This page 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.

Culture

Slang

I thought there had been an agreement to remove the slang section out of both thids article and wikipedia. Why is it back here? Shall I remove it again? --SqueakBox 15:08, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC) We certainly had agreed to take the slang section out. I have removed it, but left the potenty strains bit. Slang is to be found at Wiktionary Appendix:Cannabis Slang, so please do not bring it here without prior agreement on this page. --SqueakBox 15:26, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Myths

Why not add a section containing popular myths. With good source info on why they are not true. Zath42 22:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I like it. --Benna 03:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I also like it. imho even things without good source info on why they are not true might have a place there- eg the sperm count thing, whether we can find sources on that or not. But my opinion might be wrong, i don't know. regardless, it's definitely a good idea. --Heah (talk) 05:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion cant be wrong dude. hold your head high--Matt D 06:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.drugtext.org/sub/marmyt1.html This web page appears to be a good source for myths, it also includes sources of informationZath42 14:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Spiritual use

About kanehbosm

I've added some text about the kanehbosm reference in Exodus, which may or may not refer to cannabis. Help documenting the various translations of this term (and including the untransliterated Hebrew word itself) would be appreciated. Whig 08:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The reference cannot conclusively be demonstrated to be cannabis-related or drug-related, thus it does not have a place in this article. Its inclusion really amounts to a subtle advocacy POV push by indirectly associating cannabis with the christian bible. With the present facts available, using the bible to justify cannabis usage is no more legitimate than using the bible to justify cannabis prohibition. 72.15.90.142 14:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

We don't have to prove these references are true or not, merely that some people claim they are. The Bible is not Christian, that is POV, SqueakBox 14:09, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I also mentioned that these references are not drug-related, therefore they have no place in a drug article. Anointing oil is an emollient or fragrant related to religious ceremonies, this does not constitute use of cannabis as a drug in religion. And we do have some responsibility toward factuality here... see the section of the article that refers to anti-cannabis arguments as "junk science" (with the link cleverly renamed to "deeply flawed, with strong bias". If we're going to refer to that part as "junk science" then we might as well refer to this part as "junk etymology", otherwise this is POV. 72.15.90.142 14:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

in regards to the "junk science" comment out of left field- I think it reads more like: It is hard to tell conclusive reliable information from scientific studies because many early studies were manufactured by people like Harry Anslinger. That is fact and neutral. Its really just apples and oranges. --Howrealisreal 14:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The point is that we have allowed shoddy anti-cannabis POV to be characterized as "junk science", but the pro-cannabis references of dubious veracity are characterized as merely "disputed." In fact, the only reference we have on the subject of kanehbosm disputes that it is cannabis. Therefore, we can only conclude that the assertion of kanehbosm meaning "cannabis" falls under the rubric of original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. In the interest of NPOV, the same degree of rigor should be applied to information regardless of which side it seems to support. 72.15.90.142 20:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

IMO the single most important thing for this article is that it is not allowed to slide into either a pro or anti cannabis article, SqueakBox 14:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and that is why I object to the use of information of questionable factuality that is also not drug-related. I wouldn't have a problem including this information if it were demonstrably drug-related (this is a drug article, don't forget), but it isn't. IMO this can only be a subtle attempt to push a pro-cannabis POV by implicitly relating it to judeo-christian religious traditions. 72.15.90.142 20:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Look folks, if you take a neutral look at what we actually have on kanehbosm, here is what we have:

A large number of google hits from obvious pro-advocacy websites, with none (AFAIS) that cite a primary source.
An unsupported implied assertion that holy anointing oil belongs in a drug article, based on the circular reference that it includes cannabis and is in the spirituality section of this article. Self-referential articles are not valid.
A very strong case, made by a rabbi at an institute of Jewish studies, citing other published scholarly works by other rabbis, that kanehbosm is cinnamon and not cannabis. [1].

"Yehudah Felix has written three books in Hebrew that relate to your questions: Biblical Vegetation published in 1957, Nature in the Biblical land, published in 1992, and Spice, Forest and Ornament Plants, published in 1997. "Kinamon" or "kinman bosem" is definitely cinnamon."

On the subject of ancient Hebrew words as relates to ancient Judaic customs, if anyone comes up with anything more authoritative than published works by rabbis, I'm open to hearing it. Otherwise, basically we're left with a dubious etymology that bears all the hallmarks of an urban legend. If it's included in this article, then these facts must be included so that the reader can be self-informed as to what they really mean. 72.15.90.142 21:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I run into a similar problem over the name of Y'shua. Or, Yeshua. Or Yehoshua. Please don't forget that there may be agendas behind even a Rabi. As i understand it, it can't be proven one way or the other. A single Rabi has no extra weight with me. Cinnamon is one possibility. There are other interesting relationships possibly to marijuana in hermenuetics, thats only one line of reasoning you are following. 209.129.49.65 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that if it is included it should be as an urban legend. Rastafari implicitly relates cannabis to the Bible through it being the tree of life for the healing of the nations, etc, which maybe also should be included, SqueakBox 22:11, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

For one thing, I am and have been completely open to splitting off a Cannabis (spiritual use) article if this is considered appropriate, as I don't know that the material belongs under Cannabis (drug) but when I proposed this before, it was opposed and I left the material in place. Secondly, the reference above claiming that kanehbosm refers to cinnamon does not make much sense at all, since kinnamon is ANOTHER ingredient in the anointing oil described in Exodus. It is not correct to say that kanehbosm is an urban legend, it is textually present, the translation is subject to some dispute, and the article presently reflects this ambiguity. Whig 23:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That is fair enough, but I still object to the language about (roughly) "etymological reference aside, calamus and cinnamon are not known to produce effects associated to anointment" (paraphrase). First, calamus itself does indeed possess medicinal/psychoactive properties. Second... what exactly are these "spiritual effects associated with anointment", and can they actually be attributed to cannabis? We are talking about alteration of consciousness in some way by topical application of cannabis compounds to the skin... I don't think has ever been claimed to be possible, either by recreational, scientific, or modern spiritual users of cannabis. The implication is not credible and doesn't belong here. 72.15.90.142 01:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that the propper qualification here is that we simply say that some people say or think something and other people say or think something. Definitely use that one Rabi as a resource for a minority report. The way I remember it, Cinnamon is specifically mentioned as an ingredient, and its called "Cinnamon." Perhaps a more important question is where the OIL part of the oil is coming from. 209.129.49.65 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Cannabis is topically active as infused essential oil, this isn't really in any doubt. A modern formulation is delivered sublingually, through the skin below the tongue, see Sativex. I am unaware of any assignment of psychoactivity to calamus, can you cite a reference on that one? Finally, I've split off the article, so I'll paste this part of the discussion there and we can continue on Talk:Cannabis (spiritual use), as this whole issue is very clearly a major distraction from an article otherwise about recreational use (medical use being already split elsewhere). Whig 01:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Etymologies out of synch in Cannabis (drug)#Ancient history and Cannabis#Etymology

Please see Talk:Cannabis#Etymology redux -SM 07:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Bias?

This article seems to have a subtle bias toward cannabis use. I'm guessing a lot of the wording was done by cannabis users. This is akin to a prostitute writing about prostitution. Evidently, with things where there is a divide of opinion about whether something is right or wrong, it should not be written by users, certain to think that it is right. Ivesfreak 19:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

the problem with claiming ego attachment is that articles are written by people who are interested in the subject, not by people who aren't. So theres some ego attachment. Thats what the NPOV policy is for. 209.129.49.65 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree as does wikipedia policy. WEho better to write about prostitution than a prostitute, SqueakBox 14:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The best people to write about a subject, are people that know the subject best. So I think users should write the article, but just try to be un-biased as possiable, and not go around sayin "YAH weed rulez —Preceding unsigned comment added by WezlyTwin (talk • contribs)

Interesting comparison. I supposse you intend to put Cannabis in a negative light by comparing it to something else you find objectionable. What about scientists talking about science? I know that's something different, but so is prostitution (a more logical comparison would have been with the users of prostitution). Two things. Firstly, you may give your own bias (as long as it's sufficiently accurate). That's how Wikipedia works. Secondly, if you were to believe the judgement of people on a subject, who would you rather trust? Someone who has experience (but may be biased) or someone who hasn't (and consequently won't really know what they're talking about)? Or someone who has made a study of the subject? Of course the last category sounds best. But there is bound to be an overlap with the first one. Anyway, what's wrong with prostitutes talking about prostitution? DirkvdM 08:14, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

The nice thing about Wikipedia is that if you feel an article needs to be edited, and in particular to balance or contextualize the views expressed by other editors, you are free to do so. If your edits are made in good faith and in accordance with the NPOV policy, they should be respected, and others may edit in turn to adjust what changes you make in the same manner. Whig 09:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I guess I worded that a little strongly. Sorry. I was merely pointing out that people who condone what the majority of people believe to be 'wrong' will not be the best to write the article. It's subtly worded to suggest that any study suggesting cannbis is harmful is not particularly accurate, when that isn't the case. I'll make the edits that would make it NPOV in my own opinion (although because its opinion, that might not be) and you can tell me what you think Ivesfreak 15:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Most people don't think cannabis is wrong, its a politically driven thing, SqueakBox 14:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Ivesfreak's statements. Is he honestly saying cannabis users are incapable of writing NPOV; clearly not true. With that logic nobody should write about a subject they know something about. When I came to the article a few months ago it had, in my opinion, an anti cannabis bias, but it is now more balanced. Unlike most articles on this highly controversial subject this one is not strongly pro or strongly anti. I dispute that most people think cannabis is wrong, and bet you can't source it except maybe for a country like Tunisia, though the percentage of people thinking it is right or wrong does vary hugely from country to country. In the UK there is far more tolerance and acceptance of cannabis than there used to be. I am saying that scientific research is affected by the illegality of cannabis, and therefore is treated with more scepticism in certain circles, and with more controversy, than research on the benefits or otherwise of other substances. If pro cannabis people should somehow not be able to edit this article then nor should the anti-cannabis brigade. Absurd really, as it is the fact that both the pro and anti lobby edit this article that makes it more balanced than most articles on the subject. I have seem political POV pushing at wikipedia, and if I wanted to engage in such behaviour myself I would start here. But neither I nor anyone else is pro cannabis POV pushing, I think. If you stop the pro cannabis people editing (in theory, in practice you can't) the article will become biased against cannabis, which, given how it is perceived in the world, would be an injustice, SqueakBox 16:01, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that you can not use Cannabis and have a poor opinion of it, whereas if you don't smoke it, you could still have an open mind on the subject and be unbiased.

