Talk:Cannabis/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Just a note, doesn't THC take the form of THCA in plants. This should be noted to match information from cannabinoids: "All natural cannabinoids are derived from their respective 2-carboxylic acids (2-COOH) by decarboxylation; that is, catalyzed by heat, light, or alkaline conditions"

This is not a neutral article. Also hemp and marijuana are scientifically the same plant. Marijuana has simply been selectively breed to increase the THC content while hemp is bred for its fiber content. --Rmhermen

I don't question that what you wrote is accurate, but that doesn't mean it's neutral. If nothing else, it's strange to say that something is controversial and then only state one side of the argument. Perhaps what is needed is a little history -- how and why marijuana was made illegal in the U.S. (I'd do this, but it's not something I know off the top of my head.) -- Janet Davis

I agree with Janet Davis, but I'm not sure where one might obtain dissenting opinions. Is there a source online that concisely summarized the case for prohibition of marijuana? (I tend to think that there isn't really a case for prohibition so much as there is inertia in the laws. There are certainly people opposed to legalization or decriminalization, but they aren't writing editorials or giving arguments and facts. But... am I wrong?) --Jimbo Wales

Personally I would suggest that this article be limited strictly to what cannabis is (a plant) and something about its medical effects (you get stoned). I would put stuff about its political implications in a different articles. Apart from being slightly non neutral this current article is very US centric, so perhaps the article should be called "The legal implications of Cannabis in the US" or something...Phil Lord

I also agree with Phil Lord. We should have one article that's strictly non-political, and one article that deals with the legal status of marijuana around the world. --Jimbo Wales

In the process of editing this, I've simply cut and pasted the political material here:

advocates argue that marijuana has medicinal benefits, including the ability to calm the stomachs of people suffering nauseau from chemotherapy and advanced AIDS, and indeed pharmaceutical companies in the United States sell THC extracts. Advocates for legalization also argue that marijuana has fewer dangerous side effects than alcohol (another mind-altering substance in wide acceptance and which is known to cause aggression). Advocates also argue that the vast amounts of money spent in the United States on the war on drugs has shown little effect on the availability of drugs, while at the same time restricting civil rights at an alarming rate and increasing the prison population to over 2 million--most of them there for nonviolent drug offenses, and a disproportionate number of them minorities.
Most legalization advocates, including Ralph Nader, argue at least for the legalization of hemp, which is similar to marijuana in appearance but contains only trace amounts of THC. Since hemp is indeed a weed, it does not require fertilizers or pesticides, and grows to full maturity in three months; the plant can be used to manufacture clothing, fuel, food, and paper; advocates argue that allowing its use in greater quantities would have widespread agricultural and environmental benefits.

I think it's very obvious that (1) anti-marijuana and anti-drug advocates, as well as the framers of current anti-marijuana laws, do have arguments, and (2) those arguments need to be presented. --LMS

O.k., well, my point is that I don't know where to find them. I can make some up, but I didn't hear them from any advocates. It's hard to _find_ people who advocate keeping marijuana illegal, probably because it already has been illegal for so long. Mostly, it is simply assumed.

Most sites that support prohibition of marijuana specifically, don't make arguments about why legalization is a bad idea. This is different from the situation with respect to, say, gun prohibition -- there are arguments good and bad on all sides.

But I doubt that I've looked hard enough for marijuana prohibition arguments. --Jimbo Wales

There are zillions of websites devoted to combatting drugs. I haven't seen a single one of them ;-), but I know there are. They are probably full of essays, chock-full of bad arguments, and summaries of important books about the drug war and anti-drug rhetoric, and histories of drug bans and legalization. So...sure, the arguments might be bad, but golly, they must exist. --LMS

Yez guys...sheesh, I found this on my first try on Google. See also: [1]; [2] (!!!); and in general, [3] and related searches. --LMS

The arguments against legalisation are fairly well known, and some of them recurrent. Aside from the emotional ones (drugs are BAD), the gateway argument is probably the most common. Smoke a joint you'll be on crack in a week. Other arguments are that it causes violence, that people driving on MJ would be bad, that it relates to crime, that we already have two social problems (drink and tobacco) why make a third and so on. There is even Edgar Hoovers classic argument that it might predispose decent white woman to copulate with blacks or hispanics or jazz musicians so MJ is bad for racial purity. There are plenty of arguments out there. PL

