Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Can Marijuana Make You Stupid?

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

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

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

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

Read the article again, carefully, without looking for some small bit of postive to reassure yourself. What the article says is that people who STOP SMOKING MARIJUANA will recover cognitive functions 28 days after quitting. But it clearly says that heavy marijuana users do score worse than others on various tests, even a week after quitting the drug. It also says that heavy users profess that the drug has significantly negative effects on various aspects of their lives. In short - marijuana DOES make you stupid. The positive in the article is that YOU CAN RECOVER! Bulbous (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Pope does offer some very evenhanded statements about the political climate. What kind of surprised me is Pope blames the deficit on: (1) the drug staying in the system for a while and (2) withdrawal and doesn't seem to consider any kind of damaging effects to the brain.--Loodog (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Bulbous has an anti-marijuana POV, which is not really appropriate for wikipedia where we need to be following neutrality. Is that in capitals because you think PEOPLE SHOULD stop smoking cannabis? Please desist from using wikipedia as if it were a forum or somehwere for you to push your opinions. Recovery indeed, as if we should be trying top persuade people to stop. We are an encyclopedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an "anti-marijuana" POV. I have an "anti-bias" POV. The original poster was trying to spin the article into some kind of positive aspect of marijuana usage. A *neutral* read of the article reveals that the emphasis is on the significant detrimental effects of marijuana usage. The real positive aspect of the article is that you can "recover" from these detrimental effects by quitting the drug. Bulbous (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Medical Use

Rewrite Suggestions

A synthetic form of one chemical in marijuana, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), is a controversial

• Controversial to who? Most doctors will gladly prescribe you marinol if you have a serious medical condition.)

treatment for medical use. The American Marijuana Policy Project,

• Why are they in the 2nd sentence about Medical marijuana? They deserve to be in this article for certain, but maybe Americans for Safe Access or some other purely medical-marijuana organization should be given a higher standing in this article.

a pro-cannabis organization, claims

• Claims? (loaded word in this context) But, again why are they the people in this article making assertions?

that cannabis is an ideal therapeutic drug for cancer and AIDS patients, who often suffer from clinical depression, and from nausea and resulting weight loss due to chemotherapy and other aggressive treatments.[28] Other medical uses may included fighting cancer, according to an isolated study by scientists in Italy. This study states that cannabidiol (CBD), a chemical found in marijuana, inhibits growth of cancer cells in animals.[29]

The FDA and comparable authorities in Western Europe, including the Netherlands, have not approved smoked marijuana for any condition or disease. The current view of the United States Food and Drug Administration is that if there is any future of marijuana as a medicine, it lies in its isolated components, the cannabinoids and their synthetic derivatives.[30] "However, no federal agency has allowed even one full-scale study to take place in the United States." <--- easily proveable assertion that needs to be added.

A synthetic version of the cannabinoid THC named dronabinol has been shown to relieve symptoms of anorexia and reduce agitation in elderly Alzheimer's patients.[31] Dronabinol has been approved for use with anorexia in patients with HIV/AIDS and chemotherapy-related nausea. This drug, while demonstrating the effectiveness of cannabis at combating several disorders, is more expensive and less available than "pot" and has not been shown to be effective or safe.[32]

Glaucoma, a condition of increased pressure within the eyeball causing gradual loss of sight, can be treated with medical marijuana to decrease this intraocular pressure. There has been debate for 25 years on the subject. Some data exist, showing a reduction of IOP in glaucoma patients who smoke marijuana,[33] but the effects are short-lived, and the frequency of doses needed to sustain a decreased IOP can cause systemic toxicity. There is also some concern over its use since it can also decrease blood flow to the optic nerve. Marijuana lowers IOP by acting on a cannabinoid receptor on the ciliary body called the CB receptor.[34] Although marijuana is not a good therapeutic choice for glaucoma patients, it may lead researchers to more effective, safer treatments. A promising study shows that agents targeted to ocular CB receptors can reduce IOP in glaucoma patients who have failed other therapies.[35]

Rewrite of the next paragraph:

Medical marijuana is used for analgesia, or pain relief. Medical users often cite headaches, dysentery, menstrual cramps and depression as the primary reasons for their regular use. Advocates for patients often cite these reasons and others for the availability of medical marijuana. (36) It is also reported to be beneficial for treating certain neurological illnesses such as epilepsy, and bipolar disorder.[37] Case reports have found that cannabis can relieve tics in people with obsessive compulsive disorder and Tourette syndrome. Patients treated with tetrahydrocannabinol, the main psychoactive chemical found in cannabis, reported a significant decrease in both motor and vocal tics, some of 50% or more.[38][39][40] Some decrease in obsessive-compulsive behavior was also found.[38] A recent study has also concluded that cannabinoids found in cannabis might have the ability to prevent Alzheimer's disease.[41] THC has been shown to reduce arterial blockages.[42]

Another use for medical marijuana is movement disorders. Marijuana is frequently reported to reduce the muscle spasms associated with multiple sclerosis; this has been acknowledged by the Institute of Medicine, but it noted that these abundant anecdotal reports are not well-supported by clinical data. Evidence from animal studies suggests that there is a possible role for cannabinoids in the treatment of certain types of epileptic seizures.[43] Marijuana "numbs" the nervous system slightly, possibly preventing shock. A synthetic version of the major active compound in cannabis, THC, is available in capsule form as the prescription drug dronabinol (Marinol) in many countries. The prescription drug Sativex, an extract of cannabis administered as a sublingual spray, has been approved in Canada for the treatment of multiple sclerosis.[44] —Preceding unsigned comment added by IOISynergy (talk • contribs) 22:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

add info about relationship of autoimmune diseases to articles

some say it flares up autoimmune diseases. is there any research to say this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.251.53 (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know... let's find out. NJGW (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

quick notes...

I realize there's a main "gateway theory" article, but this article has just as much -- and different -- information on the topic as that article. Seems some moving and paraphrasing of material is needed. Plus, the first two sentences of the second paragraph of the "gateway" section both beg for a little more info. Either that should be provided, as other topic sentences in that section are not left stranded, or they should be removed. But that can be improved upon.

The "religious use" section is terribly brief and compact. Perhaps the examples should be bulleted with a leader paragraph directing the reader to the main article for more info (although, I don't believe all those examples are discussed in the main article--that also needs to be fixed).Elle (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Second paragraph needs citation, proof, or removal.

The paragraph claiming that the 20th century has seen a rise in marijuana use is a bit assumptive. Either the editor forgot to add proof to the claim, or this is propaganda aimed toward convincing the reader that marijuana use is a large problem for modern society.

Whether or not marijuana use is a problem for modern society, it is not the role of the introduction to make this claim, or worse, attempt to convince the reader by disguising opinion as fact.

mlbailey2 (talk) 08:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Government sources (International Narcotics Control Board) claim that cannabis production has increased, and some sources say cannabis use has risen among youth, however, other sources claim that while kids are experimenting with it earlier, less people are actually using the drug. The biggest drugs of abuse continue to be alcohol, tobacco, and legal prescription drugs. Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The idea that this claim is politically motivated is rubbish. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Which claim? In the U.S., statistics like these are most certainly politically motivated. For example, states cannot receive road or highway funds unless they also promise to "accept" a certain amount of money set aside to eradicate cannabis; This is especially true in Hawaii and California. Therefore, these two states are under pressure to produce statistics showing that cannabis production rises each year in order to receive funds for infrastructure development. This is one of hundreds of examples. The economic destruction this has caused in communities like Humboldt County and the Big Island is on record. The government is "destroying" communities in order to save them. Sound familiar? Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It was talking about the 20th Century worldwide not 21st Century America and I do not think anyone seriously doubts that there was a huge surge in cannabis use in the 20th Century, a phenomena that doers not appear to be in the 21st century in the same way at all. If you believe it is politically motivated you will need the refs to back you up. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The statistics are bogus. All they show is a rise in drug seizures, which of course, is in parallel with the rise in drug enforcement across the board. People have been using cannabis for 12,000 years. Can you provide figures for cannabis production and usage from the 19th century? Since it was legal, and hemp was used for many forms of fiber, one would expect that more was grown before the drug prohibition laws were widely enacted in the 20th century. Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Brown, David T. (1998). Cannabis: The Genus Cannabis. CRC Press. ISBN 9057022915 seems to lend credence to these ideas: "Widespread use in the 19th century...a recognized official drug...extensive cultivation...[but today] large-scale commercial production takes place in relatively few areas..." Viriditas (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

We are not talking about hemp but about cannabis used as a drug. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The source is specifically talking about cannabis used as a drug by the medical community. Did you miss the part above that said, "a recognized official drug"? Additionally, it states, "Drug trafficking patterns are subject to change over time influenced no doubt by political factors in source countries..." Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Mills, James H. (2003). Cannabis Britannica: Empire, Trade, and Prohibition 1800-1928. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199278814 gives statistics for cannabis (drug) production in the late 19th century. I cannot imagine that production today exceeds that of the legal authorized "cultivation for the production of narcotics" in the 19th century. Frankly, it would be impossible. Viriditas (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Langenheim, Jean H. (2003). Plant Resins: Chemistry, Evolution, Ecology, and Ethnobotany. Timber Press. ISBN 0881925748 writes in regards to hashish production in the late 19th century: "...large-scale production in central Asia shifted from Russian Turkestan to Chinese Turkestan, eventually into Kashmir, and thence into Afghanistan, Greece, Syria, Nepal, Lebanon, and Turkey also became major exporters. By the late 1960s, however, Morocco was the last major country producing hashish in sufficient quantities for export." It appears that cannabis production moved from Central Asia into Jamaica, Colombia, Mexico, and the United States. Does this imply greater quantities? Viriditas (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

medicinal link

In the introduction, the first mention of medical marijuana does not have a page link as do other uses such as spiritual and recreational. There should be one to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicinal_marijana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plebeian (talk • contribs) 03:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Marijuana wine

Howdy, I just created the Non-grape based wine article which includes a note about Marijuana wine. I don't know the best well to include a link in this article so I defer to the regular editors of this page. Thanks. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hashish 'brownies'

What's the deal with the picture labeled "Hashish brownies" under "Oral Consumption"? As someone who has eaten a variety of desert foods, I can tell you that the three things depicted are, in no way, shape, or form, 'brownies'. They are cakes, as the image summary clearly states (in four languages, no less). Are you people on drugs or something? They definitely don't have any chocolate in them at all, and common appellations aside, probably don't contain actual hashish either. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.98.13 (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The image description page calls them "space cakes" not brownies. This should be changes. And yes, I am on drugs. Chillum 15:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Garon

Fox News radio briefly covered the Timothy Garon liver transplant story today, claiming that "marijuana causes organ damage". Anyone want to try to support these bizarre claims made by Fox News, or should we just chalk this up to "Fox News" and leave it at that? Viriditas (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried to follow-up on this story, and here is what I found:

The drugs patients take to help their bodies accept a new organ increase the risk of aspergillosis, a frequently fatal infection caused by a common mold found in marijuana and tobacco.[1]

I've never heard this before. Does anyone know anything about this? Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I found a rebuttal here:

Yet another UW doctor argues that claims about the danger of aspergillus in marijuana are wildly overstated. "The argument that the transplant team is making... is not medically valid," says Dr. Greg Carter, a clinical professor in the Department of Rehabilitation. "There are only a few case reports [of aspergillus infection in transplant patients] and these are not considered of much [scientific] value."[2]

I guess that's the end of that. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

How is that "the end" of it? You have two reliable sources saying two different things. You can't just choose the one you prefer - you have to present both sides. Plasticup ^T/C 12:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't chosen or preferred anything, so I have no idea what you are referring to here. Can you elaborate? And the sources do not say two different things. If you read carefully, you'll see that one states there is a risk while the other argues that the risk is overstated. Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

By taking a patient off the transplant list, the first source is implying that the risk is significant. It refers to "aspergillosis, a frequently fatal infection caused by a common mold". The second source is contending that the risk is not as significant as implied by the first source. So the two sources are in conflict. Plasticup ^T/C 12:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you're missing out on the other half of the argument which has not even been discussed here. The implication is not that the risk is significant, but that marijuana is an addictive drug. According to hospital officials who rejected the organ transplant, the risk for aspergillosis infection is higher for cannabis users because cannabis is addictive and users may not be able to stop smoking after a transplant. This nonsense has been debunked by too many physicians and substance abuse experts to even address here, so I ignored it. Viriditas (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I get a citation for this table?