Ivesfreak 21:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Definitely not true. I remember reading a BBC forum recently in which smokers were not in favour of cannabis, but felt they were addicted, and did have a poor opinion of it. i would agree users generally don't have a poor opinion of it in the way crack users have a poor opinion of crack. but what you have said is a bit like saying if you are a political conservative you can't write unbiased political biographies. It is not people's POVs that are important, but whether they push them, and it seems pretty obvious to me that cannabis using POV pushers are not prejudicing the neutrality of this article, SqueakBox 23:48, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've made some edits, of which only one has been changed The reason I put 'percieved' philosophical thinking (or whatever it was) was because although it seems philosophical to the person, it's often complete rubbish - a few of my friends are stoners. Apart from that though, it seems ok now. like I say, it was only a few phrases or words that subtly disparaged anyone against Cannabis.

Just because someone who isn't stoned might not understand, or think to be true, some philosophical statement of a stoner doesn't make it unphilosophical. If it is intended to be philosophical by the person making the statement, it should be considered philosophical no matter what others think. --Benna 20:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

So if some guy says 'This door is red, and that's like... red' he's being philosophical? Bullsh*t.

I would argue that could be philosophical. What do you mean by red? Do we have some irriducible qualia which is red? Does red exist outside of a wavelength? Or is red, in some zen sense, red? --Benna 02:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

A second ago he's saying only non-"stoners" can be open-minded and now he can't even question the concept of red?! Everything you say indicates that your soul mission is too povise this article (i herby donate "povise" to the english language ((and all other languages with no equivalent))). I wish i'd been here hen this argument as actually happening.

I removed perceived. Bob Marley is one example of someone who has been judged as creative while under the influence of cannabis, though I could name many more people, while the Rastafarian philosophy is a philosophical system that has been created under the influence of marijuana-this is a nice objective test, not a subjective proposition. You musn't put stuff in here on the basis of what you see in your friends: we need to work with objective sources, like the ones I just quoted, SqueakBox 22:22, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I also reverted two edits. First, Increased perception of humor, music and other art back to Increased appreciation.... The edit actually makes it stronger. Having an increased perception sounds a bit superhuman. Second; There is some evidence to suggest that cannabinoids present in cannabis smoke may actually serve to protect the lungs against carcinogenic substances.... Now there's a bias. To suggest that it may is double. Toning that down was one thing. Doing it twice was not npov. DirkvdM 05:39, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

While i understand your thoughts, the actual neurology is increased perception due to a change in brain hemisphere communication and a lowering of the normative perceptual filters. This is a distal and proximal stimulus phenomenon, and is well documented with halucinogenics. 209.129.49.65

Oh, and I just noticed another thing. In the original text it said "Some studies have claimed that some long-term heavy users become prone to apathy". Ivesfreak removed 'some' there. But in the previous example he also made another edit, adding the 'some'. So, depending on which way the evidence points, it's either 'some evidence' or just plain 'evidence'. That doesn't quite sound npov. Is there any reason to use the one or the other form? How strong the evidence is? Or if there's conflicting evidence? Lacking such knowlege, it seems better to leave out the 'some'. Based on the above I assume that Ivesfreak doesn't base his edits on actual knowledge of such studies, so I reverted that edit too.

Apathy is a very relative state. apathy by another name is contentment and a sense of well being defeating the normative need quest instinctual cycle. The degree of apathy is the question here. Dehabilitating apathy may be worsened by marijuana, but there is no proof that it is a cause. More importantly, the evidence suggests that the truth is actually escapism; people use marijuana to escape negative feelings or emotions. Once they make their escape velocity, of course they don't care. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy/Post_hoc 209.129.49.65 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ivesfreak, please feel free to remove any biases you encounter in articles (that is indeed sometimes needed, so we need 'watchdogs' like you). But take care not to add your own bias (know here as 'pov' for point of view, with 'npov' being a neutral point of view). DirkvdM 06:48, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

I not somebody removed my reference to Bob Marley as an unapathetic cannabis user. I have removed the whole apathetic bit as the POV rubbish it really is. can we see some evidence that some people claim it makes people apathetic. As for the claim that maybe this is to do with the cultural mindset of cannabis users. I bet that is not sourced. I personally think apathetic cannabis users are simply suffering from laziness. Before reverting me please sourcwe here any claims that cannabis encourages or creates apathy in users. Why remove the Bob Marley example, unless one wants to prove that cannabis causes apathy. if we make claims like this apathy claim (which I personally believe is a ridiculous claim) we are weakening our credibility as an encyclopedia, so I think the whole issue is best left out, SqueakBox 17:47, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

The whole issue is a propaganda toy confusing cause and effect relationships. 209.129.49.65 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

as a treatment for depression for those who are not willing, interested, or wealthy enough to afford other forms is in most cases probably a fine idea. In a VERY small fraction of people, it probably begins a slip into scitzophrenia, and thus backfires. Prometheuspan 18:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Encouraging a person with significant depression to self medicate (doctors don't even give themselve medication) or just work on themselves seems grossly negligent, especially because despression is fatal commonly. I don't want to get into a debate about the merits of self help but if this is anything beyond a minor depression, the clear advice is to seek medical attention. Any doctor will do, a medical doctor might refer you to a psychologist and a psychologist might refer you to a medical doctor (to be sure you don't have a medical issue like a thryoid problem), but speak with someone that is trained to deal with this. Be sure to mention the drug use but it'll be a one component. Vicarious 12:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This debate is getting somewhat tense. Vicarious, fine if you live in a prosperous country with a decent free health service or if you live in a poor third world country but have plenty of money but if you live in a poor country and are poor such services are not avaiolable where cannabis likely will be. Unfortunately depression is still fatal for people under psychiatric help. I don't think any of this conversation merits deletion but unless it relates specifically to the article it should be wound up, SqueakBox 15:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 18:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC) As far as deletion goes, this conversation demonstrates a need for a kind of information. As information service providers, I think that this is a good sign that we might have some information to add to the program regarding depression, self medication, sanity, complications, and so forth. Just deleting it won't help us to meet the need that is revealed. Obviously if we have generated a structure on the top pages which does adress these issues, then we can delete it then. Until then, the information continues to provide a useful service. Prometheuspan 18:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please source your infoif you add it, see Wikipedia:No original research, SqueakBox 13:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobodies ketching on. I don't edit articles, I chat with wikipedians. 209.129.49.65 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

more questions

"A lot of the things a Doctor might suggest are really brain function inhibitors, side effect; lowered IQ. "

What do you mean by lowered IQ being caused by "brain inhibitors"?

Prometheuspan 04:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC) I am not sure how i can make this any clearer. Most pharma drugs operate by inhibiting a brain function or a chemistry action. This means less processing power, less communication between brain hemispheres, and thus, a lowered IQ. Do you need references? Prometheuspan 04:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If medications really do cause problems with critical thinking skills, how would marijuana improve on this negative effect?

Loodog 03:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 04:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Marijuana is a brain FOOD. Unlike most chemicals which change brain chemistry towards entropy, Marijuana actually increases brain hemisphere communnications, and thus creativity and thus, some might argue, the manifested output at least of intelligence.

There are two ways to get a consciousness changefrom a substance. One is poison, and the other is brain food. http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6812 www.cafepress.com/diaraya.28415244 http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/1999/031199/news6.html

Water pipes effect on tar

According to this article [2], a standard water pipe filters more THC than tar: Contrary to popular impression, waterpipes don't necessarily protect smokers from harmful tars in marijuana smoke, according to a new study sponsored by MAPS and California NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws). The reason is that waterpipes filter out more psychoactive THC than they do other tars, thereby requiring users to smoke more to reach their desired effect. The study does not rule out the possibility that waterpipes could have other benefits, such as filtering out gases, but it suggests that other methods, such as the use of high potency marijuana, vaporizers, or oral ingestion are needed to avoid harmful toxins in marijuana smoke. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 01:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The Bong article, also quotes this article as follows: "'"It appears that water filtration can be effective in removing components from marijuana smoke that are known toxicants... The effectiveness of toxicant removal is related to the smoke's water contact area. Specially designed water pipes, incorporating particulate filters and gas dispersion frits would likely be most effective in this regard; the gas dispersion frit serves to break up the smoke into very fine bubbles, thereby increasing its water contact area.'" AP 19:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Intro (and 172's additions)

172 has been adding this text into the introduction, and, later, a bit lower:

Research has uncovered evidence that human consumption of cannabis negatively affects the family relationships, school performance, and recreational activities of users. (National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, Inc.. State Resources and Services Related to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems for Fiscal Year 1995: An Analysis of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Profile Data, July 1997.)

In 2002, marijuana was the third most commonly abused drug mentioned in drug-related emergency department visits in the continental United States. [3]

Really, what happens is society is dysfunctional and cannibis allows the mind to quit the need to jump through hoops. What you are tracking or seeing here is again a fallacious cause and effect relationship. I promise that in most of those situations, marijuana is probably keeping people from shooting some stupid authoritarian jerk in the face. There is no evidence to support these propagandas, invariably it can be shown that the studies that suggest this are presumptive and skewed. 209.129.49.65 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy/Post_hoc

Personally, I think it's a bit too POV, as "abuse" is subjective. I wouldn't mind a rewritten form, not in the introduction, but in another section of the article, though. Isn't Health issues and the effects of cannabis supposed to be for things like this, though? --Rory0 96 01:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In the particular sentence in which it is used, "abuse" is not a value judgment. The substance is controlled and illegal. Healthcare professionals and law enforcement refer to usage resulting in hospital visits and crimes as "abuse." By the way, the possibility that the word "abuse" might offend marijuana users is no excuse for suppressing information regarding research into the dangers of marijuana usage in this article. (And by the way, I'm not interested in hearing kids lecture me about how there aren't any and how the research is a corporate conspiracy. I know that there are dangers. I've seen them. More than 30 years ago I knew ruin their lives by starting with marijuana and then much more dangerous substances.) There is the possibility that these articles are influencing the behavior of young people who read them. This is a matter of public health and serious liability for Wikipedia. 172 | Talk 04:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

the problem here is that it can be demonstrably proven that the use of the term by law enforcement and etc is due to propaganda, and is not backed by any serious science study. Include it if you want with appropriate disclaimers- as in "Authoritarian sources claim that cannibis use is substance abuse." Which is as close to fact and truth as you are going to get. As far as people ruining their lives, you mention other substances. So wht ruined lives? Cannibis or those other substances? Science says Cannibis actually enhances mental functioning, isn't physically addictive, and has a host of positive health effects. There is no liability for wikipedia, because wikipedia is just reporting basic information based in facts. I could provide information on the topic that would create liability if published, if you need an example of the difference. 209.129.49.65 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

