized it, France keeps it illegal, and to the best of my knowledge their policy has never had any correlation to ours. I grant that an article on world economics might offer the US a disproportionate role based on GDP, but there's no reason our policy on drugs has any meaning in the world beyond our borders.
To addres comments by by Pot Stob:
This article should not be diverted to the use of Medical cannabis, for which there already an article, nor to a timeline of its usage for medical benefits, which would also be more appropriate in the medical cannabis article. A history of marijuana laws in the United States is already found in the Legality of cannabis article. A lot of material has been split off from this article because of the size it grew to. The result is that this article should be a very terse summary of the main issues at hand related to the drug, with links to further detail.
Also, the controversy isn't even over medical benefits. That which can and has been proven in double-blinded trials is not debated by the medical community. The controversy is:
  • How harmful are varying levels of usage? (It is NOT a completely harmless drug)
  • As a result, what responsiblity does the government have to protect people from it as is done with harder drugs?
I motion again for the removal of the US-centric "U.S. Debate section". You are free to add it to any of the above mentioned subarticles, or even create a new article called "Marijuana debate in the United States", but something this specific about such an arbitrary thing has no place here.--Loodog 01:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
To address comments made by Loodob:
I was addressing the medical cannabis summary section contained within this article, and was not addressing the article in its entirety. I specified the medical cannabis section at my first post. I believe this summary section should not focus on the controversy in the United States, I think we agree on that. It should focus on the medical benefits of cannabis.
To address the US Debate section:

I say we need to keep some effect of the US on the perception of the drug, because it has definitely played a major part in its illegality in numerous locations which I explain later on. The US Debate section is definitely confusing, and mostly focuses on medical cannabis, which almost makes it seem like a sub section of the sub section summary of medical cannabis on this page.

Some arrangement must be made where the Medical Cannabis subsection of this article can have a focus on the scientifically proven benefits of cannabis instead of on US drug policy.

Instead of a US debate section we can create a section devoted to the US policy towards the drug and those in contention with it. Being concise and sourcing everything in a formal matter.

Addressing the International Effect of US Drug laws:

For you to say you do not think the United States has had any effect on international drug policy is like saying Einstein had no effect on the development of his Theory of Relativity.

Following the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 we were all faced with the UN 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances which is almost an exact replica of the US Act regarding drugs. Since those Conventions and International agreements countries have amended the laws to fit the democracy. Originally though, the United Nations, which is mainly supported by the United States, (especially in 1971), and therefore the United States has effected international policy regarding cannabis.

The United States has also continued to fund and engage in international activity regarding drugs, whether it was Columbia, Peru, Morocco, or Mexico, the United States will do what it wants when it comes to dope.

The United States Drug policies have, and will continue to effect international policy with our trading partners and neighbors. (Afghanistan, Columbia) Hello??

Addressing the beginning of the article:

I also think this line needs to be reworded to be more accurate Humans have been consuming cannabis since prehistory, although since the 20th century a rise in its use for recreational, religious or spiritual, and medicinal purposes. It should read Humans have been consuming cannabis since prehistory for religious or spiritual, and medicinal purposes, although since the 20th century, the rise in its recreational use has led to its illegalization in many countries around the world.

It also was not just its recreational use, there were many factors, not the least of which is racism. It was the recreational use by minorities that caused many of the first laws, along with the Drug Companies first patent of THC in the form of Synthetic Marinol.

I think if the illegalization of cannabis is discussed and the United States reasoning, all of the DEA's claims about cannabis should be backed up with links to the study, and also those in conflict with the methods of the studies in question. Proof of the gateway theory and all the other things they say about cannabis must be sourced and listed, as well as those who have looked at the study and have had problems with its methodology. If we are going to bring up this subject we need to do it objectively and present sources and facts from all sides.

Let me know if anyone agrees

--The Pot Snob 04:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  1. "It should focus on the medical benefits of cannabis." No, that's already covered in other articles.
  2. "Instead of a US debate section we can create a section devoted to the US policy" You miss my point. There shouldn't be any section dedicated to the United States any more than Heroin should be based on United States reactions. For a US-specific article about drug laws, look at the article already created for it.
  3. "Following the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 we were all faced with the UN 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances which is almost an exact replica of the US Act regarding drugs." Then write what world policy is on drugs and mention that the United States Controlled Substances Act of 1970 influenced it. As of right now the article reads, "This is the Unites States policy on cannabis". A reader has no idea why the US in particular is focused on, nor what world policy is. You're basically leaving the reader to infer everything you said here, which they couldn't possibly know.
  4. "I think if the illegalization of cannabis is discussed and the United States reasoning, all of the DEA's claims about cannabis should be backed up with links to the study, and also those in conflict with the methods of the studies in question. Proof of the gateway theory and all the other things they say about cannabis must be sourced and listed, as well as those who have looked at the study and have had problems with its methodology. If we are going to bring up this subject we need to do it objectively and present sources and facts from all sides." Again, you address things that do not belong in the scope of this article. If you want the history and debate of marijuana laws in the United States, talk about it in the article that has already been made about it. Barring the fact that it's too US-centric for a general world article about the subject, it's also too specific for the summary on the topic this is supposed to be.