Annual number of deaths in U.S. from various causes

Substance(s)	Number
Tobacco	440,000
Hospital administered drugs	106,000
Alcohol	46,000
Marijuana (toxicity)	0

The study being cited referred to adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients, not to inherent toxicity in the general population. It also explicitly excluded overdoses and drug abuse. Plasticup ^T/C 19:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite a stretch to say that the citations provide no back up for the claims. If anything, the fact that the JAMA meta-analysis excluded certain deaths means it is a low estimate. Readers can note that when they glance at the citation; nevertheless it is a good proxy. II | (t - c) 20:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll just amend the table to make that clear. Plasticup ^T/C 11:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Why was this table added to this article in a section about medical cannabis? The source given is NORML, and the context of the reference concerns an argument for decriminalization, not medical usage. NORML isn't exactly a neutral source. Viriditas (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

NORML isn't neutral, but it may still be reliable. Their Advisory Board is basically a who's who of libertarians, including Nadine Strossen of the ACLU and David Boaz of the Cato Institute. That said, I can't get on to the website from this computer to verify the source's reliablity. Plasticup ^T/C 12:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's assume for the sake of argument that NORML is acceptable for use as a source here. In that case, the table is still in the wrong article. Based on the NORML source, the table belongs in decriminalization of non-medical marijuana in the United States. Viriditas (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Plasticup ^T/C 01:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the new title you put on that table confused people, as they thought it excluded drug use with marijuana. Oh well. I can understand some concerns over the table, and I'll let it go. In the context of safety, however, NORML has a point. Cannabis has almost zero acute toxicity and strangely, despite the fact that it is smoked, has not been tied strongly to lung cancer[3]. There are better ways to convey this than using the table, though. I didn't particularly understand the allegation of "unbalanced", which is why I reverted that last cut. On the hand, I just ran across this free editorial Cannabis: the next villain on the lung cancer battlefield?. II | (t - c) 03:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to go out on a limb and say that the cannabis/lung cancer link is pretty well established. Inhaling particulates of any kind is bad for your health, whether it comes from smog, forest fires, or the infamous tobacco. There may not be a wealth of research on marijuana in particular because a) it is illegal in most developed countries, making long-term trials a little tricky, and b) it has already been established that inhaling smoke of any kind is bad for you. Plasticup ^T/C 11:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That is out on a limb, because that link has never been established. To the contrary, a link between cannabis and preventing cancer has been established. [4] [5] --Thoric (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither of those links say anything about particulate inhalation. On the other hand, all particulate air pollutants, especially those released from burning biomass, cause a whole range of pulmonary and cardiac diseases. This isn't a property native to cannabis, it is all burning biomass. Plasticup ^T/C 14:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Your reference only speaks of "long-term exposure to high levels of ambient particulate pollutants". Having constant exposure to air pollution is not the same as smoking. As for cannabis smoking specific cancer references, you may want to check out this: WebMD: Pot smoking not linked to lung cancer. --Thoric (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

[undent]I thought the same as you when I started working a bit on the physiological effects of cannabis, but the literature I could find stated there was no epidemiological connection. Check out that link that I put up, though, Thoric: Cannabis: the next villain on the lung cancer battlefield? II | (t - c) 09:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this study uses older studies as its reference material -- meaning that it does not appear that they did their own experiments. Secondly, the sentence, "cannabis smoking increases the risk of developing a lung cancer independently of an eventual associated tobacco exposure" seems to imply that all of the cannabis smokers eventually became tobacco smokers. To determine if cannabis smoking leads to lung cancer, you have to make sure that your test subjects have not had any tobacco exposure worth mentioning. As far as I know, nobody has seriously claimed that smoking cannabis will prevent lung cancer due to cigarette smoking. --Thoric (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That type of meta-study (survey of studies) is common in establishing a scientific consensus. Plasticup ^T/C 16:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I'm just saying that taking an older study with contaminated data (tobacco use), and barely mentioning all the newer research displaying cancer fighting attributes of cannabis, seems a little biased to me. Anything smoked is going to be a lung cancer villain, but the fact is that there is always more than one factor involved, along with confounding variables. For example, smokers who live in the city are twice as likely to get lung cancer as smokers who live in the country. Cigarette smoke also has a much higher concentration of carcinogens than cigar and pipe tobacco, even though the cigar and pipe tobacco has far more tar (as does cannabis). Tar is not the big lung cancer villain. --Thoric (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a peer reviewed article in an internationally recognized journal. As is this, this, and this. We can assume that the full articles addressed your concerns. Plasticup ^T/C 17:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So with two studies showing a relation, and three studies showing no relation, it is clear that more studies are needed before it can be said with any authority that smoking cannabis does, or does not cause lung cancer. --Thoric (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it is clear that a meta-study ought to analyze the state of the literature and see if a pattern has emerged. Which is exactly what happened, and they concluded that "the risk of lung cancer increased by 8% for each joint-yr of cannabis exposure". Plasticup ^T/C 19:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it is clear that your beloved meta-study is biased, because there are more recent studies showing cannabis does not correlate with lung cancer than there are that do. Also, all the studies that try and show a correlation (i.e. 8% per joint-yr) have "adjusted" their numbers to account for confounding variables, such as tobacco use, when such adjustments are impossible. You cannot sanitize contaminated data. Even Cancer Research UK doesn't claim that cannabis causes lung cancer [6]. The current state of the matter is that it is inconclusive. We have some studies that say there is a correlation, and some that say there isn't. Since most of these studies are funded by government organizations who want to try to cut down drug use, especially among young people, I'd be a little wary of the faithfulness of the results -- especially ones that "adjust" their results to factor in other variables. I don't want to see adjusted numbers. I want clear cut, untampered data. --Thoric (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can clean up contaminated data. That's what the entire field of econometrics is about. Maybe the scientific community has not reached a conclusion, but you cannot say "there is no connection". Whether or not there is a connection between cannabis and cancer is obviously a matter of some contention and we ought to reflect that in our article. Plasticup ^T/C 19:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You can attempt to sanitize data based on educated guesses, but some confounding variables can make this next to impossible to have accurate results. For example, if smoking cannabis increases likelihood of lung cancer among tobacco smokers by 11.4%, but has no effect on non-tobacco smokers, and 30% of your control group contained tobacco smokers, you can't just factor out those 30% and state that cannabis increases chance of lung cancer by 8%. A proper study would only analyze data from lung cancer patients who were never exposed to tobacco -- which is very difficult seeing as public smoking has been gradually phased out over the past 39 years. As for cancer, I didn't say there wasn't a connection -- there may well be a connection -- I said it hasn't been established. --Thoric (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You slap a Tobacco*Cannabis interaction term into your linear regression and the omitted variable bias is accounted for. I am not going to argue this with you - a talented statistician can account for all of these things. The point remains that peer reviewed scientific journals have nothing resembling a consensus here, and our article must reflect that. Plasticup ^T/C 21:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That only works if all the interactions are known. I do not believe that the cannabis-tobacco interaction is anywhere near fully understood. Yes, these things can be accounted for to some degree, but they are still no match for clean data. Garbage in, garbage out. Do you truly trust statistics that went through a series of "adjustments" to account for noise? This isn't the movies ;) Anyways, I agree that the article should reflect both sides a-la NPOV. --Thoric (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Gateway Drug Theory

Trying to read this section and the main Gateway drug theory article together, there seems to be some contradictory polarisation : this is anti-drug - that is anti-theory. Probably neither is NPOV. Much could be beneficially deleted from here:

One variant is that people, upon trying cannabis for the first time and not finding it dangerous, are then tempted to try other, harder drugs.

is similar to this, which goes beyond the theory to its consequences in the criminalisation\decriminalisation\reclassification debate. (Yes, I'm in the UK !)

A common argument is that a new user of cannabis who doesn't find it dangerous will see the difference between public information regarding the drug and their own experiences, and apply this distrust to public knowledge of other, more powerful drugs.

I suppose it is a plausible Gateway 'mechanism' - move to that article ? There is a distinct lack of 'mechanism' there - just "reasons are not clear".

Some argue that the purported relationship [...] is methodologically flawed.

What ? Does a relationship have methods ? Human relationships can be flawed, but either facts are related or not (to some degree)! I guess we mean that studies are methodologically flawed in the way they arrive at their conclusions, (or the decisions and actions that follow are not logically compelled by the studies) but that's not what is said ! The sentence seems unsupported - citation needed ? Best left to the Gateway article and deleted from here ?

The "Lancet on 24 March 2007" study, as summarised, does not seem related to Gateway Theory at all. How can the summary contain a result that was 'not shown' ? It feels as though that bit was inserted by the researcher, adding an unpublished result ? (I haven't actually read the study ...) --195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think all that need be said in this section is that a theory exists that 'soft drug use leads individuals into hard drug use', and that some governments may use the theory to justify being stricter on soft drugs (both in legislation and enforcement) than would be necessary if hard drugs did not exist, or if there were no possibility of a causal link. Further discussion is no more required here than in the alcohol or tobacco articles.--195.137.93.171 (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

But doesn't the evidence show that alcohol and tobacco are the greatest "gateway drugs"? Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If we have refd material that discusses gateway theory re cannabis as well as re tobacco and alcohol we should suie it. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going on memory here, but my understanding of the evidence is that the majority of cannabis users are not hard drug users, so the gateway drug theory doesn't even come into play. However, the vast majority of hard drug users also use alcohol and tobacco. There is some evidence that a significant number of cannabis users also use tobacco, but this seems to be a regional phenomenon, such as the European style of mixing tobacco and cannabis, and the study that was recently done in New Zealand. But, the evidence shows that alcohol is associated with just about every factor for use and abuse. What I do find interesting, is the evidence that shows that people with mental illness use cannabis to self-medicate and also smoke tobacco. To clarify, I think one could make an argument (and this is probably very controversial) that tobacco is a gateway drug that could lead to cannabis use. Cannabis does not, and never has, resulted in a user looking for and striving to obtain harder drugs (unlike alcohol and tobacco) and I challenge anyone to produce a study that says otherwise. There is evidence, however, that the restriction, banning, and crackdown on recreational cannabis use has actually led to an increase in hard drug use; a case in point is the state of Hawaii, where a relationship was observed between an increase in government-funded cannabis eradication efforts and a rise in methamphetamine abuse. A similar event occurred in San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury district in the late 1960s, when law enforcement efforts to combat cannabis use resulted in an increase of heroin abuse. In both the Hawaii and California examples, it appears that hard drug dealers rushed in to supply a greater demand for drugs; one could speculate that cannabis users who had unrestrictive access to the drug, would never think about using methamphetamine or heroin. It's an interesting topic that deserves further examination. I think it can be demonstrated that restrictive cannabis laws have led to and increased the use of hard drugs. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, so we'll just use your "memory" as a reference. Absolute rubbish. Bulbous (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:TALK? WP:CIV? WP:AGF? Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly... you've cited policies on behaviour, but haven't defended your points at all. WP:V! WP:RS! WP:OR! This is all your opinion. Oh yes, most importantly, WP:SOAP. Bulbous (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The policies on behavior exist to allow discussion. I suggest you follow them. It's time to start educating yourself, Bulbous: Lowinson et al. (2004) Substance Abuse: A Comprehensive Textbook. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 0781734746. Cannabis is not considered a gateway drug. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why, thank you. However, a page number would have helped to further my "education". In any case, I will assume for the moment that you haven't either fabricated that sentiment or else completely misunderstood the text, but either way that only illustrates one thing: that Lowinson et al. do not consider Cannabis a gateway drug.In any case, where is the cite for the edits you are proposing - namely that "Alcohol and tobacco are the greatest gateway drugs"? Bulbous (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You can start with Hanson et al. (2005). Drugs and Society. Jones & Bartlett Publishers. ISBN 0763737321: "Nearly all heroin addicts initially began using gateway drugs such as alcohol and/or tobacco products...The decisions to use tobacco or other gateway drugs set up patterns of behavior that make it easier for a user to go on to other drugs...Research indicates that cigarette smokers are more likely to use alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine than are nonsmokers...." Viriditas (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Bulbous not only uses incivility to bully his way here but has a clear agenda re cannabis which is no more welcome than the POV of those young smokers who think it is wonderful. We need disapassionate people here not POV pushers. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Nahas, Gabriel G. Colette Latour. (1993). Cannabis: Physiopathology, Epidemiology, Detection : from the Proceedings of of the Second International Symposium organized by the National Academy of Medicine. Paris. CRC Press. ISBN 0849383102: "As marijuana use in the United States has fallen, and with it, overall use of illicit drugs, heavy and high-risk use of the most disabling substances has increased, and it has increased among the most vulnerable populations, the poor, the unemployed, the mentally ill, and the troubled young." Viriditas (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a quote, although I wouldn't say that it's precisely on point. I can see how this may lead to your conclusions, but isn't that original synthesis? Bulbous (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's called talk page discussion--the kind you disrupted earlier with incivility. FWIW, "original synthesis" doesn't apply to talk page discussion. Of course, if you came here with an agenda or strong POV, you would probably be against free discourse, so I can understand where you are coming from. Don't worry, I'm not interested in discussing anything with you, so all you have to do is stay silent. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That's absolutely brutal semantics. It doesn't help your argument. In any case, without citing any precedents for the edits you are proposing to make, there is little point in continuing to discuss the proposal. Unsourced material will not be added to this article. Bulbous (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't proposed any edits, and you haven't engaged in any discussion. If you would like to continue trolling, please do it somewhere else. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll is the only thing in this section that constitutes trolling, and is the last resort of an editor who has completely run out of gas. The closest you have come to sourcing your contentious allegation is Hanson et al. which refers to "gateway drugs" without exclusively defining them. Cannabis is commonly accepted as a "gateway drug" for the purposes of those statements. You might have enough there to elevate alcohol and tobacco to the level of cannabis as a gateway drug, especially if you can source additional support. But you are far from eliminating cannabis from the list and replacing it with alcohol or tobacco. Bulbous (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not the only trolling here, and indeed is not trolling, trolling is a legitimate description. The problem with you, Bulbous, is your openly stated anti-pot viewpoint, which along with your rudeness do make it almost impossible to deal with you. You seem to go from article to article related to pot and systematically destroy them, and you certainly cannot do that here any more than pro-pot advocates can. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Back to content here. As soon as you call someone out on civility, you give them the excuse to redirect the discussion to behavior.