172, as an experienced editor you know your personal experiences are utterly irrelevant here. You cannot justify your views on public health grounds, as you well know. Wikipedia has an NPOPV policy and you have to stick with it same as the rest of us. Who is the kids you refer to? Name calling won't make your views any more valid, SqueakBox 16:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Alkso in which copuntries are you alleging cannabis is a public health problem. Holland? The US? If you are referring to the latter it is irrelevant as this is an international encyclopedia with no special responsibilities towards the US people, again something I imagine you are famoiliar with, SqueakBox 16:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia would not be held liable, and the public health is not our concern; our concern is to write an unbiased encyclopaedia entry. I'm not against including the study, but it should be in an NPOV manner, simply stating facts. --Rory0 96 05:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

actually, cannibis will be used whether we write articles or not. What we can do is provide an information service so that people who do use it can come here to be better informed. If we write an article on guns and somebody shoots themselves in the head, its also not our fault for similar reasons. 209.129.49.65 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of these studies are highly biased junk science, and the term abuse is itself highly abused, mostly by feeding the assumptions and effects of prohibition back into the results (i.e. cannabis use leads to legal trouble, school trouble, family trouble). MPP has made the point that the foremost harm to arise from cannabis use is prison. As a cannabis user among millions of other cannabis users, BTW, I am not really interested either in hearing 172's POV assertions of how government scaremongering is somehow in the best interests of me, my family, or my community, much less of readers of Wikipedia. It is estimated that less than 3% of rehab admissions for cannabis are voluntary, the rest are ordered by parents, employers, or the courts. That said, I agree with Rory096, see Health issues and the effects of cannabis#Behavioral effects, where such things are already addressed. -SM 07:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil and assume good faith, SM. By the way, you can sign your comments with 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~ --Rory0 96 10:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read 172's statement, my statement, and explain how I may have failed to be civil and assume good faith. -SM 11:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I retract the statement about civility (I read it wrong), but you're not AGFing when you say his contributions are POV. We're all trying to make it NPOV, he just thinks it would be more balanced with that study, and you don't. --Rory0 96 17:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any incivility except in 172's earlier statement where he labels those who oppose him as kids, SqueakBox 16:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me the problem is with how the text is presented. For instance this is a rewrite

Research by a US governemt organization claims that human consumption of cannabis negatively affects the family relationships, school performance, and recreational activities of users. (National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, Inc.. State Resources and Services Related to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems for Fiscal Year 1995: An Analysis of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Profile Data, July 1997.)

In 2002, marijuana was claimed to be the third most commonly abused drug mentioned in drug-related emergency department visits in the mainland United States.

[4]

sounds like its starting to be npov. As a marijuana pov pusher, I hate it. As a wikipedian, its close to npov. 209.129.49.65 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the thoroughly confusing "continenetal United States", which may be intelligible to US folk but certainly not to anyone else and I have made it clear that these are USA gov claims rather than portraying them as true, which is why it was so POV before. What do others think of this? SqueakBox 17:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it still needs some minor qualifiers.

Research by a US governemt organization claims that human consumption of cannabis negatively affects the family relationships, school performance, and recreational activities of users. (National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, Inc.. State Resources and Services Related to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems for Fiscal Year 1995: An Analysis of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Profile Data, July 1997.)
In 2002, marijuana was claimed by assorted government agencies to be the third most commonly "abused" drug mentioned in drug-related emergency department visits in the mainland United States.

like about like almost like so. 209.129.49.65 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Even rendered as, According to NIDA data, in 2002 ER visits in the continental United States, cannabis was the third most frequently-cited drug of abuse, it is virtually unsalvageable. It is presumed to be abused, and there is no determination recorded that the use had anything to do with the ER visit. For example: some poor guy breaks his arm, he's rushed to the ER in pain. The ER doctor treating him asks, What medications are you on? Do you use any non-prescription drugs? As the doctor is about to administer antibiotics and painkillers, the patient has a choice, tell him he used cannabis last week, or say nothing and hope that it doesn't cause some unforseen drug interaction. Most tell, and more DAWN/NIDA datapoints are thus created. This nonsense is unencyclopedic, the fact that it is NIDA making a biased claim doesn't make it fit for privileged inclusion in this article, like some sort of warning label.

I agree, but i have been trying to wrap my head around the npov policy as a newbie, and its begining to look like non POV is actually composed of Multiple POVs in contested subjects. 209.129.49.65 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at Health issues and the effects of cannabis#Behavioral effects, you see that this is where such things are already addressed, and should be addressed.

-SM 19:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm no longer going to edit this article. I'm a historian, not a psychologist, so I bring no expertise here. Still, while I'm no expert, I'm convinced that this article displays a strong pro-cannabis biased compared to everything else I've run across in the subject, save material from cannabis activists. In short, I hope my clumbsy edits will encourage someone to take a look at the possibility of NPOV problems concerning this article. 172 | Talk 02:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

okay, well, thanks for your input. I think that whats really going on here is that you have a bias and you are annoyed that the article doesn't reflect your bias. I am sorry if you fell out with some of your freinds, and, i had some people i knew die from heroin OD, so i know how painful that can be. 209.129.49.65 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Tell me something: do you think the Tea article has a pro-tea bias? How about bias in the Chocolate, Wine, or Paracetemol articles? Is it possible that you see an absence of an anti-cannabis bias, and that somehow seems anomalous? By every measure, beer is far more dangerous, more leathal, more addictive and more abused than cannabis, but its article gives it a benign treatment, as if it were somehow...normal.

As a historian, you must appreciate the powerful, complex propaganda forces U.S. cannabis prohibition has exerted for the last eighty years, and how it could not help but warp the entire public discourse on cannabis. I gave you Harry J. Anslinger before to consider, now here is Nixon's comments on cannabis in the Watergate Tapes, as he tries to cow the Shafer Commission, which he later ignored anyway. See also, Health issues and the effects of cannabis, to see just how comprehensive ONDCP/NIDA's stranglehold on cannabis research has been.

Is it not reassuringly NPOV that that this article doesn't feel a knee-jerk obligation to treat cannabis- and millions of productive, well-adjusted cannabis users- as some sort of horrible tragedy?

-SM 08:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO negatively affects the family relationships, school performance, and recreational activities of users describes the laws against cannabis and not the cannabis itself. Bit of a chicken and egg but the destructive effects are very real and should be treated in substantially more detail, SqueakBox 14:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia liability

172 says

This is a matter of public health and serious liability for Wikipedia.

An interesting idea that if we don't follow the US gov line on this one the public health of US Americans will be adversely affected and wikipedian will be held liable. Do we have any evidence that freedom of speech is being attacked in this way in the US, essentially making pro-Cannabis sites illegal? If such a thing is happening I must say I am not surprised at all though given that we do stress it is an illegal drug almost everywhere in the opening paragraph I would like to know what more we are expected to do to ensure wikipedia is not held liable for contradicting the US gov in this case. And there was me thinking our job was the simple one of creating the most extensive encyclopedia in the world. To what extent are those who are not US citizens or resident in the US liable if they don't promote the US gov line in this article? SqueakBox 21:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no legal liability here, because nothing said is actually untrue or coercive to criminal activity. Everything is covered under first amendment. I have a minor hobby with law, and have beat the marijuana possession rap multiple times, so i must be at least as well armed on the topic as most lawyers are. I could generate an example of what would be too far over the top, but if somebody really wants such an example, I'd prefer to do it in email. Yes, there are limits. No, we aren't even close to crossing them. 209.129.49.65 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

I have a few problems with this sentence. First of all, is cannabis/marijuana ITSELF considered a drug? Isn't THC the only drug located in the plant?

No, THC is only the primary psychoactive. 209.129.49.65 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, is it really accurate to say that cannabis is a drug produced from processed parts of the cannabis plant? That's like saying strawberries are a food produced from processed parts of the strawberry plant. If you call growing and harvesting 'processing', then yeah, but it's a plant. You grow it, you take off the flowers, and you smoke it/turn it into an edible form and eat it. It seems like this sentence says what a lot of people THINK or WISH was the process, but the reality is a lot simpler and natural than that. Also, is there any evidence that the 20th century has seen a rise in the recreational and religious use of cannabis? It's been used from time immemorial, hasn't been illegal since the 20th century, yet that caused a rise in frivolous use of it? It just all seems a little much to me. Flannel 19:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The "rise" in use is really just a rise in notice of its use. 209.129.49.65 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree that the first sentence is not stated correctly. However, is advil a drug? Is cough medicine a drug? BigMar992 20:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If you read on, you'll find that cannabis, like most medicinal herbs, contains several pharmacological components with differing actions. THC is merely the most famous. The word drug is actually from the Dutch word for dried, coined in a time when our drugs were gathered and laid out to dry in the sun, not synthesized in a test tube. Advil is a drug called ibuprofen, an anti-inflamatory. Cough medicines have a mixture of drugs, usually some combination of febrifuges, analgesics, antitussives, expectorants, sedatives and decongestants. See also patent medicine.

-SM 23:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

While I understand that you are trying to educate us on where words originated from and what they meant in the past....that doesn't mean the first sentence is correct. The word 'drug' we are referring to has to deal with what the FDA, etc has to say, and whether or not the sentence "Cannabis, commonly known as marijuana, is a drug produced from processed parts of the cannabis plant . Cannabis IS the term for the plant that produces THC.BigMar992 23:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To further expand...."Cannabis,....is....produced from parts of the cannabis plant". Cannabis....IS cannabis...plainly put. That is redundancy. Moreso...rather false. Anyone else agree?BigMar992 23:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Furthermore....I would go as far as saying that Cannabis is NOT a drug, rather a PLANT that can be administered as a drug...however I think the FDA may think otherwise.