Desired format: Cannabis:

History
Medical Use
Main article: Medical cannabis
Medical Use summary
New breeding and cultivation techniques
Main article: Cannabis (drug) cultivation
Breeding summary

Etc. There is a reason it is organized this way. If we put all the information into this article, it wouldn't be readable, and would have a length of 132kb. If you have detail to add, add it to the appropriate subarticle that's already been made. This is why a section on U.S. political is completely out of place in this article.--Loodog 16:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Plus one line at a time this article has been creeping back up in size, it is at 52 kB now, I would like to see it trimmed back to about 35 kB, but even 45 kB would be an improvement. 199.125.109.117 17:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Yet another reason to delete this section. Legalization and criminalization are already covered in their own section and that section has a link to its own article. There is nothing in that section that belongs here.--Loodog 22:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I am now in agreement with Loodog, that all references to the illegality of cannabis be removed from the every section all together. This article is supposed to pertain to the psychoactive properties of the plant only.

Removal of the Medical area is questionable only because many of the plants psychoactive effects have medicinal uses.


Getting rid of all that talk about US policy, will definitely make the article more concise, which is what we are supposed to be doing. I move to remove the US debate section, and all references to the illegality of the drug in the 20th century. This article should focus on the psychoactive properties of the plant.

--The Pot Snob 17:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, my friend, you misinterpret my intent. There is already a wonderfully concise summary of laws and cannabis in this article at Cannabis (drug)#Criminalization and legalization. It very briefly discusses a world view on the matter and refers you to the Legality of cannabis article for those interested in a higher level of detail. --Loodog 20:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Mexico

My friend told me there was a debate about the legality of marijuana in Mexico, and it is now legal to possess small amounts, so i just changed the picture a little. If this is not true then I apologize and can some one change it back for me. --Hiaburi 19:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Marijuana Culture?

Marijuana has a strong cultural identity, and its worth at least noting, if not being given its own article. After all 4/20 has its own article, and that is a large part of "Stoner" culture.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.24.109 (talk • contribs)

There has definitely been a culture that arose out of the use of cannabis in the 60's and 70's.

I think cannabis has much less a specific culture though, and more like a fractured representation of everyone across all cultures.

From personal experience, the Cannabis Clubs in California usually have people waiting to purchase from all ethnic, economic, and educational backgrounds. Cannabis cures racism is the philosophy of many now in California. The community pot clubs are bringing people together from Berkeley to Hollywood. You see everyone from hippies to attorneys going to buy their medicine. Thanks to the broadness of Prop 215, we can now witness the range of pot smokers in America.

The use of cannabis across all cultures is known to spread peace. The evidence is now available at pot clubs in America. Hundreds of thousands of registered patients in California openly cultivate and purchase cannabis at local dispensaries that provide papers, bongs, vaporizers and more. That huge population of pot smokers in California is so broad in scope, it boggles the mind.

We could perhaps have a section on how cannabis has effected different cultures and movements, but it might be too broad and long for this article. It is an interesting concept, and should be developed further.

Anyone else have any comments?

--The Pot Snob 05:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is just begging for original research, but go ahead and create a cannabis culture article if you have sources.--Loodog 17:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, make one and see what happens. But note, there may exist little literature on canibus in culture so instead another way to illustrate its popularity in culture is to reference its use in popular media e.g. films (Half baked, How High)--Savre 23:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
That wouldn't be cannabis culture so much as Cannabis in popular culture, which would essentially be a bloated trivia page, which is discouraged by WP:TRIVIA. I'm pretty sure there is no way to write this compliant to wikipedia guidelines. Then again, maybe someone's written a well-sourced book on it.--Loodog 00:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Re WP:RS all challeneged material must be sourced. If you wish to add the list you must source every single claim, anything less is unacceptable, SqueakBox 02:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} I think this page should definitely have an unbiased article describing the myths and facts that commonly plague the subjects. This is important for greater social understanding of the substance but must be done in a way that would define any agenda of any kind.

Wdiebe121:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)~~

N Not done per "this template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request." If the edit you are requesting is controversial I won't make the change unless a consensus in support exists first. Please make sure anything you propose includes no original research or personal opinion and is cited to reliable sources. Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Results of good article reassessment

As a result of a long (1.5 months long) discussion about this article at good article reassessment it was determined that the article does not currently meet the standards as set forth in the good article criteria and thus it has been removed from the GA list. The archived discussion contains many suggestions for improvement, please read it carefully and once improvements are made, please consider renominating the article at WP:GAN for a new review.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That was silly. Discussing the article behind everyones back with no notice of the discussion on this talk page. 199.125.109.133 14:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

effects

the section on effects seems incredibley short for an article on weed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.219.7 (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that everyone can edit the article again, I would suggest taking a look at the review at [1] The main points remaining to be fixed are the following:

  • The New Breeding and Cultivating section contains lots of statistics and references to studies where said studies are not supported with inline references, nor are statistics specifically referenced.
  • The Criminalization and legalization section is entirely unreferenced.
  • The Intoxication section is unreferenced. Also, pardon me for saying, but this section is also well below broadness requirements. It seems rather trite and terse; especially considering that the psychoactive effects of canabis are well documented...
  • Methods of consumption again, contains unreferenced statistics and other statements that seem to need verification.
  • Smoking section consists of a single hatnote. This needs to be expanded (with references, of course).
  • Eating section contains statements that beg for referencing, such as "The effects of cannabis administered this way take longer to begin, but last longer. They are sometimes perceived as more physical than mental, although there are many claims to the contrary. An oral dose of cannabis is often considered to give a more intense experience than the equivalent dose of smoked cannabis. Some people report unpleasant experiences after ingesting cannabis, because they experience a more intense effect than they are comfortable with." All this reads like someone reported it somewhere. WHERE are the references for this information.

199.125.109.99 06:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)