Insofar as a the "gateway drug" effect, my understanding is that a drug is called "gateway" based on simple statistics. Prevalence of hard drug use among those who have tried [drug] is much higher than prevalence of use among those who haven't. The top gateway drugs under this definition are cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana.--Loodog (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that was considered true during the anti-cannabis propaganda dissemination campaigns of the 1950s and 1960s, but I don't think anyone believes it anymore. All the evidence shows that as cananbis use increases, hard drug usage decreases. The "gateway theory" is promoted primarily by controversial organizations like the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, groups that have been caught fudging data and statistics to promote an anti-cannabis agenda. In one of dozens of examples challenging the politicized, agenda-driven assertions of anti-drug organizations, in September 2002 the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs reviewed the evidence and concluded: "This theory has not been validated by empirical research and is considered outdated...Cannabis itself is not a cause of other drug use. In this sense, we reject the gateway theory."[7] Studies supporting this conclusion found here:[8] Viriditas (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point, the theory doesn't state that hard drug users are cannabis users, but that cannabis use leads to hard drug use. It has been found that a large number of "hard drug" users, generally cocaine and methamphetamines, began with the use of cannabis. The idea is that once one person is comfortable with the psychoactive effects of marijuana, they will more willingly accept harder drugs. This of course is highly subjective and varies from person to person, but there is legitimate truth supported by factual evidence to this theory.

No one has been supporting an "anti-cannabis" agenda; they have nothing to gain. They simply review the facts and numbers to approach a reasonable conclusion: the facts are that cannabis is a damaging substance and that psychoactive drugs have only negative effects, and the conclusion is that it there is nothing to be gained from its legality. The other side of this of course is that it's not that damaging and its effects are not that negative. With that gray area introduced, it has been determined by our elected officials, by the facts that these offices and committees gather, that the drug is damaging enough, healthwise and beyond, to warrant a ban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.218.67 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't missed anything; I suggest you read the links above. Elected officials in the U.S., for the most part, support decriminalization of cannabis across the board as do the majority of their constituents (hovering anywhere from 60-70 percent) Your claims are simply not supported in any way, shape or form. The findings of the federally funded National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse contradict your assertions, as they recommended decriminalizing marijuana for personal use. Subsequent findings by other panels have found similar conclusions. Viriditas (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation

"By using a vaporizer or orally consuming cannabis, many health problems and many objections to using cannabis as medicine can be eliminated."

- I would like to see a citation to support this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacr1fyce (talk • contribs) 14:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just one? [9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. NJGW (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "ocd-ts-99" :
  • {{cite journal|author=K.R. Muller, U. Schneider, H. Kolbe, H.M. Emrich|title=Treatment of Tourette's Syndrome With Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol|journal=American Journal of Psychiatry|year=1999|volume=156|issue=3|url=http://www.marijuana.org/AmJoPsychMarch99.html|accessdate=2007-09-15}}
  • {{cite journal|author=K.R. Muller, U. Schneider, H. Kolbe, H.M. Emrich|title=Treatment of Tourette's Syndrome With Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol|journal=American Journal of Psychiatry|year=1999 |volume=156|issue=3|url=http://www.marijuana.org/AmJoPsychMarch99.html}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Schizophrenia and Marijuana relationship Correlative, not Causative

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7681

This article cites research suggesting that people who develop schizophrenia are more likely to use marijuana, but that marijuana users are not more likely to become schizophrenic. 24.65.42.159 (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That goes along with a UK dailymail article that doesn't even assume the above possibility: Smoking just one cannabis joint raises danger of mental illness by 40%. 67.5.157.182 (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That seriously has to be one of the worst "news" articles I've ever read. I wonder how much it took the Lancet study it refers to out of context. Halogenated (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Slang

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

How much slang are we talking about? If we are speaking of a couple hundred words (and, especially, if you wnat to define each of them) I think we might need a sub-article. If you are thinking of a list of fifty to sixty slang terms for cannabis, we can put the list (with three to four columns) in this article. Ursasapien (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Pot
• Weed
• Dope
• Indo
• Herb
• Tree(s)
• Doobie
• Shake
• Chronic
• Hy(dro)
• Sticky
• Bud
• Haze
• Reefer
• Grass
• Green
• Mary Jane
• Ganga
• Spliff
• Puff
• Green
• Tea
• Draw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.56.160 (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Joint
• Skunk
• Buddha
• IPhone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill909087 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Dubage
• BLUNT!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.236.201 (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disapprove of the inclusion of slang words, they have been removed before and the consensus was they go elsewhere, not in this encyclopedia. There are hundreds of local slang words. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad it was there, actually. If some other article could be made called 'slang for narcotics' or something it'd be useful. I am a writer and having no experience of the slang terms for cannabis being able to use some of these helped me greatly! And where are these 'elsewhere' places? Surely due to the culture they would be somewhat unsavory anyway. -82.45.60.218 (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Slang = slur

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

The vaporizor graphic caption has two numbered parts switched

It should be

Vaporization pipe with flame filter
36. Insert cannabis, other herbs or essential oils
28. Flame filter made of a stack of metal screens (5+) or a heat resistant porous material

Can someone with editing authorization fix this please? 71.254.13.254 (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Nomenclature should follow appropriate use

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

I agree. Marijuana is not a drug! negrodamus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.166.242 (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Overdose smoking equipment is obsolete

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

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

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

The minitoke utensil (or kiseru or midwakh) does burn the material, at higher temperatures than in a vaporizer, but at significantly lower temperatures than in the popularized hurry-up overdose smoking methods mentioned above-- ideally at 420 F.

Chillum

{{edit protected}} The link to Chillum now points to a disambig page. The intended article is Chillum (pipe). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.26.230 (talk • contribs)

 Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Methods of consumption overshadowing article

Wikipedia articles do this sometimes: people see an article about a subject they're interested in and one section of the article grows incrementally until the emphasis is inappropriate.

I'm going to split Methods of consumption off into its own article. This article is about cannabis as a drug. How it gets into your system isn't as relevant as what it is and does.--Loodog (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Remember to remove the subsection headings, as we don't need them. One to three paragraphs, summary style will work. Viriditas (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Method matters!

You guys are missing the point: method of consumption determines whether cannabis is a "drug" or not. I don't consider one or two 25-mg. tokes a "drug" dose. I consider a hot-burning overdose "joint" (especially with tobacco mixed in) a drug. Analog: drinking water is hydration, breathing it is drowning.Tokerdesigner (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal considerations are not a valid reference for wikipedia, and constitutes original research[[16]]. In fact, the entire method section suffers from being a "how to manual", which is in violation of wikipedia's WP:ISNOT guideline [[17]]. It is in need of some paring down.Halogenated (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The methods listed are various forms of breathing it in, then eating it, then drinking it. But all three methods get you high. Jimson weed for instance is sometimes smoked or eaten and both ways cause hallucinations. William Ortiz (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a drug, and like any drug has different effects at different dosages. See also: caffeine, alcohol, ephedra, hydrocodone. Like any drug, it can be mixed with other drugs. Um... the mechanism of action and chemistry doesn't suddenly change because of the method or quantity of consumption.--Loodog (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The admixture of tobacco, prevalent in some countries, is a major factor in the false characterization of cannabis as drug. Hot-burning overdose "joint" or "big bowl" smoking adds heat-shock, carbon monoxide and other toxins, with the drug effect again falsely attributed to the cannabis.Tokerdesigner (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Consumption of sufficient doses of a substance to alter one's faculties such that they vary from normal bodily function is a drug effect. Cannabis may be a plant, but smoking it makes it a drug. Period. Stop with the nonsense about it requiring mixing with other substances, psychoactive or otherwise, to make it a drug. Your personal beliefs have nothing to do with reality, and as I have previously made clear, are unacceptable as a wikipedia source. Halogenated (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Different cannabinoids are absorbed sometimes depending on the method of consumption, eating smoking etc. Also cannabinoids are lost when combusted. I've also never liked cannabis itself referred to as a 'drug'. It's a mixture of chemicals or drugs called cannabinoids. Supposed (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you didn't summarize the new article very well, and didn't include in this article things like the Aspergillus mold, sources on toxicity differences, and other things. II | (t - c) 19:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Spliffs

Spliffs redirects here, but there is no mention in the article of this word... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.129.3.96 (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Methods of consumption - Is this supposed to be a "how-to"?

"Because large particles require a higher burning temperature, herb should be sifted through a 1/16-inch/1.6-mm. mesh screen strainer, and the smoking utensil crater should contain a snug-fitting screen to prevent drawing particles down the channel."

This passage in particular. If we are posting how-to's on Wiki, fine. Otherwise, this seems out of place in an informative article. Simply stating that it is inhaled through a pipe or w/e is sufficient. Neo1973 (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am adding this as well:"An e-cigarette has a rechargeable battery and a heating element which vaporizes (in most brands) liquid nicotine from an insertable cartridge. If THC is loaded into the cartridge instead of nicotine, cannabis users may receive the benefits of a vaporizer at lower initial cost."

Once again, this falls under the curtain of the previous statement which talks about vapoizers. If someone want a how-to, I am sure there are plenty of sources on the internet; wiki should not be one of them. Neo1973 (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a how-to forum.--Loodog (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so can we fix this?Neo1973 (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Tar

I understand that smoking cannabis produces tar which is detrimental to one's health, but how is a misleading picture of corn stover tar significant? 99.141.250.0 (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Joint (cannabis)

The links for Joint all point to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint which refers to bone joints. Joint (cannabis) is a disambiguation.

cannabis is referred to as a drug but not alcohol, wikipeda is not a place for bias 10/16/08-roflwaffle123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roflwaffle12321 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

chinese pictograph picture

the two things under the shelter aren't nessesarily cannibis plants. They are two wood radicals and can mean any thing tree related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.246.233 (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the wording to be more precise and added a source. NJGW (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR

"This is a highly politicised aspect of the debate on cannabis. The question comes down to this: Are mental health services overstretched in part because cannabis causes mental illness, or are a large number of mentally ill people self-medicating their symptoms with cannabis, in part as a result of mental health services being overstretched and other social conditions."

Asking these questions already intimates that either is true, without a source. Please stop adding this unless you have a verifiable source.--Loodog (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Old link: List of cannabis strains

The 'See also' link for 'List of cannabis strains' is out-dated. Redirects to Cannabis sativa that no longer has a list of strains. Dspeake (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Medical Use Section Has 2 Errors

Under the medical use portion of this article, the assertion that clinical trials were performed by the American Marijuana Policy Project seem inaccurate. Checking the source, the Reuters article clearly states the study was performed by Dr. Barth Wilsey of the University of California and other California researchers at Davis Medical Center. A source linking to the MPP's website (which is a copied and pasted Reuters article) is not evidence that the Marijuana Policy Project performed the study.

The next paragraph goes on to state "the FDA has approved marijuana as a treatment for cancer and the symptoms of HIV and Influenza". This is a flat out falsehood. The FDA has approved of a couple of synthetic forms of THC in pill form, one being Marinol, but smoked marijuana is currently not approved by the FDA. Nor has the FDA approved of any whole plant extract that utilizes both THC and some other the other medically active ingredients in cannabis such as CBD. From my understanding, this is at least in part the reason why medical marijuana advocates have taken their cases to state governments. A whole plant cannabis extract would be a product like Sativex, mentioned later in the article.

I think the first error should be corrected by citing Dr. Barth Wilsey and team as the ones that performed the trials rather than the Marijuana Policy Project. The next paragraph needs revising so it's clear the FDA has not approved of any whole plant cannabis extract or herbal marijuana. Phylo121 (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Image caption: Orange Crush/Kush

When Murken uploaded an image of a cannabis bud in March, he described it as Orange Crush. An anonymous user later changed the description to read "Orange Kush," though the page history was deleted in October. When I noticed the discrepancy with the file name, I corrected it, and changed the caption on this page to reflect that. It has since been changed back.

Therefore, in the absence of evidence that "Orange Kush" was what Murken intended to write, I am changing it back to Crush. - Calmypal (T) 22:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Psychological Health aspects.

I have re-added this one sentence because it is not a POV statement. It merely simplifies and asks a question.

--79.72.162.181 (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I added a one sentence laymans' explanation of the psychological debate and made the point that this is a highly politicised debate. There are public policy expenditure and many other issues that will emerge from the outcome here and no reference to the politicisation of cannabis health issues left a yawning gap.