Also, why do we have to be all vague and secretive and say it's produced from PARTS of the cannabis plant. It's the buds, I think there is pretty sufficient documentation of that. Like I said before, it seems like we're trying to word this really ridiculously, when it's pretty simple. The buds of the cannabis plant can be smoked. It's that easy. You don't need beakers and bunsen burners, you don't need a special kind of soil or some hard to find seed. You need a cannabis seed, and you need to grow it, then you smoke the buds. I don't see why we have to approach marijuana from a negative perspective when it was used without any negative stigma from creation to the early to mid 1900's. It only became illegal when some rich guys found out it could cost them a lot of money, and it remains illegal because there are even more rich guys it would cost money, i.e. clothing industry, synthetic material industry, and the pharmaceutical industry. Flannel 23:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Cannibis processing in such sense is mostly what happens if its mexi and they want to brick it for smuggling. 209.129.49.65 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Cannabis being a drug is inherent in the article title. It is generally considered to be a drug amongst other things, and it is that which is copmmonly consiodered to be the use of cannabis as a drug that is the content of the article. I don't believe you can source that cannabis is not considered a drug in the common usage term of its consumption. Historically cannabis hasn't simply been grown and smoked, that generally occurred in the tropics whereas in the desert region from Morocco to India people converted cannabis into hash almost exclusively. Equally many people in Europe have grown up almost exclusively smoking hash, and doubtless in many places that is still the case. hashish can be created ready to smoke from the planbt within minutes whereas the herb takes days to dry and many people undoubtedly prefer hash. There are places in the worldn where cannabis is only available as hashish such as Morocco. The illegality is a complex affair but the USA seem to have played a major role since their puritans saw their prohibition policy in ruins and re-enacted it as the war against drugs. I don't agree about it being a rich people conspiracy and think Peter Tosh had the right idea, ie you legalise it and I will advertise it, he sang. Obviously what we want and need is a balanced NPOV article and not a pro-cannabis one as the net is already replete with those, SqueakBox 00:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I still think the opening sentence needs tweaking, especially now. People need to realize that the female plant produces only bud (rich in thc/trichomes). However, the hermaphrodite species does as well, so it is not an accurrate statement. BigMar992 04:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point, female parts of the plant would be better, but the use of primarily does not preclude this minor detail. -SM 08:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest taking out the information about the female plant....this notion seems to refer to the 'norm' of drug trafficing on the streets (possibly), even though this is not very true on all levels of trafficing. BigMar992 04:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not relevant here. Again, the use of primarily suffices here, and the norm is far broader than drug trafficing on the streets (whatever that means), and is true in the vast majority of production efforts. -SM 08:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree. What you are suggesting (to me) seems that you are either hinting at the medicinal use (which, i am unsure of, they may only use the female plant to harvest the drug), or the production of marijuana by bigger black market grow operations. In any case, the drug, (since it is only legal in 12 states) should be explained in context of what predominantly happens on the black market. If anyone is going to go out and try to illegally purchase cannabis (drug) on the streets from the average person, i am willing to bet you find seeds in the marijuana, which would conclude that most people are purchasing hermophrodite cannabis plant parts. BigMar992 18:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Cannabis being a drug is inherent in the article title." The debate appears to be, is it more accurate to say that THC is a drug produced by the cannabis plant? If yes, then maybe the article should be renamed to "Cannabis (plant)" or something else. Dansiman 06:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Cannabis is for the plant. Cannabis is the herb which contains the cannabinoids (not only delta-9-THC) that is used as a drug. --Rory0 96 07:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to change the article title (which was mine) something like [[Cannabis (human consumption) would be better than (plant), which is indeed treated at Cannabis but I think the current title is fine because it is commonly described as a drug (even were this scientifically incorrect; scientifically African American is a misnomer but as a common usage term it is entirely valid). Whil;e to me the intro was more or less alright cannabis is also commonly known as hashish; certainly my experience growing up in the UK is that cannabis was hashish and occasionally marijuana, and I have no reason to believe that has changed. As it was the opening paragraph seemed very US biased as it is the US experience that cannabis is predominantly marijuana so I have changed it and if you want to change it back you will ahve to source very well that cannabis is commonly known as marijuana (ie weed) but not hash, SqueakBox 14:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That has changed- hash is now compressed trichomes, usually from the leaves surrounding the flowers. --Rory0 96 16:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

THC Infobox on Cannabis(drug)

I've cut the infobox, as the data for THC specifically is not appropriate by itself for an article on cannabis. It is still on THC. The LD50 is not presently in THC. I'd like to double-check that the Erowid cite of LD50 is (as stated there and likely) purely for THC, then drop it in. If anyone has a compelling reason to have this box there, let's discuss here. -SM 00:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say we should keep it, since THC is what makes cannabis a drug. I could have sworn we've discussed this already, though; am I hallucinating again? --Rory0 96 05:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not so. THC is one of several components of cannabis, and the LD50 for THC would have to be multiplied severalfold to apply to prepared cannabis. BTW, how is the molecular weight of THC relevant? The chemical properties of THC are entirely irrelevant to Cannabis (drug). I appreciate your help elsewhere, but you have this one wrong: having an infobox for the sake of an infobox makes no sense. If there were an appropriate infobox for this, I'd support it. Please stop reverting this. After looking a bit harder, I've still not found the consensus discussion to which you refer. -SM 14:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What other components are psychoactive? The THC makes it a drug, and so its info belongs. As for the discussion, I must have been imagining it (though I thought there was no consensus, which would mean we would keep the status quo). --Rory0 96 06:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

THC is the main ingredient, but not the only onethat makes it a drug. Even as the most important one, this does not mean that its information belongs here (compare Psilocybe and Psilocybin), it means a reference to its info belongs here. Neither Chemical formula, Molecular weight, nor Boiling Point are relevant to Cannabis (drug). LD50 would be, if it were about cannabis and not THC: here it is misinformation (the LD50 for cannabis would be several times that of THC). The idea is not to make it look encyclopedic, the idea is to be an encyclopedia. Nothing is better that the wrong thing.

Meanwhile, look at THC and see how the infobox there acts as THC-at-a-glance, then think of what items would be appropriate to an infobox here, something that would serve as pot-at-a-glance. Alternatively, if you are actually just attached to having the THC picture there, just have that and a caption without all the clutter of a superfluous infobox.

I can't have you reverting me every 24hrs, if I find it here when I return, I'll have to call an RfC on the matter, which will be tedious.

yeah, whoa, i hate that kind of tedium. reserve for when absolutely neccessary. 209.129.49.65 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

-SM 07:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What other compounds make it a drug? I can't think of any, and so the infobox does belong (also, psilocybe mushrooms also contain the psychoactive compound psilocin). All I ask is that we reach a consensus before changing anything, and then when we've decided what to do, we can change it. --Rory0 96 17:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't read this carefully the first time. We should not wait until we've decided what to do, [then] we can change it. We should delete it- because it is misleading, inaccurate and inappropriate- then discuss what (if anything) to do next. -SM 12:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There are other cannabinoids present in marijuana preparations like Cannabidiol, Cannabinol, and Cannabinolic acid, which are not psychoactive but are connected to the effectiveness of THC. There are probably many other compounds in the drug that when combusted play a role as well. See Erowid's list of Compounds found in Cannabis Sativa. --Howrealisreal 18:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

One reason I can think of why this infobox should be removed is that smoking cannabis is not like smoking pure THC, although one can dream. The Lethal dose(LD50) of THC is no where near the lethal dose of cannabis itself. Other information may be similarly misinterpreted. Although one could argue that THC is the reason marijuana is a drug (that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me), the isolated chemical THC and natural cannabis are two very different things. If the infobox doesn't apply to cannabis, it shouldn't be there, and in this case it doesn't. Flannel 00:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Guys, this makes no sense. Unless you're going to include a similar infobox for acacia obtusifolia, peganum harmala, banisteriopsis caapi, psychotria viridis, papaver somniferum, lactuca virosa, tabernanthe iboga, datura inoxia, artemisia absinthium, nicotiana rustica, myristica fragrans, salvia divinorum, trichocereus pachanoi, lophophora williamsii, amanita muscaria, psilocybe cubensis, and so on, it doesn't make sense to have it here. I also don't think the LD50 belongs on the page about the *plant*. Put the infobox on the THC page. Furthermore, if you're going to have infoboxes for these drugs, don't just have it for THC, have it for the cannabinoids such as cannabidiol. This infobox serves to demonize the subject of the article, and it's just silly. ZOMG TEH FATAL DOSAGE!111 Maybe to make it a little less partial, we should indicate in the infobox exactly how much plant material you'd require to reach the LD50. Afterall, THC in sesame oil is hardly related to Cannabis ingestion. It's just not a good idea. ... aa:talk 16:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It should go on the THC page as THC and cannabis are very different things. This article really is about cannabis being taken as a drug, it isn't about the chemical effects per se, that would be more appropriate at Cannabis but I am not saying the box should go to cannabis either, SqueakBox 17:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It is already on the THC page, where it belongs. -SM 22:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments: It's misleading to put the THC box in the article. THC is not the end-all-be-all component of cannabis, as emerging scientific evidence is proving there is a complex pathway of chemical interactions to produce its unique effects. Let's keep this page about the actual drug itself and leave the biochemistry and what-not to their appropriate separate articles. Maybe there can be a different kind of infobox for the page? --Howrealisreal 17:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above too . . . plants such as coffee, tea, and coca could be added to the above list; they too are lacking any sort of infoboxes, so that seems normal . . . One thing i disagree with, SM, is that it should be deleted and then we figure out what to do next. I mean, be bold, but if someone reverts your edits to the long standing previous version, it should be brought to the talk page rather than just reverted . . . --He:ah? 18:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It was not "long-standing"- not, at least, in terms of the oversight of most of the people here. It escaped notice for the worst of reasons: it had a superficially encyclopedic appearance, but contained misinformation. I believe I was correct in deleting it on sight. It is better in this case to have nothing than to have the wrong thing, and nothing was the long-standing state-of-affairs. -SM 22:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My point wasn't at all that you were wrong to remove it in the first place; my point is that it's always nice to use talk pages to avoid edit wars and hard feelings when people disagree with your actions. No criticism or anything. I agree it shouldn't be here. I just also think we should (all) make sure and communicate . . . --He:ah? 06:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

true, tis better to talk things through than to make messes for each other to clean up. 209.129.49.65 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC) hey, yo, Heah? got that thesis written up yet? dang. i was loggged in when i started? Prometheuspan 03:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

)

Botanical

Cannaboids and Species

I added some info on the different cannaboids and different species of cannabis from what i remember seeing at other sites. More has to be added regarding the different types of cannaboids and the effects from them. I feel the "buzz" between different types of weed or hash is 100 times more different than the difference in buzz between wine and whiskey. Some time ago i did find an online article about the coffee shops of a'dam with all this info. the difference between morroccon and manali hash, the difference between skunk and hydro and soil grown, etc. this entry here is informative but it is missing all this. also i added the names of 2 of the 3 different species. I forgot the name of the russian species but this species has low THC content. If i have time and/or there is interest i will add this in more detail.