The gateway argument is also an emotional argument, and not dissimilar to the slippery slope fallacy[4]. Drug dealing relates to crime in the same way that anything illegal that people want and can get relates to crime; something about that firmly-entrenched idea of supply and demand somehow eludes most of the United States' lawmakers and public. Personally I find the arguments against drugs to be weak, paranoid, and patently vapid; and mostly based on hypothesis without supporting evidence from, e.g. Denmark, probably because there isn't any. I don't imagine anyone would take the time to write up and attempt to defend the opposing viewpoint on slavery in an article on slavery; in fact most people would find it extraordinarily peculiar and offensive. If the comparison seems a little radical to you, then go ahead and write up the anti-drug arguments yourself. Perhaps that's the better approach since (I'm guessing) you are more familiar with them. --KQ

A pretty well-researched article on the history of "marijuana" prohibition (the term "marijuana" was coined, I think, by Harry Anslinger to emphasize the connection of the terrible new drug to "crazy" Mexican immigrants) can be found at smokedot.org. It contains actual quotes from the congress debate (lasting one minute thirty-two seconds) which passed the Marijuana Tax Act into law. --Per

Information about prohibition: film Reefer Madness--notoriously terrible propaganda film; a book The Emperor Wears No Clothes--about the history of marajuana; the full text is online [[5]]; throrough article published at the Schaffer Drug Library. [[6]]

Is there any reason to have both this and Marijuana/Hashish? Should they be merged in some pattern? As it is it seems to duplicate a lot. - Montréalais

I have done so, as well as moved some stuff onto two separate pages: Cannabis/Legal Issues and Cannabis/Health Issues Lament

I don't understand this part from near the end of the article:

"In 1933 Federal law made marijuana illegal throughout the United States (contrary to the advice of the American Medical Association at the time). Congress' decision was based in part on testimony from DuPont Inc. Many analysts theorize DuPont feared a post-war decline in nylon sales, and wished to eliminate hemp fiber as competition."

DuPont didn't start selling any nylon products until 1938, and nylon stockings in particular weren't available until 1940. What "post-war" nylon sales could Dupont be concerned about in 1933? -- Arteitle

The article has been revised a bit since I posted this comment, but this part still doesn't make much sense: "Congress' [1937] decision was based in part on testimony derived from articles in the newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst, who was heavily interested in DuPont Inc. Some analysts theorize DuPont wanted to boost declining post-war nylon sales, and wished to eliminate hemp fiber as competition." I'm not sure how much basis in fact this might have, but I can say there were no "declining post-war nylon sales" in 1937, since nylon wasn't publicly announced or sold until 1938 (not to mention that 1937 wasn't "post-war" as far as I can see). -- Arteitle 07:01, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I'm not saying I agree with the theory, but a more lucid presentation of it is here. Tuf-Kat 05:36, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
DuPont's involvment in the anti-hemp campaign can also be explained with great ease. At this time, DuPont was patenting a new sulfuric acid process for producing wood-pulp paper. "According to the company's own records, wood-pulp products ultimately accounted for more than 80% of all DuPont's railroad car loadings for the next 50 years" (ibid). Indeed it should be noted that "two years before the prohibitive hemp tax in 1937, DuPont developed a new synthetic fiber, nylon, which was an ideal substitute for hemp rope" (Hartsell). The year after the tax was passed DuPont came out with rayon, which would have been unable to compete with the strength of hemp fiber or its economical process of manufacturing. "DuPont's point man was none other than Harry Anslinger...who was appointed to the FBN by Treasury Secretary Andrew MEllon, who was also chairman of the Mellon Bank, DuPont's chief financial backer. Anslinger's relationship to Mellon wasn't just political, he was also married to Mellon's niece" (Hartsell).