--Zigzagzen (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That was a quite accurate summary! However, I can't believe that any right-thinking person that isn't completely biased towards cannabis believes in the second alternative. Suggesting that persons with mental health are more likely to self-medicate with cannabis rather than having mental health issues arising from their cannabis use is ludicrous. That's akin to saying that fast-food addicts are self-medicating their obesity with food. Can any rational person believe that? Bulbous (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Many studies have come to the conculsion you dispute. Remember though, no-one has been able to prove that cannabis causes psychosis, thus to suggest that for people with conditions like schizophrenia, that their cannabis use may be causing the illness is ludicrus. Cannabidiol has been shown to be as effective as atypical anti-psychotics in treating schizophrenia. It is a major constituent of cannabis. Given this, why is it so outlandish to suggest people with schizophrenia etc may be self-medicating? Supposed (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair question. However, why is it that only groups that have health issues which have been linked to cannabis use are accused of self-medicating? Where are the other health-impaired groups that are self-medicating with cannabis that do not have conditions which are linked to cannabis use? Come on, this is the basest of misdirection. Bulbous (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to Zigzagzen. Your additions to wikipedia are welcome however what you added was POV bordering on original research and is not suitible for wikipedia.Supposed (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of my above statements, the edit that the above user made was absolutely balanced. It summarized the verbose statements already present in the article. Neither side was given greater weight. This was a fine addition with no POV involved. If you have specific objections, please voice them. But your accusations of POV don't pass first scrutiny. Bulbous (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the edit was done in good faith, however it was POV, nothing more, nothing less. Supposed (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You are calling this balanced edit "POV" without explaining yourself. All it does is summarize information already presented in the article. It coes so while presenting both sides of the debate without giving undue weight to either point of view. What "POV" are you ascribing to this editor? Bulbous (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It is his POV and it is original research. It is not acceptable on wikipedia, full stop. Supposed (talk) 05:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You have challenged this edit as being POV without even attempting to explain yourself or discuss your objections on the talk page. You are pushing the limits of WP:AGF. Please try to explain what about this edit that you feel is POV, and why you feel that way. Simply restating your claim is not sufficient. Bulbous (talk) 05:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It is very simple to understand, he is giving his opinion of the information presented above. It's highly inappropriate and completely incorrect to state "cannabis causes mental illness" especially as there is no evidence for this on the article. "Are mental health services overstretched?" well are they?... "The question comes down to" - is his opinion... etc etc Supposed (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I assumed good faith. I have already stated I don't think his intention was not to add to the article. Pointing out original research and POV bias does not preclude one from assuming good faith Supposed (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for finally explaining your position. When considering your allegations of POV, please consider that the editor did NOT state or even imply that "cannabis causes mental illness". He merely stated that was a matter under consideration for some. If your entire concerns hang on that statement, why not try tweaking it instead of a wholesale reversion? Bulbous (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to your first comment. you look like you're trying to form a hypothesis on self-medication, which is original research. You talk about self-medication only occuring in illness that is "linked with cannabis use" but that is a completely circular argument. Association is not causation, the 'linked to' language is very sloppy. Supposed (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop trying to insert this into the article. This is ripe with OR, regardless of POV Also, this is far from a "minor edit" which you've (Zigzagzen) marked it as. The problem with OR being inserted is the unproven nature of the following assumptions:

1. Assumes it's highly politicized.
2. Assumes mental health services are overstretched
3. Assumes the possibly false dichotomy that either (1) cannabis causes mental illness or (2) mentally ill people self-medicate with cannabis
4. Assumes that all use of cannabis among mentally ill is self-medication.
5. Makes the OR claim that "etiology of the psychological symptoms can not be separated from socio-political attitudes"

No one needs to suspect anyone of an agenda or POV pushing to know that this is unsourced original research and therefore unacceptable by WP:V.--Loodog (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Text in question: "This is a highly politicised aspect of the debate on cannabis. The question comes down to this: Are mental health services overstretched in part because cannabis causes mental illness, or are a large number of mentally ill people self-medicating their symptoms with cannabis, in part as a result of mental health services being overstretched and other social conditions."

This is neither POV or OR and something needs to be brought into the article to raise this point. I reinserted the point once after it was removed with no proper explanation - this is not vandalism - removing it with no proper explanation was vandalism. R.D. Laing pointed out in the 1960's that the aetiology of the psychological symptoms can not be separated from socio-political attitudes and context. So no Original Research there, merely referring to a well established part of the entire psycho-social debate.

There is no "assumption" that mental health services are overstretched it's fact - there is plenty of research to support this. It is also common knowledge amongst people who work in this aspect of health services and users.

There is no assumption of a false dichotomy either - at the moment the article implies canabis use induces mental illness and no other understanding of what is happening is represented.

I am going to continue to push for the inclusion of some kind of summary statement in the rough form I have used. Any edits to improve welcome but at the moment this debate is being controlled by the wikithoughtpolice as far as I can see - and thus presenting the "official mental health" picture to the exclusion of other viewpoints which are equally valid and supportable.--Zigzagzen (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Zigzagzen. Please go and thoroughly read WP:V and WP:VAND, and please do not accuse anyone of vandalism until you have done so. Thank you. Supposed (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Zizagzen, you're conflating perceived truth with verifiability. Verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter if anything you say above is true. Wikipedia treats anything unverifiable as a user making shit up.

So, what would be productive for you, if you'd like to improve the article:

• You say there is "there is plenty of research" to show mental health services are overstretched, produce some of it and we'll have a look
• You say Laing pointed out that the definition of psychosis cannot be removed from social attitudes, show us an article of him saying it
• Nowhere in this article is it said that cannabis use causes mental illness. Take a moment to read the article in detail. The article says there is a correlation. Correlation does not imply causation, unless you are prepared to argue things like Global warming is caused by a lack of pirates or that atmospheric CO2 causes crime.

--Loodog (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Mariguana? No, thanks. Though iguanas are nice.

I removed the following from the lead; "mariguana" is a Spanish spelling, not used in English. However, the reference is interesting; I've got to do other things now, but the information there about the original of "marihuana" might be useful, so I'm putting this here.

or mariguana,

For ease, this is a link for the citation: [18]. --Abd (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I turned it into a footnote. NJGW (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I corrected the footnote. The normal Spanish spelling is "marihuana," "mariguana" being a variant spelling. --Abd (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And a thoroughly obscure one at that, hardly notable for inclusion. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Health issues

The article mentions zero deaths directly due to marijuana use, but what about indirect (or secondary) deaths, due to things like automobile accident fatalities while driving under the influence? I remember reading many years ago that 16% of traffic deaths in one state were estimated to be caused by driving while smoking marijuana. I haven't seen any such statistic mentioned anywhere since then. We have loads of statistics about drunk driving deaths, but what about accidental deaths due to other behavior-altering substances? — Loadmaster (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There's probably a reason you haven't heard about new statistics, like maybe they were made up the first time. Here's a good survey of the literature (yes, on the NORML site, but they say from the beginning they are against driving while high). “The risk of all drug-positive drivers compared to drug-free drivers is similar to drivers with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05%. The risk is also similar to drivers above age 60 compared to younger drivers [around age 35].” (Franjo Grotenhermen. Drugs and Driving: Review for the National Treatment Agency, UK. Nova-Institut (Germany). November 2007.)NJGW (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Made up statistics? That's doubtful, as I recall the numbers were released by a state Department of transportation (probably some northeastern state). And as the risks you quote are greater than zero, it is logically impossible for non-zero risk levels to produce zero deaths. Many countries consider BAC 0.05% to be too intoxicated to drive. — Loadmaster (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, made-up, quite possibly. Or, more likely, collected in a way that doesn't account for correlated causation. Further, how can one judge that an accident has been caused by marijuana usage? My experience, when young, with marijuana and with marijuana users indicates that while the drug is active, users are hypercautious, quite possibly reluctant to drive. Further, marijuana does not seem to have the severe effect on reaction time that alcohol does. I recall studies from more than thirty years ago, I'm not up on recent literature, but there has been quite a bit of nonsense published. For example, the study claiming damage to mental health from marijuana smoking, based on comparing the size of certain brain structures comparing "long-term marijuana users" with supposedly matched controls. "Long-term use" was smoking "five joints a day for more than 10 years."[19] That is not merely long-term use, that is long-term heavy use. And it does not show causation. Perhaps small amygdala size is more common among those who start marijuana use. Further, it's not clear that the reduction in size was harmful. Maybe. Maybe not. Further, again, smoking is pretty nasty, all in itself. What was the cause, if the reduction was caused by cannabis smoking, the cannabis or the smoking?

The decision to ban marijuana, initially, was made for political reasons, not medical ones. Is marijuana good for you? That might depend on where you are, i.e., your condition. What if those long-term users with slightly smaller amygdalas or hippocampi, without the marijuana, would have committed suicide? Quite simply, we don't know! Scientific panel after panel has studied whether or not marijuana should be illegal, and the conclusion has nearly always been that society isn't benefited by making it into a criminal issue. Consider the "gateway drug" argument. A sophisticated version of this is that usage leads the user to be associated with criminal elements and thus makes it more likely that harder drugs will be available for experimentation. Or addiction. However ... if true, wouldn't this actually be an argument for legalization?

My point is that there is lots of speculation out there, mixed in with actual research. We should be constantly looking for better sources, probably secondary sources because so many of the primary ones, i.e., research studies, either incorporate certain biases (in how the study data is analyzed) or in how the results are interpreted, with conclusions not actually supported by the research, but merely being a speculation or possible inference. --Abd (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say zero. I said the statistics you heard way back when were probably made up (or doctored). It's an no secret that the US has been creating anti-pot propaganda since the early 1900's. Later, instead of making "scary" movies, they became more sophisticated and released statistics or passed out information for poorly conceived/executed "research". In any case, "indirect" causes of death are pretty hard to prove unless you have huge samples with really good controls, and the stats are so much lower than drinking and driving stats that it's probably really hard to draw any conclusions (though apparently it's about as dangerous as driving while 60). Plus the issue becomes completely confounded by the fact that the vast majority of accidents in which pot is detected also involve alcohol. We can put the above lit review and study in the article, or if you like you can do your own search. I doubt you'll find serious research stating anywhere near 16% of traffic deaths are caused by pot: "The overall rate of highway accidents appears not to be significantly affected by marijuana's widespread use in society." NJGW (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This section (about deaths per year from several other substances) is out of place. The statistics should cover deaths attibuted to marijuana and leave it at that. It's pretty obvious that the aspirin statistic was included with a bit of bias, seeing as it is unrelated to marijuana at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.65.225.43 (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Misleading?

The information on this topic varies significantely, however, after reviewing more closely the biology of the cannabis plant you will see that the definition given for hashish in this article is missleading. Hashish is a product of the THC rich, resinous secretions produced by the glandular trichomes. There are multiple ways for collecting the trichomes and the resin they contain and secrete, but the collection yield a final product. The resulting from this collection is a sticky resin, or resin powder, depending on the collection process used, and then the substance must be pressed, and traditionally, oils have been added in this process.

Trichomes known purpose, on almost any plant that contains them, is to create a more humid microenvironment to reduce evaporative water loss. Pertaining to the marijuana plant, this is also true but it has been speculated through scientific studies that the resin also contains cannabinoids other than THC that not only add to and change the mind altering effects of THC, but some of them actually serve as a form of bug repelant.

Newer processes have evolved for producing much more potent hash. These aproches involve the use of cold water or ice to help sepparate the entire trichome from the other plant material. The cold temperature makes the trichomes brittle and they fall off easily. These processes have been claimed to yield Hashish products containing as much as 75% THC, however, more reputable sources reporting on the same processes claim to consistantly produce hash that can contain 50% THC, if the process is executed flawlessly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doolanep (talk • contribs)

I have removed the {{editsemiprotected}} because it was not clear what exactly you wanted. Please be more specific or wait four days and you should be able to edit the article yourself. MSGJ 08:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

drug test

how long does mar.stay in my system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.127.92 (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you're in the wrong place for this. Wikipedia talk pages are only supposed to be used for discussion of improvements to the article. wikipedia is not a forum. Try google.--Loodog (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Adulterants

I'd like to add a section about adulterants found in cannabis samples, since there examples in the scientific literature and it is a commonly asked question. But where is the right place? -- Panoramix303 (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

More information regarding the types and effects of adulterants would be a welcome addition. I believe the lifeline project has done research on this. this link may be of some use to you. I think the effects of adulterants would be more useful in the Effects of cannabis article. Supposed (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Eating it

Ok this is the sort of ambiguity / contradiction I always hope wikipedia articles will avoid:

As an alternative to smoking, cannabis may be consumed orally. However, the cannabis or its extract must be sufficiently heated or dehydrated to cause decarboxylation of its most abundant cannabinoid, tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, into psychoactive THC.[14]

Cannabis material can be leached in high-proof spirits (often grain alcohol) to create a “Green Dragon”. This process is often employed to make use of low-potency stems and leaves.[citation needed]

So, does this "Green Dragon" need to be boiled first before the cannibis is "sufficiently heated or dehydrated to cause decarboxylation"? Or does just putting it in alcohol cause decarboxylation through some other means? Maybe someone who took organic chemistry can shed some light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.212.203 (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The "Green Dragon" is probably a Tincture. 80.235.57.239 (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

marijuana effects on brain tissue: discussion

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,414542,00.html says marijuana and not the other many drugs Amy Winehouse took is what damaged her brain. Yes, marijuana is brain-damage causing. William Ortiz (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC) ___________ It should be noted that most members of any academic society or scientific community consider fox news to be poor source of information. Personally, I would consider any story or study using Amy Winehouse as their main example to be an example of propaganda using celebrities and controversial subject matter.--Interprotessor (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Another Article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1051250/Amy-Winehouse-brain-damage-drug-overdoses.html I am not a medical expert so I really hope an expert could look this stuff over as I don't just want to throw it into the article. William Ortiz (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? I thought you were going to show the results of a study in a medical journal.