Advocacy, Counteradvocacy, and POV

Marijuana Anonymous

I don't see how Marijuana Anonymous can be considered neutral about marijuana. IMO it is the most anti cannabis link we have and these people are extreme, SqueakBox 23:19, July 13, 2005 (UTC).

While it was me who put it in the article not having it here is fine by me, SqueakBox 23:22, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

In spite of 12 pro and only 3 anti advocacy links people keep removing any new anti cannabis links. We have a duty to keep this article NPOV in any moment, and I will stick the NPOV template on the article if this keeps happening, as we need to give the anti side of the argument, SqueakBox 14:30, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't replaced the NFIA article because there is no mention of cannabisd on the home page. I am actiovely looking for more anti sites to add, SqueakBox 14:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

The only reason I removed the BBC link was that I don't think its good to have links to news articles in that section. I'm fine with the link it has been replaced with. --Benna 08:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we need to have some metric of pro- vs. anti- links to determine NPOV. Frankly, this page should not be about advocacy, on either side. The addition of links to the page should be based on whether they are informative and substantive. Whig 15:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That may be, but in the meantime such a gross disproportiobn of pro against anti links looks like we are not being POV, looks like we are pro cannabis, regardless of the article content itself, because there are overwhelmingly and obviously more pro than anti links, and 2 new anti links were removed within 24 hours. We have to think about how the article looks to our readers. I am personally contemptuous of the anti arguments but feel that this article is only valuable in as far as it balances pro and anti, and that this advocacy inbalance in the external links is an anomaly that at the very least justifies not deleting all new anti advocacy articles, SqueakBox 15:52, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the links do give the impression that the article is pro-legalization. However I don't think the National Family link belongs here, I visited the page and it's a collection of the same tired arguments you'll find on a government web page. Adds nothing to the article. Rhobite 15:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

If you ask me this article looks like a guide to and advertisement for different ways of taking cannabis. To call it neutral in any way is an insult to one's intelligence. There are some studies out there proving that cannabis could be dangerous, but these are all to often brushed aside in the text as being unreliable, without any reason being given why they are unreliable. -212.64.98.189 2006-01-19 07:16:06

just because information is provided doesn't mean it isn't balanced by other information. I happen to think the reverse is true; if theres going to be an article or articles, they should offer as much useful information as wecan find. 209.129.49.65 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The key word there is useful. In a subject where advocacy sites (both pro and con) will be covering the same arguments, links should only be provided where not redundant. "Link counting" is the wrong way to think of balance. If there are 40 unique arguments against something and only 4 for it, including 10 copies each of those 4 reasons is redundant and silly.24.33.28.52 20:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

See Health issues and the effects of cannabis, which is the best thinking on the topic, and has more on why most anti-cannabis studies are unreliable. See also Talk:Health issues and the effects of cannabis -SM 14:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Legality

Map of legal status

this article needs a map that shows the legal status of marijuana around the world. Revolución 23:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed content

I don't have time right now to put it back but theres a whole bunch of missing info in the present version that used to be in this version could someone fix it if they can take time out from whatever it is you are doing? the difference as of now (diffs) Pedant

Louis Armstrong a proponent ?

From the article: "Louis Armstrong became one of its most prominent and life-long devotees. Cannabis use was also a prominent part of 1960s counterculture". In Mezz Mezzrows book "Really the Blues" Mezzrow states that Armstrong never touched the stuff. However I do not have the book at hand, and I don't feel confident enough about this, to actually edit the article.

I'd be surprised if Mezzrow was right, since I've read an article that quotes Louis Armstrong as saying something like "We always kept a good amount of food in the studio, cos that herb we was smoking gave you an appetite".

This question needs to be adequately answered, as I ran into this the other day. —Viriditas | Talk 22:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Biochemistry

It would be nice to see an explicit link to the THC article early on, and perhaps some mention of the more recent research on endogenous cannabinoids. Also a reference to the very wide variety of psychotropic cannabinoids in cannibus could be useful, as well as the evolutionary puzzle this poses.

See Health issues and the effects of cannabis --Howrealisreal 14:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Legality of seeds

I've just reverted an edit by 68.191.212.226 which changed "The seeds of the plant, high in protein and fatty acids, are really appreciated by many birds. Because they do not contain thc, the trade of the seeds is legal" to "Contrary to popular belief, marijuana seeds are illegal under U.S. law, which declares "any part of the marijuana plant illegal". This also includes sticks, stems and leaves." I've had a quick Google, and can't find any indication that 68.191.212.226 is correct, nor can I find the relevant law. If someone can find the legislation/and or precedent, feel free to restore the edit and cite your source. Thanks.--inks 05:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The seeds are definatly illegal under the Controlled Substances Act, which puts marijuana on schedule 1, and defines marijuana as, "all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin." --Benna 06:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Buy some birdseed and have a look. I was under the impression that it was legal because the seeds are sterilized. I am of the impression that they are also sold as a healthfood product, again provided sterile. Avriette 12:03, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right as a quick froogle search reveals many supliers of hemp seeds. I would like to find out what the relevent law is before making a change though. --Benna 05:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It is illegal to have, buy, or sell unsterilized marijuana seeds in the United States. Whether sterilized hemp seeds are legal, I don't know, but the claim that the seeds are legal in general is misleading and (potentially) dangerous. The Way 21:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no distinction between "marijuana seeds" and "hemp seeds." Marijuana is a product of the Cannabis plant. Hemp is a product of the Cannabis plant. So sterilized Cannabis seeds are legal. Feel free to change the article to reflect that. Avriette 16:19, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hemp and cannibis evolved in cultivation and are now considered two different races or subspecies. You wouldn't bother smoking hemp buds, they are so lite in THC you would have to smoke 4 or 5 joints to cop even a light buzz. 209.129.49.65 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The full text of the relevant section of the CSA is "(16) The term "marihuana" means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination. "

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/agency/csa.htm

The 2nd sentence makes it clear that sterilized seeds and seed by-products are legal. Also mature stalks and mature stalk by-products are also legal (except for resin extracted from stalks). --a wiki virgin who doesn't know how to make that cool time stamp

Legal in the US maybe, but elsewhere? Not legal here in Honduras but definitely legal in the UK. And there 190+ other countries too, SqueakBox 03:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Potency of Cannabis

I gave a once-over to your paragraph on potency, but why was is there in the first place? It didn't seem a large enough topic in the flow of Cannabis/History to warrant mention (too UK, too transient, too isolated from the general point of any of Cannabis reclassification in the United Kingdom, Revolution in cannabis cultivation due to prohibition blowback, or even the prohibitionist this-isn't-the-pot-you-had-in-the-sixties argument.

Would you consider moving it to Cannabis reclassification in the United Kingdom? -SM

I am not sure it is UK experience any more. I hear there are a lot of potent strains now grown in Jamaica and other places, different to the past, and I have read that it is very popular in the States so I would rather see it somewhere more universal than a UK based article. I do think it is important to mention these strong strains because they are a modern development that is clealry happening but would happily move the section somewhere else within the article, eg to a ==curremt== section, SqueakBox 04:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The higher potency is a general outgrowth of the following larger progression,

Nixon War-on-Drugs
sinsemilla technique brought to CA from Mexico
CAMP/Paraquat (DEA efforts in the Americas against outdoor growing, helo sprayers)
indoor growing, hydroponics
indica-sativa hybrids in CA
Amsterdam phenomenon
skunk comes to uk, representing step change in potency and quality
seed banks stabilise access to quality strains
years pass
us harps on the this-isn't-the-pot-you-had-in-the-sixties-so-your-having-done-it-is-different fallacy
uk reschedules cannabis to class C
uk signals backsliding under (mainly US) pressure, under various dubious pretexts (potency, "cannabis toxicity" nonsense, etc).

My point is that a paragraph encapsulating this progression would do better than just the one on potency, with the uk rescheduling issues placed in the UK rescheduling article. I think of it as a Nixon War-on-Drugs blowback cultivation revolution.

Also, the use of the term skunk to refer to high-test pot generally is a UK thing. The increase in potency, quality and yield has been PNW/A'dam led, but now is world-wide with spead of cultivation techniques. The big lie, of course, is that this potency is a sudden, recent thing (and, of course, that it matters), though the UK is playing it this way, along with the US. The "skunk" issue in the UK is a domestic politics blip, like the omg-pot-is-fatal blip. It is important to separate the real, gradual phenomenon from the recent prohibitionist hype.

-SM 06:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

My aim was to write a stub section on potent strains, and for others to expand it. My stub was very UK based because that is the country whose scene I know most about. A californian once told me that the skunk was the low grade material (smelt bad), and dunk was the real McCoy. I get the impression that it is the seeds that make the high potency materials different. I am concerned about the sheer lunacy of the government talking about regrading the very cannabis they should be encouraging people to smoke this rather than soap bar or the weaker varieties. That is my POV, which shouldn't go in the article, but on the other hand we should treat the issue, and in a thoroughly international way. I really hope more people can contribute and make this section bigger, SqueakBox 15:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Skunk's good (not low grade), but California is known for much better strains. London Skunk, a a good variety in its own right, isn't so skunky. Never heard of dunk. We agree on the rather disagreeable prospect of Her Majesty's Cannabis Assay dealing out multiple classifications. My original point remains: the historic issue is not potency, it's the cultivation revolution. Do you concur with this? -SM 15:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I take your point re cultivation/potency, SqueakBox 16:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Positive/negative effects

I am increasingly uncomfortable with Generally desirable effects, Situationally desirable effects and Therapeutic effects. I would like these sections removed. They are a cause of endless disputes, and I suspect we will be able to source very little of the information contained therein. I cannot source that dry mouth is situationaslly desirable, and nor can anyone else source that it is situationally undesirable, I believe. We are straying into the area of original research, and need to address this, SqueakBox 15:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Your point on original research is well-taken, none the less, I think we should let it ride. I am of the mind that those who actually smoke should have privileged standing with respect to determining what is desireable. For the record, I kinda like cottonmouth, don't really get the munchies, and my short-term memory remains very acute. -SM 16:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

There was some recent research reported by the BBC debunking the whole munchies myth because scientists have discovered that in fact cannabis is an appetite suppressant. They claimed to be surprised because of the munchies urban myth (which is craving for junk food not real food), which I thought demonstrated how much myth there is around cannabis. Of course cannabis is an appetite suppressant, as I read Rastas claiming many years ago. Perhaps we ahould add something about that, SqueakBox 16:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

personal experience leads me to believe that cannibis is an apetite supressant when smoked and an apetite enhancer after the come down. 209.129.49.65 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's really an appetite that cannabis users are getting, it's just that it increases your senses, including taste, and usually you get a taste craving, at least thats what I call my munchies I usually want chocolate, but as soon as I get the taste of it in my mouth, all craving leaves me, and I'm happy to pass my mars bar on to someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WezlyTwin (talk • contribs)

I hear of its theraputic claim to enhance appetite more often in connection with its anti-nausea properties. I suspect its popular muchies effect is linked moreso to a delayed realisation of hunger (due to, say, a mild appetite suppression), while still under the novelty-inducing qualities of the high. Jumping to a "debunking" of the muchies effect (and calling it a myth) does not follow, the issue seems to be more complex.