Bold text Weed should be legalized for many reasons. 1st of all weed does not cause cancer,carbon dioxide from the smoke does. Weed can be eaten and vaporized. The goverment says it funds terrorism even tho they have no proof. But if they made it legal not only would it not fund terrorism it would bring our country billions of dollers in revenue each year. Weed may get you high but booz get you drunk. People that are drunk are way more dangerous than people that are high. In fact weed is less harmless then cigarette's. Cigerette's contain harmmfull chemicals, tar, and nicotine. Contrary to prior belief It is impossible to overdose on Maraijurana the leathal does is way more than any one could do in the time it takes for marijuana to get out of your system

Confusing Sentance

Again, such a dose would need to be administered in a very short period of time, in tens of minutes, and represents many hundreds or thousands of grams, pounds or dozens of pounds, or thousands of American dollars.

This seems pretty confusing to me, but I'm not sure the best way of putting it. Can anyone help? akaDruid 15:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to get rid of it. It just restates what was said earlier in the section, and is uselessly vague ("hundreds or thousands of grams", etc.). --Arteitle 19:25, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

--- Origin of "reefer": Is there evidence for the recently added explanation of the term's etymology? The OED says the word is from "reef", as in "to roll up or take in", like a sail or joint, or possible from the Mexican "grifo", which means marijuana or one who smokes it. This seems a more plausible explanation than the refrigerator one. People have put all manner of things in refrigerator for all time and someone decides this specifically should be called reefer? Centrx 17:46, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Neurotoxicity

I felt something about the discussions about neurotoxicity was lacking in the article so I added a section on this. I hope someone can review it to correct grammar & spelling-mistakes as I'm not a native speaker of English. If someone could check for bias and factual errors it would be nice too. - Anonymous

The reason there is no discussion of neurotoxicity is that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that there is any neurotoxicity associated with cannabis exposure in humans. Furthermore, the insertion of a single, recent study is not appropriate.

These studies that demonstrate neurotoxicity do so with prolonged, regular exposure that is unlike that consumed by nearly every human. In these studies, exposure must occur for significant parts of their lives. Analogous to humans (who are, in fact, more tolerant of THC than rats), one must smoke cannabis five days a week for more than eight years without fail before exhibiting any signs of neurotoxicity. More telling, for every study on rats, there are studies on monkeys which indicate little neurotoxicity. There are also many studies that indicate that cannabis a neuroprotective antioxidant. Furthermore, there are many studies which indicate that there is no cognitive effect of cannabis usage after abstaining for a month. Please see www.pubmed.org for more. Search for "cannabis neurotoxicity", "cannabis cognitive", and the same with "marijuana" or "tetrahydrocannibinol" replacing "cannabis".

At the very least, there is no evidence warranting inclusion in an encyclopedia. The study which I believe you are referring to was an administration of THC on the cultured neuron structure of a baby rat. In other words, the neurons are that of a baby brain, and they are in a culture without any of the normal metabolism of a live brain, with its associated cleaning mechanisms. The fact remains that numerous studies have concluded that there is no cognitive difference after a month of abstinence. - Centrx 23:22, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

The section I wrote in the encyclopedia referred to two studies: An animal study and a meta-analysis of longitude studies on the effects on humans. It is clearly emphasised that more research is needed and that the relevance of the animal data is uncertain. The meta-analysis study, however, does show there is an effect with heavy use albeit it is small, and that is what is said the section too. One might think that since there's so much uncertainty, the discussion is of a very academic nature and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. On the other hand, this is a very important issue that is often raised and I think that it deserves mentioning in the encyclopedia. Especially since the drug does have documented, negative effects on cognition that can persist for at least a few weeks, which you seem to agree. I think this information should be included as well (as it is now) with a short note on what is known about long-term effects. - Anonymous

I liked the editing you did on the article. I have made some small changes and additions and I hope we can agree on this version :) - Anonymous

The problem is of the appropriateness of adding studies and reviews to encyclopedia articles. Generally, there is no talk of "recent studies" in encyclopedias; articles should contain scientifically decisive information such that the article is firm enough to stand on its own (although I think citing sources in the Talk page is good, despite it rarely being done on this site). In other words, a true scientific expert of average consensus in the subject should recognize the statements of the article as plainly true. - Centrx 20:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Okay I like it the way it is now - however, I just noticed that the Cannabis page refers to a Wikipedia entry on the health effects of cannabis use. I think this information should be under cannabis (just as it would be in any other encyclopedia) so maybe that article should be deleted and its content moved to this article?