They aren't medical experts either. This is a flashy celebrity gossip column and not a medical journal. If things could be scientifically proven by a report in the news, Intelligent Design would have been as "proven" as this brain damage claim whenever an "expert" claims it.

As a simple medical fact regarding the number of receptors in the brain, it is impossible to overdose on marijuana. There's also never been any study showing brain damage. Either (1) the "medics" they cite don't exist, (2) the "medics" are completely incompetent doctors, or (3) the reporters deliberately or accidentally misconstrued what was told to them. Considering how many drugs she did, it'd be easy for reporters to miss what was being said.--Loodog (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm Fox News said "medics" and the Sun said "doctors" were talking about her being brain damaged from the marijuana because she displayed symptoms of schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder as the result of the overdoses. I'm not sure who those medics or doctors were. Both news articles put the word "inhuman" in quotes when talking about how much marijuana she inhaled. Perhaps further study is needed. William Ortiz (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Further study" has been conducted for decades, and no evidence for brain damage from cannabis use has ever been found. Of course, the Fox News Channel and Daily Mail are only interested in science and factual information, and would never knowingly publish or disseminate false information. Everyone knows that Fox News and the Daily Mail are paragons of truth and virtue and should never be questioned. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As for intelligent design, the bible says things like insects have four feet, rabbits chew their cud, snails melt, snakes eat dirt as food, etc. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html William Ortiz (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. Amy Winehouse's alleged cannabis use has nothing to do with her health problems. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

William, the point was that popular entertainment actually, is not, in fact, the same thing as a double-blinded study over a large enough sample group for multiple incidences outside of a standard deviation administered by an accredited institution of higher research, in this case, neurology, the methodology of which is then peer-reviewed and the results are published in a scholarly journal with specific falsifiable claims that anyone with the proper equipment can verify independently.--Loodog (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Fox News Channel is viewed by a majority of people in the U.S. The U.S. is also the centre for the "war on drugs". Therefore, Fox News Channel's agenda when it comes to celebrity gossip combined with the "Drugs!" stigma is to fuel the fire. They are certainly very biased in their reports. Anything their reporters say should not be taken seriously when it comes to these subjects. Indeed, this claim of cannabis induced brain damage makes no sense from a pharmalogicaly-informed standpoint. Kind of funny that cannabinoids have been shown to be neuroprotective (neuron protecting) by multiple studies. Fox News Channel does not have any place here.--Metalhead94 (talk) 09:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that a proper double-blinded study will never be undertaken because of the ethical challenges involved. That long-term chronic cannabis use causes brain damage is absolutely empirically evident. No one would conduct a study with such inherent risks. Bulbous (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that's irrelevant. The point you're missing is that in the article you've cited, no actual research was done.--Loodog (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Putting your fingers in your ears and screaming, "I can't hear you" is not an acceptable form of discourse. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a never ending story, these 'Pro & Contra'-weed discussions. 'Pro'-arguments are used always by weed-consumers and 'Contra' always by enemies of all kinds of drugs. The truth is: a clear mind is the best drug. Said of someone who is knowing both sides, who has read enough studies about and who is always thinking, that such discussions ending simply fruitless. It's existing about weed even fairy-tales as facts, too. But what always the same result is: weed is not better as alcohol and alcohol not better as weed. Both drugs, both provoking addictions (if physical or psychic). Both 'drugs' are changing your cognition as mind and moods, too. Rather should been the discussion: 'why' is someone use this or that kind of mind-influencing and even not 'what' and 'its praising or anti-praising' about. --217.235.188.11 (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The talkpage is meant for discussion of the article. A little bit of banter is tolerated (although officially it's not, pleaes see wikipedia policy) but this is not really the kind of place to have political discussions. Take it to a cannabis forum. It only clutters up the talkpage here. Supposed (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is reliable source for brain damage from cannabis usage, that should be in the article. Speculation by "medics" isn't reliable source and does not become so by being reported in media inclined to sensationalism. It's possible to put a news report in, if it's attributed and notable and not presented as a scientific fact. --Abd (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There's been no mention of affects on memory, in particular the inhibition of short-term memory encoding.74.140.167.218 (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)EB

Good point. I've added short-term memory effects in addition to the other uncontroversial effects.--Loodog (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

MOLD??

From the article, "Cannabis is often infected with mold such as potentially dangerous Aspergillus and sometimes other microorganisms." It is very rare for processed Cannabis to be infected with mold. There is no citation for the article's assertion.

Mold will very rarely occur with professionally grown cannabis as the effect of mold are clearly visible and an entire crop would be discarded, the room cleaned incl air filters.

However, with homegrown crops mold happens more often and growers will try to salvage the good looking parts by discarding only visible effected areas of the plant. Chances are that trace amounts will still exist in the salvaged part of the crop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.146.188 (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

solubility in water?

So I'm quite confused about what the actual solubility of THC in water is, it's listed here as 2800mg/L and the source given is a broken link, but if I google it it tells me it's 2.8mg/L ? .. Just a confusion over mg/mL or mg/L methinks .. Aicchalmers (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The following article states the aqueous solubility is 1–2 μg/mL, or 1-2g/L. Ref 86.44.146.188 (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Not true (tobacco vs. cannabis)

"A 2007 study by the Canadian government found cannabis smoke contained more toxic substances than tobacco smoke.[26] The study determined that marijuana smoke contained 20 times more ammonia, and five times more hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides than tobacco smoke." This is not true there wouldnt even be these chemicals in tobacco if they did not add them! Tobacco even has cyanide and rat poison!209.194.173.227 (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to note here that (1) cannabis is typically consumed at a far slower rate than tobacco. Some heavy cigarette smokers inhale 3 packs (75 cigarettes) a day, while heavy cannabis users smoke 5 joints a day. Also, (2) it should be noted that there is a difference between plain tobacco and the tobacco in cigarettes: obviously, cigarette tobacco contains added substances. These two points need to be brought to attention if cannabis is going to be compared to tobacco. As it stands, the information is misleading and confusing! 21:45, 10 January 2009 Bonus12 (Talk | contribs)

ALSO: This drug is NOT clearly defined in chemical origin. Containing over 400 chemicals, Most notable the TWO listed in this ENTIRE report, WHICH ones are being left out of what WE KNOW?? That's a great question. It is said to contain carcinogens and... that's extremely misunderstood as to whether that is in, SMOKED form or ingested form. I would say that... especially if the government did EXTENSIVE studies, the chemical make-up should be laying around somewhere and that happens to be...THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. WHICH, NEEDS more discussion and further classifications. Because... if the substance has been around since the dawn of time... and we still haven't addressed the finger print. (We are obviously wasting a lot of time, considering only typical aspects.) Why are people healed by faith? (Because they believe it.) [Did you guy's catch that one?] And... if it is as widely used in religion as stated above? Why can NO ONE find it for free? Also, another good question.

What I feel I'm not doing on my part: Investigation through each state's law enforcement, as to WHAT exactly the punishable offenses ARE. YEP, yet again MORE useful info that's NOT available. Yodahungry (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be fair to consider that. Tobacco is ALSO a gateway drug. And is STILL, easier for youths to get their hands on. (Also the most common form of marijuana use is smoking.) The only thing here about this is that... marijuana MAY AIDE in the usage STOP, of another more harmful substance. (WIKI on Marijuana.) As detailed as this report is, and as easy as it is to read and as put together as the meticulous citations are...

This is merely a muse of genera. It tells me NOTHING of what I came here to find out.

AND THAT'S HOW TO EXPLOIT IT.

CONSIDER:

Gun/bullet smoke Exhaust fumes tobacco smoke

anything burning, CAUSES CANCER. IT is because carcinogens, (OR the presence of metaloids; which is a separate/joined occurrence,) lodges in tissue. "The reason why you can get lead poisoning from a bullet is... lead STINGS the soft tissue." Effecting the nervous system like... snake venom. Carbon, tar... these are similar examples.

BUT THEY ARE ALL LEGAL ONES. We are in a situation where:

I THINK; these topics should be joining in discussion. Yodahungry (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC) (Yodahungry (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC))

Oldest Marijuana Stash Found

Nearly two pounds of still-green plant material found in a 2,700-year-old grave in the Gobi Desert has just been identified as the world's oldest marijuana stash, according to a paper in the latest issue of the Journal of Experimental Botany.[20] --SallyScot (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

weed 4 life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.4.36 (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding resin section and better pictures

Hey guys lets discuss the pictures I added and my changes so we can improve this article for the better.Coaster420 (talk) 11:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

wrong information: trichomes are not "hairs"

I just want to point out some wrong information here. At the top of this page there is a photo of a cannabis flower and a caption that says "Note the visible trichomes (hairs), which carry a large portion of the drug content." This is wrong. Trichomes are the resin glands not the pistils. Trichomes are commonly referred to as crystals. Many plants have trichomes that are considered a hair but there are other types of trichomes. Cannabis has glandular type trichomes. Calling it a hair is misleading because when people talk about hairs on cannabis flowers they are talking about the pistils not the trichomes. Just wanted to clear that up because it was the first thing I noticed when I started reading, Please edit the caption. Qwantron (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Reclassification in UK

Hi, since today (26 January) marijuana is reclasified to B-class drug from A-class in England. [source SKY NEWS today morning]—Preceding unsigned comment added by92.234.253.255 (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it went from 'C' to 'B'[21]. NJGW (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Length of effects

The part just below reference 76 should be removed as there is no reference to what study this was and from most users opinions I'm sure that they disagree with the length of effects.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.65.70.18 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, what users disagree with is OR. I'll look at the ref and see if it's used properly. NJGW (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean what's currently ref 79. It is obviously from that ref, and it explains in the ref that even though subjects didn't feel high 8 hours later, some of them were still acting intoxicated. NJGW (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

link to effects-page?

should not this link be nice somewhere on the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_issues_and_the_effects_of_cannabis 193.11.245.141 (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It is linked there several times. See the "effects" section. NJGW (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Dronabinol

"Dronabinol has been approved for use with anorexia in patients with HIV/AIDS and chemotherapy-related nausea. This drug, while demonstrating the effectiveness of cannabis at combating several disorders, is more expensive and less available than "pot" and has not been shown to be effective or safe.[64]"

That link is broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.65.91 (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

GateWay to drugs

The sentence: "Studies have shown that tobacco smoking is a better predictor of concurrent illicit hard drug use than smoking cannabis." does not accuractly reflect what the study it references says. As far as i can read the summury of the study (see reference 39) does try do "determine the extent to which cigarette smoking predicted use of alcohol and other drugs and acted as a so-called 'gateway drug.' " It does not compare these results to Mariuana use, or have any referenc to marujauna use in the summury. If some one has a link to the actual detailed study and proves it compares to Marijuana or another study that concludes these facts please post it here if they can't i suggest we delete this sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.197.12.183 (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The article's discussion about whether the gateway theory has validity repeatedly refers to whether marijuana use can predict hard drug use -- concurrent or later. But prediction is *not* the issue. (For example, individuals who are predisposed to be experimental are more likely than others to try both marijuana and hard drugs . . . which means that marijuana use may be useful in predicting hard drug use. But this may be entirely unrelated to the relevant question: whether or not marijuana use leads to harder drug use.