Having recently had occasion to review the No original research policy [ahem =)], I'd like to clarify my above comments in light of the point that,

In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims that are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources..., but these are exceptions.

Desireability is inherently subjective (so not "evaluative", per se), but can be verified by "any adult" who cares to smoke, hence my comments on standing. Sourcing positive reader comments on cotton mouth from High Times may be overkill. I think it will smooth out under discussion, nevertheless, your point is well-taken. We could quite reasonably start a forum thread on overgrow.com (or whatever) and tally the responses, God knows the sample size would be bigger that in much of what passes for peer-reviewed science on the topic.

-SM 17:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I haver removed the desirable/undesirable cats. These are mostly subjective judgements that encourage reverts and don't add to the article, SqueakBox 21:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable solution to me. Readers can make their own determination as to what effects are desirable. --Benna 22:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

We should do the same with the advocacy. That way we could bring marijuana anon back. Noone doubts that cannabis causes cotton mouth so it needs to be listed as an effect, SqueakBox 22:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Medical use legality

Information should be added about the dozen or so U.S. states (most recently Rhode Island) that have legalized marijuna use for medical purposes. 68.228.48.82 03:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

See Legal issues of cannabis Grimm

Recent

Drug

How is drug defined here? Is it a proper term? Can plants be drugs? This is what dictionary.com says about the term (dont know if im allowed to post this):

  1.
        1. A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease or as a component of a medication.
        2. Such a substance as recognized or defined by the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
  2. A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction.
  3. Obsolete. A chemical or dye.

Cannabis is not a chemical substance, but a dried or otherwise processed herb. Maybe pure THC is a drug in this sense, but is cannabis? And Im a bit sceptical that a legislative body can define meaning of terms, especially of a US legislative body defining it for the whole world. Im just asking for the clarification of the term, dont necessarely have an objection to it - that depends of the clarification the term gets. -aryah

First, rest easy, the dictionary.com post is fair use. Second, the word drug is from the Dutch word for "dried substance". Third, for the purposes of Cannabis (drug), it is only to talk about it as a substance consumed by people which has physical effects. See main article for the different articles in Wikipedia.

Finnaly, the problem is not that lawmakers make their own working definition for legitimate regulatory purposes, but that the regulation- and consequent propaganda- has been so consistantly ignorant and harmful. Where this starts to get contentious at Wikipedia is the clash over things like drug abuse, where institutions have incorporated literally decades of biases into how they speak of drug use. Consider the following different semantic maps,

legal-illegal
herbal-medical-illegal
prescription-counter-illegal
prescription-counter-supplement-abused
soft-hard-pharmaceutical-herbal-alcohol-caffeine-chocolate-sugar
medical-recreational
pharmaceutical-herbal-medical-recreational-entheogenic-dangerous
(many others possible)

Depending on which map informs ones thought, one is going to see issues differently. See how often one cannot speak outside ones own map. Since Anslinger, Nixon and Reagan-Bush have welded cannabis to the demonised term drug, it is difficult to talk intelligently to government about it. Often, drug abuse professionals see no difference between a drug of abuse and a recreational drug, because they perceive no legitimate use outside of medicine, or see legal problems as a sign of abuse, where often the problem is the law doing way more harm than the drug.

-SM 21:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

well, though your etimological argument has much strenght, etimology itself is not enough to determine the meaning of a word. Your good analysis of semantic maps is a good argument for being carefull towards the use of a certan word, however its use originated. I know that this article refers only to the use of cannabis when consumed by people for its physical, and/or psyhological effect, what Im questioning is whether the word drug is appropriate to describing even in that role. Like you described, that term has much baggage and maybe became bias-provoking in this context. The problem of semantic map thats used prejudicating the conclusions one makes is a universal one, so one has to be especially careful about it. For instance the word entheogen was coined to distance from the historical baggage of the term psyhodelic (well, that was at least one motivation), and the terms open source was also a term coin to distance from the ideological implications of the term free software. My comment both about something being a chemical supstance vs a dried plant , and about US legislative practice determening the use of some word in an international project was both commenting the definition of the word drug quoted above. My point was that either 1) another, more neutral term should be used when speaking of consuming a substance for its physical and/or psyhological use, or 2) if the term drug is to be used, there should be an explication of what meaning that term connotes here, due to the ambiguity and contraversy its use creates.

-aryah

Drug has been a proper English word since the 14th century, but demonized really only since Nixon's 1971 War on Drugs. How much of the language are you willing to run away from? I am a patriot, and a fierce one. Shall the Patriot Act have me looking for another word to describe my love of country? I would much rather say, I use a psychedelic drug entheogenically, than find myself saying, it's not a drug, it's an entheogen. Why concede good ground in a fight? Theirs is the weaker case, read Health issues and the effects of cannabis to see why.

One of the beauties of Wikipedia is that it has zero need to buy into the unsubstantiated. What does bias-provoking mean, and whose problem is that?

-SM 23:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Thats enough to convice me - really no reason to shift term as soon as they get ursurped by the gov. But that still makes the wiktionary explanation of the term too narrow (OFTEN addictive?????), and there should be some link in the Cannabis (drug) on a article Drug that does, at least in a list-manner. mention different meanings of the term. Btw, it says it comes from sanskrt druh - and mentiones its related to demon - in my language duh means ghost/spirit - thats probably related? So how did that become related to medication?

-aryah

It doesn't, I think you saw a disambiguation page, not an etymology- where did you see that? Also, where did you see often addictive? Not in connection to cannabis! -SM 13:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, youre right, it it s disambiguation page, of that same word/spelling's meaning in Hinduism, i misinterpreted the info. And the often addictive is from the wictionary explanation of the word drug - not relating to cannabis in particular, but speaking of the meaning of the word drug in general - but therefore being applicable to the use of the word in connection of cannabis as well.

Noun

drug (plural drugs)

  1. Substance used to treat an illness, relieve a symptom or modify a chemical process in the body for a specific purpose.
  2. A substance, often addictive, which affects the central nervous system.

Now that is certanly biased, and its the only mention of what the word drug means in wiki.

-aryah

Yes, Thats enough to convice me. We find ourselves in violent agreement, as indeed all right thinking people should be. =)

I'm not so knowledgeable of process on Wikitionary, I'll look into it. Meanwhile, are you from India, or know it well? Could you look at Cannabis (spiritual use), and carry over any comment to Talk:Cannabis (spiritual use). 15:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Im from eastern europe, and am just learning about india. I see the mentioned article is just being created, but dont know enough about the historical spiritual use to make a valuable contribution. I will try googleing about it though:)

-aryah

If we look at the FDA definition of a "dietary supplement" below (1), then "whole cannabis" should be classified as a dietary supplement. The U.S. carved out this category relatively recently to include and regulate what are neither foods nor drugs, such as ginseng, valerian, St Johns Wort, etc. (2)

   * a vitamin,
   * a mineral,
   * an herb or other botanical,
   * an amino acid,
   * a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary           intake (e.g., enzymes or tissues from organs or glands), or
   * a concentrate, metabolite, constituent or extract.

The distinction between what are drugs and what are therapeutic herbs is important in the debate over how best to classify and regulate cannabis, especially with regard to medicinal use.

The DEA has rejected petitions to place whole cannabis in the same schedule as synthetic THC pills on the gounds that whole cannabis is of unknown chemical composition and it can not be reproduced in standardized dosages. (3)

Opponents of medicinal cannabis use argue that whole cannabis is not a "medicine," pointing out that we do not eat willow bark for aspirin or eat moldy bread for penicillin. They say cannabis has not been subjected to the same "rigorous" drug approval process pharmaceuticals must pass. (4)

However, the existence of caffiene pills has not dampened the popularity of coffee. Pouring hot water over ground beans is an extremely primitive, variable and potentially carcinogenic technique for getting a caffiene fix. There are dozens of legal psychoactive therapeutic herbs on the market, all classified as dietary supplements.

Herbs with a long history of safe use, like cannabis, are typically grandfathered into the dietary supplement category without rigorous study. If it comes to the attention of the FDA that an herb is being "abused" or causing health problems, they may issue a warning or take the more drastic measure of banning the substance. However, the burden lies with the FDA to prove that the herb is exceptionally dangerous. (2)

In my opinion, cannabis has been misclassified by the DEA and the FDA and wiki entries on cannabis should include references to this position (and the supporting definitions), that cannabis is a dietary supplement like other traditional Chinese herbs.

1) What is a dietary supplement?

2) Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA)

3) In the Matter of PETITION OF CARL ERIC OLSEN

4) [http://www.forbes.com/sciencesandmedicine/2005/11/04/farley-marijuana-mozes-cz-rr-1104readerresponse.html Cannabinoid Compounds Are Not Medical Marijuana]

-ME

"heavy lobbying by pharmeceutical companies" ???

Can we get some backstory or justification for this? I'm not opposed, just curious. I've never heard this before, and was a heavy pot user for long enough to have heard most of the mythology. Without justification, it seems a bit inflammatory (no pun intended).