I removed the paragraph below because it is both biased and false.

Long-term effects on cognitive performance also require more scientific study. Cannabis use causes significant medium-term decreases in cognitive performance, which returns to normal within a month of abstinence, except in extreme cases. In such cases of heavy, long-term use, a diminishment of cognitive performance persists, but more scientific study is necessary to determine for how long.

The section on cognitive effects from the WHO herestates that there are "subtle" negative effects on cognitive performance. However, according to drugpolicy.org, there is no cognitive impairment after the noticeable effects of intoxication wear off. The obvious propaganda at theantidrug.comhas some nonsense about "heavy users" abstaining for 19-24 hours and still doing poorly in "standard tests" compared to "light users." Guanaco 03:21, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It may have too much focus on certain studies, but this is certainly not corrected by the quite old studies on the WHO page you mentioned. The statement of no cognitive impairment after the effects wear off is blatantly false. It may mean that after a few uses there is no cognitive impairment, but it looks like a misstatement to contrast to permanent physiological effects on the brain. It is false, and there are numerous studies to verify it. Check out pubmed.org. There are also several studies which indicate the decrease in cognitive performance delineated in the paragraph, in several different types of tests. - Centrx 05:20, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

According to [7] at pubmed.com, there is only mild, reversible cognitive impairment. It is impossible to give the opinion of any of these sources as a fact and maintain the NPOV. We should state what the various sources say and why within the article. Wikipedia cannot state controversial beliefs as facts. Guanaco 17:40, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

1) These are not "beliefs" at all, and scientific research isn't made of "opinions." 2) There are at least four other studies on pubmed, two with specific abstracts, that indicate that no cognitive impairment after a month for all but people who have been using cannabis regularly without significant abstinence for more than a decade. 3) Wikipedia is not the place for a thorough discussion of every scientific study on a certain subject, it is the place for the consensus of scientists in the field. - Centrx 21:36, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

All of these sources have at least a slight bias and there is no consensus of scientists in the field. One site saying the same thing four times does not make it a solid fact. It does mean that four studies point to that belief. Also, you have not given links to any of these studies.

I agree that Wikipedia should not include a thorough discussion of every scientific study; this would take many pages. Wikipedia can, however, discuss the different points of view that these studies represent and what evidence (such as these studies) there is to support their claims. Guanaco 00:20, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

They are scientific studies. If they have bias, you and others can suss them out, many studies are publicly released, and those that are not are evaluated by other scientists in peer review before they can be published, and you can view those journals in a library if you like. There is not bias in the experimental data if the methodology is sound. That the experiment was done in a particular area of study may be influenced in some way, but if you believe that there is some widespread falsification of data, you are very likely mistaken.
This is not one site saying the same thing. The PubMed site lists scientific studies performed by many different groups and published in many different respected medical journals. These aren't creative writing assignments that are rhetorically crafted to suggest a particular belief. They are legitimate scientific studies. Here are some of them:

The only other studies I found that somewhat indicate permanent cognitive impairment from adult, light to medium-heavy use follow:

I found one which decisively stated that cannabis use causes permanent cognitive malfunctions for those who have used it regularly for 15 years: Revista de Neurologia, by the Clinica San Francisco Javier

Of all the studies, this one is the strongest in its conclusion about cognitive deficits: Neurology, by the John Hopkins University School of Medicine

In other words, in my thorough search I could find only one study that contradicts the text in the Wikipedia article, and it does so in a weak suggestion.

There were 450 studies that satisfied the search (cannabis AND cognition) OR (cannabis AND cognitive) OR ((marijuana AND cognition) NOT cannabis) OR ((marijuana AND cognitive) NOT cannabis). Of these, many were not long-term, many were about the effects of cognition on ecstacy, many were about prenatal or adolescent use, many did not have synopses or links to the actual report (mostly older studies, pre-1980s). I also discarded some with small sample sizes that all indicated no impairment at all after a much shorter period of time.