For this reason I added a sentence about the nonexistence of studies showing a cause-and-effect relationship between marijuana use and later use of hard drugs. (This would require a controlled experiment . . . which may be impossible in this case.)Daqu (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Bodily effects of Cannabis picture

Does anyone else disagree with the Bodily effects of Cannabis picture under the health issues / effects section of the article? There is no mention of the stated effects depicted in the picture within the health issues or effects section themselves, nor is the information sourced. Dry mouth and sensation of heat and cold while under the influence of Cannabis are not documented in any sources - as well as the fact that any form of smoking generally induces dry mouth, not necessarily bodily dehydration as the picture could imply. --64.231.64.18 (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The symptoms and sources are found in Effects_of_cannabis#Somatic_effects. It's stated in the image page itself, and perhaps there could be a more clear link to the sources. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The source given at Somatic effects is [22]. That is not a wp:V source, as there is no indication where this "Psychologist" is obtaining their information... no way to check her stats. Also, there are discrepancies between the information there and the image. I suggest you find a better source, list it explicitly, and correct the image. As for inclusion in this article, the current text is that cannabis causes "increased heart rate, lowered blood pressure, impairment of psychomotor coordination, concentration, and short-term memory". An image which shows different information falls outside of the bounds of the original image guidelines, and thus should not be in the article. NJGW (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture Caption

The caption for the picture at the top of the page states that trichomes are sometimes referred to as hairs. The "hairs" actually refers to the orange/red strands that resemble hairs, NOT the trichomes. I'm going to change the caption to reflect this. 70.130.197.34 (talk) Whoops, thought I was signed in. Casual Karma (talk)

You are correct about the technical definition, but they are sometimes called hairs. There is no problem with the caption stating this colloquial term, given that the correct term is also provided. Note also that the trichome article states that the term is "from the Greek meaning "growth of hair"". I would like to change the caption back to it's former wording, unless you have a different suggestion. NJGW (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

California Assembly Bill 390

California Assembly Bill 390 was introduced, i believe Monday, February 23, 2009. If passed, it would legalize the sale of marijauna to those 21 and older. Please help expand this Cannabis (drug) related article, thank you : ].--cooljuno411 23:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Traditional but appropriate-- and that's saying something

a. The kiseru, made in Japan for centuries, is a long-stem pipe with a crater small enough to serve 25-mg. tokes if you use a tight-nesting screen. See Wikipedia article "kiseru". Cannabis was legal in Japan for centuries until 1948 when tobacco addict asshole Gen. Douglas MacArthur rewrote the Japanese constitution banning it.

b. The midwakh, made in the middle-east, is shorter-stemmed but you can add a long flexible tube like those found on hookahs. It is returning to popularity in Dubai as smoking prohibitions were recently passed and youngsters try to hide their smoking.

[just an old time stamp so this gets archived] 01:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Change Current Picture Under Marijuana Section

I would like to switch the current picturethumb|200px|left|Marijuana thumb|left Psychonaught (talk)

[just an old time stamp so this gets archived] 01:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

external link goes to deleted entry

The external wiktionary link to cannabis slang at the bottom of the page goes to a deleted entry

I believe the link should actually go to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Cannabis_slang

76.247.145.25 (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take care of it. NJGW (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

New picture

hey does this look like a good new picture right next to the 1 Forms 1.1 Marijuana section Image:Kush.jpg

No. It's out of focus and has more finger than cannabis. If you take a landscape picture with no fingers, but in-focus with the same good lighting and a black background, then we can replace the blown-out picture now in that place. I don't think the article needs more than two pictures of buds though. NJGW (talk) 07:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If by blown-out you mean the second picture of the bud(File:Marijuana small.jpg) I agree it needs replacing. I am sure the commons has pictures that are better lit. I agree that it is best to have one without fingers. Chillum 20:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked through the pictures at commons and have these suggestions:

• File:White_widow.jpg
• File:Medicinal Marijuana.jpg
• File:Medical cannabis.jpg
• File:Cannabis 01 bgiu.jpg
• File:SKJ-cannabis.jpg

Any thoughts? NJGW (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice leafy one

Since we already have a nice picture of a bud I would recommend this nice leafy one. Chillum 21:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} ---> Cannabis has psychoactive and physiological effects when consumed. The minimum amount of THC required to have a perceptible psychoactive effect is about 10 micrograms per kilogram of body weight. The most common short-term physical and neurological effects include increased heart rate, lowered blood pressure impairment of psychomotor coordination, concentration, and short-term memory. Long-term effects are less clear.

Please fix to "pressure, impairment"

 Done, thanks for the correction. On a side note, please bear in mind that it's not necessary to copy a massive portion of the page (including images) just to ask for someone to add a comma! I removed the excess information. :) ~ mazca ^t|c 19:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested edit

Is there any way you can change the desription of cannibis?It is not a drug,but a natural plant.Smokiewight (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually the plant is cannibis sativa. The term cannibis means the drug (also known as marajuana) derived from the plant. Mr2b (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, cannabis (in the context of this page) is a drug, derived from a plant in the cannabis genus - it's correct to say that cannabis is both a plant and a drug. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Acapulco Gold

Acapulco Gold is listed as a "strain" of cannibis however I am pretty sure this is a joke from a Cheech and Chong movie. Acapulco = Mexico, Gold = Brown. Its a slang way of making poor quality weed sound more appealing, not a specific genetic strain. --208.120.212.151 (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

While that may be true, in the 1973 Led Zeppelin DVD The Song Remains the Same Robert plant refers to Acapulco Gold. I believe it is in the song "Over the Hills and Far Away". --Aaron (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've not come across it in recent years. I'm sure it's real name is something quite different much like Himalayan Gold. I would say that is just the name westerners have used and it probably just stuck over the years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megapeen (talk • contribs) 23:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Add to heatlh issues

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003570-1,00.html

A good and well-balanced article on health effects.--Loodog (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I just read the intro, and I'm a little wary just because of the reporter's tone to base any major changes on that source (even vet science reporters are very prone to getting important details backwards). It does seem to be a good quick reference. He lists some sources that may be more helpful:

• Mitch Earleywine's Understanding Marijuana: A New Look at the Scientific Evidence
• a November 2002 100-page supplement devoted entirely to marijuana from the Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and the National Institute on Drug Abuse

NJGW (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Less healthy on the lungs"

When it is talking about hash oil and resin it says it is less harsh, and less healthy on the lungs. I think the writer may have intended to say less harmful to the lungs. One because it is smokeless, and two because the former would seem to conflict with the harsh statement. I will change it, and if I am mistaken and you change it back I will not contest it.24.65.95.239 (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I guess I won't because of the anonymous protection. This is definitely something to look into though.24.65.95.239 (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt smoking the already smoked residue scraped from the inside of a pipe could be less harsh than other methods. Do you have anything to base this on? NJGW (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor edit

Please remove Medical Marijuana Dispensary from the see also section, it is a dead link. 68.13.134.213 (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Systemic Toxicity

Citation needed, there has never been a recorded case of systemic toxicity caused by cannabis consumption. 118.90.119.106 (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor edit request

"Cannabis... is a psychoactive drug extracted from the plant Cannabis sativa, or more often, Cannabis sativa subsp. indica.". This is wrong. Subsp. Sativa and subsp. Indica are both used in the same way (drug-wise). Please erase from "or more often" and on! Thanks.--79.178.129.109 (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, saying "Cannabis Sativa, or more often Cannabis Indica" is wrong since "Cannabis Sativa" contains Includes the Indica subsp. in it. Refer to an older version of this page where I have written a correct introduction. Thanks!--79.178.129.109 (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this two ways: Cannabis sativa vs. C. indica OR C. sativa sativa vs. C. sativa indica. I'm not sure if either is definitive. If you have a journal article source that says your way is, then maybe we can go with that... otherwise I'm not sure it really matters. NJGW (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis sativa is considered to be a single species, with possible sub-species. However, all these varieties can breed with each other, like us (Homo sapiens). Even though we have different eye, hair and skin colors, there are no apparent barriers to reproduction. Same with Cannabis. However, there is a good case for different chemovars, as the cannabinoid profiles are certainly under genetic control, but these are different varieties and are still not different species. The interested reader might like to follow up by reading Hillig KW & Mahlberg PG (2004). A chemotaxonomic analysis of cannabinoid variation in Cannabis (CANNABACEAE). American Journal of Botany 91(6): 966-975.Jace1 (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

bn

History / why illegal

I added a paragraph with two references on how and why the plant came to become illegal in the USA. This seems to me to be important in an understanding of the history of the plant. There are many more references to this on internet. Please discus first if you want to delete this section. It seems an inoffensive and relevant additon to the article to me. Thanks.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The references are not too credible, as well as the phrasing "Many say", how many?. I think the whole section should be rephrased, with a more neutral point of view. -- Panoramix303 (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I put most of the stuff back. It's verifiable history. There are many other references to this. I left out the 'Many say etc' as that bothers you Panoramix.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 17:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The wording is still quite problematic, "propaganda" is quite judgmental, also the sources are not credible, they don't quote any primary sources and are a collection of statements, naming the page "marijuana conspiracy" doesn't contribute to credibility. The whole story sounds really nice and convincing but has some major flaws, i.e. nylon was patented in 1935, cannabis became illegal in 1937 before the large scale production of nylon started, the main starting materials of nylon were at this time not derived from oil but rather from coal and so on. Please add some more (primary) sources and rephrase the section according to wikipedia standards. Thanks! --06:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panoramix303 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for not deleting it anyway even if you disagree. I note your concerns. I will try and find some more sources but I believe that the paragraph is generally true. Admittedly one gets a lot of bad articles on this subject.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please fix this entry? It is now two weeks old and didn't improve a bit. It would be great to put some reliable sources in this section. It is not the only theory why cannabis is illegal. Thanks, Panoramix303 (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I have been busy. I will try and do this as soon as I can.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 22:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added one more reference. Looks fairly serious.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Spiked Drugs a Myth?!?!

For an abundance of slang terms referencing the lacing of weed with hardcore drugs, visit this link: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/streetterms/bytype.asp?inttypeid=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeoo17 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there are names for it doesn't mean they give it out for free. Even gov websites have removed this claim from their propaganda. NJGW (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, that is not true. NIDA is still stupidly listing vague, unsourced cases of "boogey men" spiking marijuana with formaldehyde. - 67.166.134.243 (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, laced weed is incredibly rare. Secondly, when one buys weed, he would be informed by the dealer if it was laced, because the buyer would be willing to pay more. Therefore, it's not extremely dangerous to propagate this propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronclem (talk • contribs) 00:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

--

March 31 09 - Misleading, or incorrect wording of article leads to mis-interpretation of facts.

"Occasionally, claims have been made that a 'hard drug' (such as heroin or cocaine) is added to cannabis,[citation needed] possibly in order to get the users addicted to a drug that is less addictive. However, this is considered a myth as the 'hard drugs' usually cost more gram-for-gram than 'soft drugs' so the dealer would lose money on such an operation."

"possibly in order to get the users addicted to a drug that is less addictive"

Does this imply that heroin or cocaine is less addictive than cannabis, as throughout the page, this is shown to be untrue? Does it maybe imply that dealers are trying to addict users to a drug that is "less addictive" (cannabis)?

It doesn't read well to me, either way, and could do with a re-write, I'm not an author sorry, but a simple edit of 'less' to 'more' in the above passage reads more accurately to me.

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.41.204 (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How is it that dealers sprinkling crack on their weed is a myth? The real myth is that weed is never laced because it's not cost effective. There are an abundance of slang names for weed laced with crack, cocaine, PCP, and other hard drugs which indicates that lacing is much more than just a myth. The omission of this information is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS for recreational users attempting to do their due diligence who read repeated false optimisms. I like Weed!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.134.101 (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If you were a drug dealer, would you lace marijuana with a more expensive drug (such as "crack, cocaine, PCP, and other hard drugs...") and not tell your customer? It's a money making operation. The entire purpose of having slang names, is to make it immediately identifiable and distinguishable from unlaced pot. I imagine that this would happen about as often if not less so than having your drink spiked or rufied.

(Note: that sounds a little crass reading back over it. If you take offense, it wasn't intended.)

Gholcom (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Marijuana use linked to 70% increased risk of testicular cancer

This is a pretty big one. Study came out from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington back in February (2009) linking marijuana usage to a 70% increased risk of testicular cancer. Don't know why this hasn't yet been addressed by the editors of the article but it needs to be incorporated as soon as possible. [[23]]

Djamesz23 (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a reactionary site. One study shows possible correlation, but no causation. "The researchers found that being a marijuana smoker at the time of diagnosis was associated with a 70 percent increased risk of testicular cancer." That shows and suggests no mechanism, and apparently does not address the myriad external factors that are not being controlled. Also, I can't find the actual study. We try not to list news articles/press releases here as refs because they are often not at all accurate. NJGW (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

burn. Gholcom (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Every department in every science block in every uni will have different research for marijuana. Effectively it is a drug which has medicinal qualities, and all is dependant on the type of strain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Undercoverkgb (talk • contribs) 16:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

False attribution

The propaganda sheet shown under Legal Status claims it is "U.S. Federal Bureau of Narcotics propaganda used in 1935". However, the sheet itself does not say that, but asserts it is an incorporated, not-for-profit "Inter-state Narcotic Association".

I'm changing the wording in the main article.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of False Attribution. It says that the Rastafari Movement was founded in the U.S. in 1975. That's not true. It was founded in Jamica in the 1930's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.15.61.227 (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That part was actually referring to the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church, not the Rastafarian movement. ... discospinster _talk 19:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a typo

Under the section "New breeding and cultivation techniques." It's located in the second to last line of the second to last paragraph. The word 'accululate' should be 'accumulate'. I can't edit it myself, or I would have. 98.18.83.151 (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Panoramix303 (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Historic Potencies

"The average levels of THC in cannabis sold in United States rose from 3.5% in 1988 to 7% in 2003 and 8.5% in 2006."