Centre

There's one variety of cannabis for personal use called centre (russian центр). It may be (probably is) called something different in English. Preparing in involves running buck naked through a cannabis field. The pollen (maybe resin and other stuff) is then scraped off his sweaty body and dried, resulting in a fine greenish brown powder. It's supposed to be really potent. It's prepared for use by heating it in foil and then applying pressure, after which it is smoked like hashish. Anyone heard of this? Is there a website about it where I could find sourced info to add to the article? --chad 11:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I've never heard of such a thing (and I can't tell if you are joking or not) but it sounds like you are talking about the collection of kief. —Viriditas | Talk 04:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have. I read years ago (but no idea where) it was a traditional method from the Indian sub-continet for getting the very best hashish and I am sure it is true, and Kazakhstan is near enough so presumably it is a quite widespread practice, SqueakBox 14:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It stands to reason that such a substance would be smoked like hashish, since it is hashish. It's got a bunch of human-originating contaminants in it probably, but it's just hash.24.33.28.52 20:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest edits

Users don't report residual high. How is that? Cannabis is physically addictive. How is that? I don't agree with either of those statements, please source (and just because one scientist is claiming these facts are so doesn't make them true. Users do report residual highs and it is highly disputed that cdannabis is physically addictive, SqueakBox 17:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I have removed any claim that users either do or do not report a residual high and also that cannabis is severely physically addictive, which if true should be included much more forcefully in the article and not sneakily shoved in like it was, SqueakBox 17:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hzave a lok at this Google page for evidence trhat users are reporting a residual high [5], SqueakBox 17:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I am severly new to wikipedia. I am wondering why someone deleted the heading and link I added about the legality in the states of marijuana, depicting fines and such for each state in the US. This information is thought to be accurate, and is hosted by NORML. BigMar992 23:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Names

The names section was completely American biased so I have deleted it as this ios an international encyclopedia. The problem is greatly exagerrated by having hashish as a separate article. Cannabis as a drug is simply not called hemp by anyone, SqueakBox 20:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree on the whole, but the article does need to reference the term 'marijuana' somewhere as this is a very common term many visitors will be looking for. Additionally, perhaps a link to the article listing drug slang should be included in the main article somewhere near here, rather than just the See Also section? Kit 21:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

- I agree that the names seem very Americocentric. Frank Carmody 15:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

In that case IMO it should be marijuana or hashish, SqueakBox 21:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Language like '... cannabis, known to many as marijuana or hashish (actually a specific preparation of the drug), like many psychoactive drugs, is also referred to by a wide variety of slang terms.' might be clearest. What do you think?

Alternately the last wikilink could lead to the Wiktionary Appendix on Cannabis Slang from See Also, instead. Kit 22:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.--Fenice 15:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Active ingredients, metabolism, and method of activity

http://www.kubby.com/Guzman-Cancer-nrc1188.pdf Has any one considerd the information in this report?? Zath42 01:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the citation, we'll look to see if we missed anything. -SM 09:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit issues

Regarding: 1.3 New breeding and cultivation techniques

First should this even be in the "History section"?

Second, the second paragraph, in my opinion, is out of focus of "New breeding and cultivation techniques". Perhaps it could go somewhere else. Third, the tone of the second paragraph is quite clearly POV. While statements made in the paragraph may be factually correct, the language contains a tone which is inappropriate.

As a history section, it is very uneven. There is a huge gap in the mediaeval period (including the Islamic world: Sufis, Moguls, Greeks, Ottomans and Egyptians (Mehemet Ali), the Raj.

The section New breeding and cultivation techniques is valid in the timeline, but it has had inserted behind it various recent events making a problem of the headings (the medpot paragraph is a keeper, Denver is not). The revival of prohibition (DARE, CAMP), the cultivation revolution (sinsemilla, hydroponics) and its counter-prohibition blowback (potency, resistance to decriminalization) taken together make for a historic moment.

Other examples of a historic moment would be Haight to Amsterdam and Medical cannabis. Denver is early: the battle of city vs feds has yet to ripen. Historic moments overlap.

-SM 02:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that these are things which would be much more appropriate for a history section Andy 03:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding: 3.2 List of therapeutic effects

smaines and I have a disagreement about the following line

Mild entheogenesis (e.g. per Rastafarian users, more "Jah-Vibrations")

I feel that the value of the free example regarding "Jah-Vibrations" is offset by the unprofessional feel and clutter it adds to the article. smaines feels otherwise. Anyone who cares should chime in to help define the issue and add thoughs or feelings regarding.

What are the subjects touched upon at that point? Cannabis and entheogenesis. I could have pulled an example from any number of religions, but an editor chose one, perhaps from an experience common in his particular faith community. You can ask whether any listed effect should have an amplifying example (there are several others), whether this effect should (it is reasonably complex), whether it is culturally authentic (appears so), whether it is accessible (I got it, how about you?). What was that you were saying about unprofessional? Note the point at which this was first added. -SM 02:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Infact there are no other listed effects which have examples, many have non example clarifications. I think to most readers (and indeed myself) the reference seems esoteric. This is why to me the reference seems unprofessional. Btw, I think many of the other clarificaions could be edited to be more consistant and clean.Andy 03:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Like these? Probably a synonym counts as an example only insofar as it is not a synonym, still leaving the first and penultimate in the list indisputable and the rest arguable.

Enhancement of many other drugs (including alcohol, ecstasy, tobacco, heroin, cocaine, LSD, psilocybin and many others)
Increased appetite (sometimes referred to as "the munchies"), an effect of stimulation of the endocannabinoid system, which affects body weight, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia.
Initial wakefulness followed by drowsiness and lassitude ('burnt out')
Dry mouth (sometimes referred to as cottonmouth, pasties, or the drys (NZ))
Keratoconjunctivitis sicca (sometimes referred to as blood-shot eyes, dry eyes or red eye(UK))
Pain relief (especially headaches, cramps, and eye pain due to lowered intraocular pressure).
Mild entheogenesis (e.g. per Rastafarian users, more "Jah-Vibrations")

BTW, entheogenesis is almost by definition esoteric, yet you want a more mundane example?

-SM 11:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess I would say that the example does not offer clarification to the general reader, only to a very small subset of readers, and therefor is esoteric. Whether or not the concept itself is esoteric is irrelevant since readers do not need to know what it means, only follow a link and read.

Andy 19:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that an example is indicated: what would you suggest? -SM 21:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding: 3.4 Lethal dose (discussion of recorded related event)

I feel that it is unnecessary to make an assertion such as "There has only ever been one.." about anything when it would be just as effective and more easliy supported to discuss the matter without the assertion.

Currently it is:

There has only ever been one recorded verdict of fatal overdose due to cannabis, however this finding was found on multiple professional reviews to be "not legitimate".

I propose:

One reported THC fatality was found upon multiple professional reviews to be "not legitimate":

No. Your version bears the implication that there are others. There are not, and this is a critical piece of information, therefore necessary to assert: how can you possibly conclude otherwise, when the topic is the lethality of cannabis?! -SM 02:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

How is it possible for anyone to assert absence? Not just in this case but in general. Scientists avoid like the plague categorical assertions. It is better to imply than to make an assertion. Perhaps consider: "There has reportedly only ever been one contended case of fatal overdose due to cannabis, and this finding was found upon multiple professional reviews to be "not legitimate""Andy 03:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Your point on categorical assertions is well-taken, though Scientists avoid like the plague categorical assertions does border on a categorical assertion. Nevertheless there has only been one recorded case, regularly trumpeted as the first such (perhaps that should be reportedly). BTW, if you have another, please present it: by definition, it is recorded somewhere, and clearly somewhere that ONDCP hasn't found, else we'd have it (this should narrow your search dramatically). You will be a prohibitionist hero. -SM 11:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please add any thoughs you may have on the issues above. Andy 00:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Doping up by the Word

In the picture at the top of the page, showing a lump of cannabis that looks something like Oscar the Grouch, it is lying on an open page in some book. Does anyone know what the book is, or if it's just where they took the picture? If you do, please tell me at WAS 01:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

I have requested and received semi-protection for this article

Please see my request, and comment here. I have also requested semi-protection for Cannabis. -SM 17:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor correction

As an anon, I can't edit the article, so I'll just point out that the "main article: cannabis cultivation leads to a disambiguation page, and should be changed to point to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_%28drug%29_cultivation

Fixed

Also, I think someone should cite the "not legitimate" quote in reference to the alleged cannabis OD fatality, with one of the bracketed upper index link thingies. The citations for quotes seems to be very inconsistent. For example, in the section "Tolerance, withdrawl, and dreams", this part:

Although use may become habitual, the extent of physical dependence to cannabis is unknown (DEA, 2004).

has a parenthetical citation, whereas

A study has shown that holding cannabis smoke in one's lungs for longer periods did not conclusively increase THC's effects[3].

is upper-index cited.

Of course, I may be misunderstanding the format for citing things. Anyways, inter-article consistency goes a long ways towards a professional appearance. Jongpil Yun 06:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Section added to Cannabis (not drug)

This was added by an anon., take what you will. Makemi 19:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Preparation & Use

Cannabis 'Bud'/'Leaf'

The most direct way of using the plant for psycho-active purposes involves eating or smoking the 'buds' (the swollen female resin glands). This is main body of the plant, and, together with the leaves is known as 'weed', 'grass', 'bud' or 'green' in everyday, slang terms. It is the swollen buds which contain the highest amounts of Tetra-Hydro-Cannabinol (THC - The active ingredient which gets one 'stoned'), with the leaves having a negligable amount of THC. The simplest way to obtain the psycho-active propertie sof the plant is to cut or crumble the buds to expose maximum surface area, and smoke them. Most cannabis has a sweet taste and smell when smoked/burning, although their are slight varieties amongst the hundreds of different strains. Cannabis burns at a higher temperature than tobacco.

Methods of preparation of Cannabis 'bud' for smoking

One of the most effective ways is to place the buds in a glass cup, and, covering the top with one hand, to use the other hand to chop the buds up using a pair of scissors. This ensures that the bud is chopped up to reveal a large as possible surface area, whilst all the THC which may escape is collected in the glass, and can be collected using ones finger. Alternatively there are several brand sof cannabis 'grinder' which one may use. A commercial coffee grinder will also do very well.

Reports

http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/MironReport.pdf http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/Up_in_Smoke.pdf?docID=1081 http://sentencingproject.org/pdfs/waronmarijuana.pdf Some interesting repots, maby beter for the war on drugs, but still canabis spesific.Zath42 20:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

periodicity

one thing that pot smokers ought to have given them as a factoid is the issue of Shamanic periodicity. In some Systems, one of the protocols includes a rule not to use more frequently than once every three days. This checks out with simple brain chemistry, thats how long it takes the effected nueral synapses to reload.