This is widely disputed. Opponents argue that these measurements are not representative of the average THC levels of cannabis sold. Since the vast majority of cannabis sold was never in the hands of anyone who could test it, it is not likely tests were conducted on a valid representative sample. A simple google search for cannabis potency increase will reveal the myriad articles with conflicting views on this topic. Shaitand

Fixed. NJGW (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Major Error

under the MEDICAL USE section it states "THE FDA HAS APPROVED MARIJUANA AS TREATMENT" but when checking Reference(70) it says "FDA HAS NOT APPROVED MARIJUANA FOR MEDICAL USE IN THE UNITED STATES. DESPITE ITS SRATUS AS AN UNAPPROVED NEW DRUG, THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERABLE INTEREST IN ITS USE FOR THE TRATMENT OF A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS"

I love weed too. this is bad news —Preceding unsigned comment added by C mon987 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

CBN is an ambiguous link

It should be changed to link to Cannabinol instead. This is in the third paragraph of the section "Methods of consumption"/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.95.182 (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Medicinal Use of Cannabis in The Netherlands

The article states that medicinal use of cannabis is disallowed in The Netherlands. This is not true, it is in fact legal since 2003. The specific article about medicinal use of cannabis states this as well (along with other countries, even the U.S. state California), could the main article be edited to have this information?

ThomHurks (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Im not sure about this, but because it is legal there already anyway, a medical law is unnecessary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crd721 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

question on infobox

The infobox mentions cannabis sativa but makes no mention of cannabis indica, shouldn't that be included as well Crd721 (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Under Researched Facts

This article is okay the fact is cigarettes are more harmful then the herb cannabis, because cannabis grows from the ground and it is an herb that, to some is known to have healing powers it is not that harmful. The THC level in cannabis can very from 2%-50%. Cannabis neither causes nor influence cancer, it has been said to lower your immune system (but that has not been proven yet). It can also damage memory cells and for some but not all, it can be harmful to the brain. Cigarettes contain ingredients like rat poison which is a lot more harmful then the herb cannabis. Cigarettes can damage long and cause resipatary problems, so the research is wrong

Apollo 04 (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Err, doesn't tobacco grow from the ground too. Unfortunatelly due to a criminal supplly chain cannabis is much more likely to be adulterated with poisons than tobacco though I guess arguably tobaccois more poisonous. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 05:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Top Anti-Drug Researcher Changes His Mind, Says Legalize Marijuana

We've been told a thousand times that marijuana destroys your lungs, that it's 5 times worse than cigarettes, and on and on. Yet here is Donald Tashkin, literally the top expert in the world when it comes to marijuana and lung health, telling us it's time to legalize marijuana. His views are shaped not by ideology, but rather by the 30 years he spent studying the issue. He didn't expect the science to come out in favor of marijuana, but that's what happened and he's willing to admit it.

Here's the study that really turned things around:

UCLA's Tashkin studied heavy marijuana smokers to determine whether the use led to increased risk of lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD. He hypothesized that there would be a definitive link between cancer and marijuana smoking, but the results proved otherwise."What we found instead was no association and even a suggestion of some protective effect," says Tashkin, whose research was the largest case-control study ever conducted.

Prejudice against marijuana and smoking in general runs so deep for many people that it just seems inconceivable that marijuana could actually reduce the risk of lung cancer. But that's what the data shows and it not only demolishes a major tenet of popular anti-pot propaganda, but also points towards a potentially groundbreaking opportunity to develop cancer cures through marijuana research.

Over and over again, all the bad things we've been told about marijuana are revealed to be not only false, but often the precise opposite of the truth. So the next time someone tells you that marijuana is worse for your lungs than cigarettes, you might want to mention that the world's leading expert on that subject happens to be a supporter of legalization.

Source: http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/top-anti-drug-researcher-changes-his-mind-says-legalize-marijuana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.216.36 (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Request to add science to locked page

I see this page is locked. This science was accidentally added to the medical cannabis page. I believe it belongs here, under "Health Effects", possibly under the paragraph about toxins in the smoke. Here it is:

• In 2006, Donald Tashkin, M.D., of the University of California in Los Angeles, presented the results of his study, "Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study". The researchers discovered that smoking marijuana does not appear to increase the risk of lung cancer or head-and-neck malignancies, even among heavy users. Marijuana use was associated with cancer risk ratios below 1.0, indicating that a history of pot smoking had no effect on the risk for respiratory cancers. In contrast, tobacco smoking was associated with increased risk for all cancers; people who smoked more than two packs of cigarettes per day had a 21-fold risk for cancer, as opposed to a less than onefold risk for marijuana. He concluded, "It's possible that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in marijuana smoke may encourage apoptosis, or programmed cell death, causing cells to die off before they have a chance to undergo malignant transformation".[24] 68.13.134.213 (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If Tashkin is merely suggesting the possibility that THC promotes apoptosis without some kind of impirical evidence, it makes more sense to pose the theory that there is SOME chemical agent, present in combusted cannabis vapors but not in other smoked drugs, that causes this effect. Assuming that it is THC without any backing is really just putting people on a track that is quite possibly a dead end, considering that as far as we know, cannabinoids are really only active in the CNS and Immune system and thus COULDN'T stimulate cell termination, unless by a complex self-destructive release of some other endogenous messenger chemical, or a yet-undiscovered pharmacological interaction with the cells it comes in contact with. Since both are as-of-yet completely hypothetical, it's not reasonable to assume such an effect would be caused by THC. It is, however, in a more general sense, a very intruiging hypothesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aethercell (talk • contribs) 04:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

More science that belongs on this page, moved from the medical marijuana page. If someone could please add wherever it's appropriate:

• A study from the Fred Hutchinson's Cancer Research Center in Seattle sought to find whether there was an association between marijuana use and oral cancer. "When asking whether any marijuana use puts you at increased risk of oral cancer, our study is pretty solid in saying there's nothing going on there," says Stephen M. Schwartz, PhD, a member of Fred Hutchinson's public health sciences division and the senior author of the study.[25]

• Researchers of the Nathan S. Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research and the New York University School of Medicine scanned the brains of 10 individuals who were frequent cannabis users in adolescence and 10 control subjects with advanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) methods. They found no "evidence of cerebral atrophy or loss of white matter integrity" and concluded that "frequent cannabis use is unlikely to be neurotoxic to the normal developing brain".[26] 68.13.134.213 (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

More science that belongs on the page on cannabis as drug: A scientific litterature review from 2007 in the prestigious medical journal Lancet reports that the incidence of psychotic disorders such as schizofrenia is incresed in cannabis users - especially those who have used cannabis frequently. Of course a correlational study cannot prove the exsistence of a cause-effect relationship. It is possible that people who are more likely to develop psychotic symptoms are also more likely to use cannabis. However, statistical adjustments made by this study suggest that a cause-and-effect relationship between cannabis use and psychosis cannot be ruled out. The conclusion of the authors are:

"There is now sufficient evidence to warn young people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life."

Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: A systematic review Lancet,2007;370;319-328 [27] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.47.17 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 3 May 2009

The statement you quote is an author's opinion, not a scientific finding. The scientific finding was: "Whether cannabis can cause psychotic or affective symptoms that persist beyond transient intoxication is unclear." NJGW (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, 129.240.47.17. Maybe your lies will get through when the article is unlocked.

72.252.9.36 (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Consistency in term usage

I'm just switching all terms other than 'cannabis' to it as they're slang, other than of course ones that refer to regional things/organisations :P .. should be much better to have consistency in the wording .. Aicchalmers (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that there are still uses of the term 'marijuana' in context to the plant in the article, where 'cannabis' would be the better option. Organisations and verbatim mentions of 'marijuana' not to be affected of course Defnordic (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A confusing Juncture

Just a note about clarity, when i read over the paragraph about lung cancer risk the last sentance, the one regarding reduced risk of breast cancer, struck me as misplaced. The train of thought that paragraph is following is decidedly anti-marijuana and persuasively writted to suggest increased cancer risk. Perhaps if the beginning of the phrase was changed to "However, some research shows an unexpected tie to..." or anything that shows it as contrast and not evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aethercell (talk • contribs) 03:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Come on already

Cannabis (drug), give me a break. It should read as follows: Cannabis (weed), cannabis (plant) or the like, not drug. Ask anyone qualified, ie a PHYSICIAN or SCIENTIST and they will tell you it (cannabis) is NOT a DRUG. FYI, the term narcotic is used for all "drugs" because it sounds sexy and makes retarded cops look semi-intelligent and not semi-retarded. In actuality, you know reality, a narcotic is anything OPIUM based, PERIOD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AqueousChemist (talk • contribs) 11:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So it's to keep the police from looking semi retarded? Unfortunately the same can't be said of the anarchist abuser.

You are correct that narcotics are substances derived from opium or opiates. However, Cannabis, along with almost every non-food item that you put into your body, is a drug. A drug is any substance that changes how your body or mind functions normally. You are confusing the use of the word 'drug' as a negative connotation of abused substances, with the proper and neutral use of the word.

Further to that, Cannabis discusses the plant genus that contains sativa/indica, while Cannabis (drug) discusses the psychoactive drug. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis isn't really a non-food item, though. —Whig (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis as a plant can perhaps be considered edible and a food item. However, there are very few - if any - cultures that consume the plant as a source of nutrition. Cannabis as a recreational substance is not ingested for the purpose of being a food item. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Pardon, but cannabis is eaten medicinally. —Whig (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, medicinally. Consuming something solely for its medical or recreational value would make that thing a drug, not food. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess that butter I ate on my toast wasn't food? Just because it has medicinal effects does not make it non-food. Please see rename proposal below. —Whig (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The butter you ate is clearly a food item. Unlike cannabis, butter is ingested for nutrition and flavour. Cannabis is ingested as a cause and effect drug. Cannabis is never a required ingredient, and is added solely because of the effect it has on the users mind and body.

Regardless of this though, this article deals with cannabis as a recreational drug, and not as a food item. That would be more appropriate for the regular Cannabis article. If you are ingesting cannabis with the intent of getting high, or for its medicinal properties, it is a drug. If you are ingesting it to satisfy your hunger, than it is food. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So is nutmeg a food or a drug? I've never heard of anyone satisfying their hunger with nutmeg. It is in fact psychoactive, as well. —Whig (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nutmeg is a spice. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Both. If it is ingested with the purpose of getting high than it would be a drug. If it's used in food or drinks for the purpose of flavour, it would be considered a spice. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, we can go back and forth like this for awhile, but the first point I made was that cannabis cannot really be considered non-food. The same goes for nutmeg. Yes, both can be used for psychoactive effects, but they are both still spices. Since we are in agreement on renaming this article there is probably not much gained by further argument over this point. —Whig (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I was merely trying to correct the OP who claimed that cannabis as a mind altering substance is not a drug, but I digress. The article should be renamed to minimise parenthesis use in titles where possible. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of move

Cannabis (drug) → Recreational use of cannabis — This article is about the recreational use of cannabis, which is no more or less a drug than medical or religious use. —Whig (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. Cannabis (drug) is the only subpage of the Cannabis articles that contains parenthesis in its title. Even Cannabis (drug) cultivation was moved to Cannabis cultivation (Although to keep with the naming scheme of the other pages I am going to propose that it be changed to Cultivation of Cannabis). -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Cultivation of cannabis was just renamed to Cannabis cultivation per consensus. Medical cannabis also does not use the "of" formulation. Recreational cannabis wouldn't work, however. —Whig (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Would Psychoactive use of cannabis be better? This article does seem to serve as a bit of a heading for a lot of subarticles. —Whig (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds strange in other contexts I think. When you make use of cannabis, you're "using it recreationally", as opposed to "using it psychoactively" -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, when I make use of cannabis, I'm using it religiously, spiritually, medicinally and perhaps recreationally all at once, but all of these are psychoactive uses. —Whig (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

True, they are all psychoactive uses, but you aren't using them psychoactively. I may be wrong of course, but I'm pretty sure this is one of those oddities in the context of english words. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agree Recreational cannabis or Recreational use of cannabis, as they are descriptive and differentiate from the other articles, fit with the naming scheme, and are not dependent on interpretations of the term "drug". Not Psychoactive use of cannabis though, as religious use is also psychoactive. NJGW (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is about the uses of cannabis as a drug, not recreational specifically, and is an umbrella article for all uses of cannabis as a drug, medical and for pleasure, which by the way is not the same as recreational. 199.125.109.123 (talk) 06:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have to agree with the above post. This article is about far more than just recreational use. Besides, the label ...(drug) in the title already denotes recreational use itself. -- œ^™ 08:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There are already articles for the medical use, and the spiritual use of cannabis. Neither contain the word "drug" in their title. The term drug doesn't means recreational use. When you take tylenol you aren't using it recreationally (I hope), but you still call it a drug. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In this context it does, when you're calling Cannabis a drug, as opposed to calling it a plant, you're referring to its recreational use. -- œ^™ 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