To put it another way, Marijuana has a short term tolerance effect, which is mitigated by refraining from smoking too often. You can't get as "Hi" if you smoke more often, because there just isn't the nueroelectric energy potential. Prometheuspan 21:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That's debatable, though I'll throw in for good measure Terrance McKenna's notion that cannabis should be done only every seven days, for similar reasons. StrangerInParadise 23:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

pot laugh

This seems like a silly topic but I've always noticed that a person's laugh is effected by smoking cannabis. This is not just my silly thought either, it is commonly referred to in public mediums espcially radio. Not only do I doubt there is a study on this, I doubt there ever will be, because it's not medically pertinent. That having been said it does seem so pervasive that omitting it from this article is an egregious oversight, in my opinion. Does anyone object to me adding something on this topic to the article? If anyone that doesn't object could voice their agreement I'd appriciate it so I at least have some support on the issue. Vicarious 14:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Just be aware of WP:NOR which means you have to source whatever you write. What you don't have to do is source it scientifically as wikipedia is a general not a scientific encyclopedia. Having said all that I don't agree with your premise about people's laughter itself changing through cannabis but if you can source this claim I would still be happy to see it included, SqueakBox 15:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

To quickly give merit here's Adam Carolla and Drew Pinsky discussing it. [6]. For additional references just google "stoner laugh" and aprox half the results are referencing the cannabis induced laugh. Vicarious 16:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Marijuana

This is currently a redirect here. I believe we should create a separate marijuana article. It would effect this page as it would mean taking material from here into marijuana. For my reasoning see Talk:Hashish/Archive 1#cleanup tag. The other option woukld be to merge hashish here but the separation of hashish from marijuana with the main cannabis article covering marijuana and not hashish is a flaw in wikipedia that must be fixed. Comments please (won't do it for a bit), SqueakBox 16:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What would go in a potential marijuana article that shouldn't belong in this one? --Muugokszhiion 19:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to cover marijuana and hashish in this article. This article can easily cover all aspects of cannabis as a drug - adding articles for the different forms it takes would likely get confusing and be more difficult to maintain. AP 21:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There should not be an article entitled Marijuana. Although marijuana even appears in scientific papers in the US, it is was a term popularized by racist attempts to demonize cannabis users (see Harry J. Anslinger for more info), which demonization has continued to the present. The proper term is cannabis, and is common outside the US. StrangerInParadise 15:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

a question

I need to find something out for a friend and I can't seem to find it in the article itself. The question is: how long does marijuana stay in one's system after use? As in, since tests can detect marijuana in one's hair even if it's been a couple years after last used, approximately how many years will pass until the evidence of marijuana use will disappear?

The solution to your troubles lies --PetterBudt 01:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)in this article (Drug test)[7]. --PetterBudt 16:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I believe the half life of THC is 7 days (ie half of what was consumed remains in the body after 7 days, a quarter after 14 days etc, which in thjeory means microscopic quantities from one joint will remain in the body for life. Of course many people don't have 2 year old hair (on their head at least). Ultimately how long traces will remain depends on the sensitivity of the testing technology, SqueakBox 17:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

We all learn something new every day and thats why i love this place. The research in Drug test was updated before the weekend based on new research. I added the link to the talk pages on Drug test and it made its way in to the mainpage. The title is:

Recent scientific literature indicates that it is uncommon for occasional marijuana smokers to test positive for cannabinoid metabolites in urine for longer than seven days at 20 ng/ml or above on the EMIT (Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Technique)] the link is [8]--PetterBudt 18:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is chilling when one considers how these tests are often used to establish driving impairment. For those unfamiliar, to suggest that one should be required to wait a week after smoking to drive is beyond absurd. StrangerInParadise 15:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Its even more fun if u know that by the time(6-8 hours) they can find thc in your urin, you are already sober(up to 4 hours?)(reference:Wikipedia drug test info).--PetterBudt 01:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Cannabinoid metabolites in your urine do not intoxicate you (they are altered forms). It's apples and oranges actually, they may indicate use at some point in the past, but it's impossible for drug tests to show a current state of cannabis intoxication. For that, it's much easier to look into the eyes.. (jokes!) --Howrealisreal 13:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

New user questions

I dont know where to put this... as the text is rather long. but I want to add two thoughts that struck me as i read the article. whoever is in charge of this article may deal with these as they see fit and then delete or move this text as they wish.

1. about halfway down this article (Cannabis (drug)) under the heading "Health issues and the effects of cannabis" the first words read "Weed is great". now while i do agree with the sense of the words, it is certainly not npov. and also detracts from the value of the article as it makes it seem pro-cannabis. i suggest this be changed or removed.

2. just below that there is a reference to a swedish study of 50.00 army conscripts, i suggest it be temporarily deleted while the study is reviewed to verify its validity. swedish government is VERY anti-cannabis and there is a high probabillity that that study is bogus.--Mindzpore 17:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the first issue, which is probably old vandalism that wasn't caught at the time, and so stayed too long. As to the second, I know nothing about it, so I'm not going to change it. New comments on talk pages go at the bottom of the page.

~~:By the way, I think it's silly for this page to still be semi-protected. It gets less vandalism than Beethoven or Shakespeare, so I don't think it's appropriate as a long-term solution.~~ Mak emi 17:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, nevermind about the protection thing, I thought it was still protected from a month ago, but it's just been re-protected today. Mak emi 17:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The Swedish Cohort study is an often-cited paper on the subject. It has certain methodological limitations, which are further discussed in Health issues and the effects of cannabis#Correlation studies.

A landmark study, in 1987, of 50,000 Swedish Army conscripts, found that those who admitted at age 18 to having taken cannabis on more than 50 occasions, were six times more likely to develop schizophrenia in the following 15 years. In fact, psychosis cases were restricted to patients requiring a hospital admission. These findings have not been replicated in another population based sample. [19] As the study did not control for symptoms preexisting onset of cannabis use, the study does not resolve the correlation versus causality question.

The text here is often out-of-date with respect to the text in HIATEOC, and should be cut back and brought in synch.

StrangerInParadise 20:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Schizophrenia link

mention should be made of pot's potential to exacerbate schizophrenia symptoms in those prone to it. For a real case history of this, read Mark Vonnegut's biography Eden Express.

See Health issues and the effects of cannabis. Note also that sativas are said to be more likely to exacerbate schizophrenia, but indicas are said to help. StrangerInParadise 23:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

New Pro-cannabis userbox

This user is pro-cannabis.

If you would like to have this on your userpage, just add {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/pro-cannabis}} to your userpage, and the box at right will appear on it. Also, if used in your user space, the page will be listed on Category:Pro-cannabis Wikipedians. If you would like to share it with someone else, type {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/pro-cannabis|stamp|right}}

Also, consider weighing in on the Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll.

Stand up and be counted while you still can,

StrangerInParadise 20:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ancient History

I dispute the origin of the word "cannabis" from the Hebrew bible. The word for drug in Hebrew is in fact "samim" but that is not the word used in Exodous 30:23; the actual word found here is "b'samim" which means "spices" and would be detrimental to the meaning of the verse if we mistook it for only "samim." The famous medieval commentator to the Hebrew bible Rashi deems "kneh bosem" not marijuana, but a cane of aromatic spice. I would like this to be changed or deleted from the article if no substantial and reliable evidence is brought forward.

Notably absent from the discussion of ancient history of the drug is information about the origin of the word "assassin" as a derivation from the Arabic word "hashshashin" which refers to one who is "addicted" to Hash. You can look it up in the dictionary. Apparently there was group of ancient Persians who ate "Hash" and who were greatly feared as a gang of killers. Their fearsome reputation survives to this day in the word assassin. I think this would be a good addition to the section on the ancient history of the drug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmorford (talk • contribs)

Actually, it's mentioned under the "Spiritual Use" section, and again in the Spiritual Use main article. --Rory0 96 04:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

now what?

I use pot to treat depression, but lately ive found myself stoned, but still depressed, any Ideas?

Prometheuspan 22:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Several important Psychonautics principles are involved here.

Firstly, smoking more frequently than once every three days may create a permenent imbalance. If you are one of the very rare cases of this, then your system has quit producing certain neurotransmitters due to the abundance of thc. In this case, the only sane solution is to stop for a period of no less than about a month.

Like any substance, Marijuana doesn't change your life situations or the emotional stimulus which make you sad in the first place. If you use it to deal with emotional situations, you had best

put a lot of energy into resolving those situations also, or eventually, the "TRANCE" self is going to subliminally know it is being fooled. In a sense, this amounts to becoming "Disenchanted".

Depression is usually blamed on the victim. What would a Sociologists report on your life, your family, and your freinds look like? The INTELLECTUAL solution to Depression is wrapped up in seeing the end of the tunnel in the form of that glowing white light.

Think about what your life problems and obstacles are, and generate problem solving processes to confront them. Smoking pot is a great way to loosen up hemispheric communication and thus dynamically enhances creativity and the capacity for introspection. Don't waste the high staring out at nothing, or being distracted by other vices. Focus on the high, and use it honestly to resolve as much as possible what is going on with you. Use Psychonautics. That is what those principles are there for. Solving for the values of the internal labyrinth. Prometheuspan 22:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The important thing with cannabis as with life is to remaiun active, so don't just consume and sit on your energy, do something with it instead, SqueakBox 01:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The best person to ask about depression is a person qualified to diagnose and treat it: a psychiatrist. IMO, marijuana should not be used to treat a chemical imbalance when there are drugs out there developed for it. Loodog 22:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Some recent tests indicate cannabis may have strong anti-depressant qualities, also some anti-depressants have been linked with suicide but yes cannabis is not a way to solve depression, SqueakBox 23:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have had experience with both marijuana and depression (separately), and I agree that depression is usually caused by your life situation. Unless your depression has been diagnosed as strictly chemical (in which case you probably already have a perscription for it), the real solution is long-term. Personally, I have found that the most significant turnaround in my life was when I was introduced to personal development. I suggest you pick up a few books like Think and Grow Rich, The Purpose Driven Life, The Slight Edge, and The Power of Positive Thinking. Since I have started reading books such as these, my outlook on life has completely changed. I definitely think you owe it to yourself to to spend some time with these books. If you don't know where to start, I reccommend The Slight Edge by Jeff Olson. It's a fairly short book compared to the others, and it's very simple and straightforward. It explains one principle you can start applying in your life today, to create the kind of life you want to have a few years down the road. The book is published by Momentum Media, and can be purchased at http://www.tapesandtools.com/The_Slight_Edge_Book_P440.cfm for just $12.95. Dansiman 05:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Should stuff like the previous entry be allowed to stand here? I mean... come on... I know this is the talk page, but what do this have to do about cannabis(the article). My serious question is. Should/can we delete messages like the previous?--PetterBudt 10:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 18:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Encouraging a person to self medicate is, in my opinion, a better solution than not giving them the chance to do so. Yes, serious depression should seek psychiatric help. A base assumption of mine in answering the question is that this avenue has allready been employed. However, and to be frank, there isn't a whole lot "modern" medicine can do for depression. A lot of the things a Doctor might suggest are really brain function inhibitors, side effect; lowered IQ. Marijuana