But if you're referring to its recreational use then we should just say Recreational use of cannabis, instead of implying it by using the word (drug) which doesn't always mean recreation. —Whig (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This is clearly about more than its recreational use. If you area really opposed to the (drug) part, merge it with Cannabis or Marijuana. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, fixed. Now it's only about recreational use (besides the truth serum part... where should that go?). I'm really confused btw about what you mean by merging this page with marijuana. NJGW (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Starting with Hemp, which is about a group of plants, we have Cannabis, which is about a specific plant, then we have "Humans' consumption of cannabis pre-dates history. In the 20th century there was a considerable increase in its use for recreational, religious or spiritual, and medicinal purposes." This article would most logically include all types of human consumption of the drug cannabis for all types of reasons, which would then have subarticles, covering medical cannabis, spiritual cannabis, etc. If you wish to create a Recreational cannabis article, it should be a sub-article as well, and not simply a renaming of this article, and I believe that several such subarticles have already been created - see Portal:Cannabis. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Marijuana already redirects to this article. I'm not opposed to creating a new subarticle and moving all the recreational content. If this article ceases to then have enough information to justify existing standalone it could then be merged into Cannabis. —Whig (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with simply moving everything to do with recreational use of marijuana to Recreational use of cannabis. This page can then serve as basically a portal for the use of the cannabis plant as a drug. In this case however, this article should be renamed aptly along the lines of Human use of cannabis or preferably something better... -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose as this is not what the article is about. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agree. The term "drug" is broad and would be expected to include medicinal uses. As these have been split out into a separate article, then recreational use should be covered in a clearly labelled article.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Except that there are many uses of cannabis as a drug, which are common to each other, and which this article was created to cover. To pretend, for example, that medical cannabis, or spiritual cannabis does not involve "1 Potency, 2 Forms, 3 Methods of consumption, 4 Effects, 5 History, 6 Demographics" and so on, is questionable. More than questionable. Specious. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this article was created to cover them. However, those now have their own articles which can deal with your 6 topics. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The definition given is way too narrow. The current title is all encompasing and should stay. Supposed (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be to keep it as is because the topic covers a multitude of uses of cannabis as a drug. However, the main purpose of the rename was to bring it into the naming scheme of the other Cannabis articles, and not to confine the article to certain information. So on those lines, I propose Human use of cannabis, which allows it to cover all the topics it does now, while not being left open to the interpretation of the word "drug". -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Human use of cannabis really works, non-psychoactive hemp is also used by humans. I don't like the parenthetical (drug) reference, I'd even prefer Drug use of cannabis to the current name, but I'd rather find a better word than Drug to use. We could maybe get away with a brief title like Use of cannabis notwithstanding, if we clarified that use does not include indirect uses. But how about we just create a Recreational use of cannabis article and move the appropriate content there leaving the rest for us to figure out what to do with. —Whig (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably the best course of action. After that's been moved the remainder could probably just as well be merged into Cannabis. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

redirect change

{{editsemiprotected}}

in the Effects section, please change

...and short-term [[episodic]] and working memory...

to

...and short-term [[episodic memory|episodic]] and working memory...

there isn't any reason for the redirection to the episodic disambiguation page.

Kaly J. (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Exert 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Potency

I placed a ref improve tag in the potency section because the ref used there is far from RS. Tdinatale removed it twice. I wonder if s/he could explain why it should be removed. NJGW (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox of proposed article

I created a sandbox version of the proposed article at Talk:Cannabis_(drug)/sandbox. I was going to create the article all by itself as suggested by several people above, but it really is almost all of this article. The main reason I didn't just create the article Recreational use of cannabis is that if it does take over the place of this article as suggested, a history merge would be required later. Please have a look and see what you guys think. Note that I think we should try to pattern the article on other articles on psychoactive drugs, of which, incidentally, I see only cannabis has "(drug)" in the title. If anything it seems that "Cannabis (psychoactive use)" would be more correct. NJGW (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If parenthesis' can be avoided, it generally looks better. Keep in mind that no other psychoactive drug has nearly as common a usage both recreationally and otherwise, and so the pages on those drugs are for the most part already about the recreational use of them. Some other possible titles could be:

• Human use of cannabis
• Recreational use of cannabis
• Psychoactive use of cannabis
• Ingestion of cannabis

etc. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks NJGW for starting this, I think either Recreational use of cannabis or Psychoactive use of cannabis would be an appropriate name for the new article. I wouldn't go with "Ingestion of cannabis" (or "Consumption of cannabis") because non-psychoactive hemp can be eaten as food too. —Whig (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with that, also because the term ingestion usually refers specifically to eating and is not often associated with inhalation. As I've mentioned numerous times, I'm in favour of Recreational use of cannabis, as it describes it perfectly, with nothing left to interpretation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Keep in mind that no other psychoactive drug has nearly as common a usage both recreationally and otherwise" Um Coffee and Tea are quite widely used nowadays or are we forgetting that caffeine is a drug (and the most widely used psychoactive one at that) too? It would make allot more sence to have Psychoactive use of cannabis as the article title rather than Cannabis (drug). But that IS just my opinion :) 82.152.249.200 (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The article isn't about the recreational use of cannabis; it's about the effects and facts of cannabis as a psychoactive drug.--Loodog (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we need another poll of opinion on which of these names is preferred? Psychoactive use of cannabis is my preference, or psychoactive cannabis use perhaps because shorter, and recreational cannabis use can redirect, or vice versa. —Whig (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, effects of cannabis is about the effects of cannabis. There are many different articles about the various types of facts, such as facts about the legality, facts about the plant itself, and facts about it's medical usage. This article only talks about facts about it's recreational usage (or did until the medical usage subsection was recreated). NJGW (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

So does that mean you would agree with creating recreational cannabis use? —Whig (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I created it in sandbox form. Nobody's done anything with it. I still think this article is essentially 'Recreational cannabis use' (or 'recreational use of...'), and would benefit in focus from being renamed to either that or marijuana (which seems to me to be a one word phrase meaning "recreational use of cannabis"). This might be a discussion we can have outside of the centralized discussion I suggest below. NJGW (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Request to add a higher quality picture

The picture at the top is not a good representation of marijuana and is too blurry I suggest this one instead. This way people can see marijuana at its prime.

Psychonaught (talk)

Not sure what you mean... the picture in the article is not blurry, and has the added bonus of not showing your finger. NJGW (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This picture is a better representation of marijuana, and the finger is of no importance. Psychonaught (talk)

The picture in use now is fine and as NJGW it doesn't have a finger in it and is therefore a much better photo to use here. Herbal Hi (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Just my two cents, this picture can be used in the context of showing it's actual size - although the first picture is better as a header, there isn't any hint about the flower's size, it might be as big as my cat... Kaly J. (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. —Whig (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Requesting correction of the study regarding increased presence of ammonia in cannabis smoke.

There are some problems with the reference to the 2007 Health Canada study as mentioned in a BBC article linked on the page. If is to be mentioned in the article at all, these facts need to be included. (As a side note, I don't think it's categorized correctly. The mention of this study is found under "long term health effects" when no health effects were demonstrated in the study and should therefore be moved, if it stays at all).

This link gives both the abstract and the full text of the study. Look below the abstract to see the full text.

[28]

The major flaw in the study, and they admit leads to uncertainty, was a failure to test growth mediums for nitrogen levels. As they stated:

"The amount of ammonia produced during combustion of tobacco has been related to the amount of nitrate fertilizer applied during growth (30). The simplest explanation for the very high levels of ammonia found in marijuana smoke may be that the marijuana used for this study contained more nitrate than the tobacco sample."

"A logical explanation would be that these are arising from the nitrate present in the fertilizer and would be consistent with the very high ammonia yields."

So the researchers said that because the health canada specimens were grown under entirely different conditions, and no growth medium comparisons were done, that it is quite possible that higher levels of nitrogen were present in the cannabis growth medium (a hydroponic solution) as compared to the soil the tobacco was grown in.

Another point to make is that cigarettes burn at higher temperatures than a normal marijuana pipe is smoked at, where the smoker has to continuously relight the pipe between puffs because the temperature is so low and the pipe extinguishes between puffs. Problematically, the statement in the article refers to cannabis smoke in general, but that's not accurate, as the study is strictly a reference to smoke from marijuana cigarettes.

Currently the wiki article states: "A 2007 study by the Canadian government found cannabis smoke contained more toxic substances than tobacco smoke."

This is incorrect they didn't find "more toxic substances" they found some were higher some were not, and they never said that the ones found more abundantly in the cannabis were more harmful than those found at higher levels in the tobacco. Therefore, this page should be updated to say "smoke from cannabis cigarettes contained higher levels of some toxic substances as compared to tobacco cigarettes, which tested higher for other substances such as PAHs, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde."

The mention of this study, as well as the study itself have noteworthy flaws. There is far too much doubt about the methodology of this study to include it. But if mentioning this study is going to remain in the article, then it needs to be amended to address these discrepancies. Potentially it needs it's own article, maybe a "tobacco smoke vs. cannabis smoke" article. As it stands this part of the article is incomplete and misleading.Sucrase (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sucrase (talk • contribs) 10:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Requesting Washington Post article be referenced in more depth.

We need to include the information from the Washington Post article, reference number 35 in the citation list, which states that it was the largest study of it's kind. Importantly this study found no risk and even some protective effect against lung cancer. As the article says:

"This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use"

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sucrase (talk • contribs) 10:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the abstract of the study, I couldn't find anything else which gets close to the Washington Post article. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17035389 The fulltext is free. Panoramix303 (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

They interviewed one of the lead researchers, Dr. Tashkin, in that Washington Post article. There is no doubt it has all the facts. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I am saying the article should be referenced to include the important points about the study which it mentioned. By the way, you only linked an abstract. If the text is free, please post it here as a separate link as I'm sure people want to read it. Sucrase (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Tashkin wasn't the lead researcher, that's the reason why I said that it's the closest article I could find. The link to the fulltext is in the abstract I posted above. Panoramix303 (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I said he was one of the leads, which he is. His name is shown in the list in the abstract which you linked. Also tell us where on the page to click for the full study if you could.

I'm just requesting to add more information from that article. Simply that it the study is the largest of it's kind and showed a slight protective effect. You haven't found anything that contradicts this article and the source is credible. So I vote for this to be included.

Sucrase (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just add it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_bold_in_editing_articles

The fulltext link is in the right upper corner.

If you want to add references, you can use Diberri's tool http://toolserver.org/~diberri/cgi-bin/templatefiller/?type=&id=

Panoramix303 (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I cant add it because the article is semi-locked. Someone with the ability to edit semi-locked articles should add it.Sucrase (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Problems With User NJGW

I'm having issues with the user NJGW (Talk | Contribs) essentially being a control freak of this article and reverting not only my perfectly good edits, but the edits of others as well, apparently simply because he doesn't seem to *like them*. As an example, he reverted all of this which I just put in with the only valid reason being that I didn't enter a proper summary of my changes:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis_(drug)&diff=305440285&oldid=305438070

Lots of good stuff in there.. I updated the history/terminology for the term "marijuana", added an explanation of the term "sinsemilia", added some basic pharmacology on the cannabinoids and their action on the cannabinoid receptors, added a reference or two and redid a few citations which were lacking in content (like added author, url, date, etc), and did a basic reformat of the rest of the page for source beauty as well as consistency.

NJGW reverted it all. I reverted his reversion telling him not to do it again and to contact me if he didn't agree with my changes, and he f*cking reverted them again. I got into a revert war with him in this article the other day over slang names of Cannabis and got a god damn 48 hour temp ban which seriously pissed me off at the time. For that reason, I'm basically not going to and essentially can't undo his latest reversion yet again because of the so-called "three revert rule" or whatever it is. Or maybe that would apply to him and not me since he's the one doing it, I don't really know. Anyway, I've messaged him here regarding the subject (please read because it has some necessary information):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NJGW#Listen_You (see "Listen You" section at the very bottom)

I'm posting in this talk page as well as directly to him so we can get this issue sorted out once and for all, and not only with this matter, but with some of the past issues like terminology and slang terms and any potential future problems that may arise. I'd like everyone who actively participates in the development of this article and is willing, to step in and discuss and moderate all that is added and is sufficiently controversial (unlike my last changes which he reverted which are not in the slightest), not just this NJGW person, and perhaps if necessary, have a Wikipedia moderator or admin come and review the changes so there aren't any contraindications from either me, him, or anyone else, or merely just between the two of us which mainly seems to be the situation, anymore.

Discussion consisting of comments, suggestions, and opinions are readily desired, welcomed, and appreciated. Please help us sort this out. Thank you very much. Rocknroll714 (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Rocknroll, you were here 2 weeks ago making poor edits. I asked you several times to discuss your edits buy you flatly refused. I then went through every single change and kept the good changes throwing out the bad. This took a lot of time, which I see as wasted effort on my part as your "improvements" were very negligible. They are explained in my edits to the article on July 15. You were also blocked at that point for edit warring with zero discussion (you may or may not remember that). I'm glad you're willing to use the talk page now, though your use of a meat puppet to revert my change this morning is highly disturbing. As most of your changes are against the wp:MOS, you are actually bringing this article further away from good article status. I'm not going to waste more of my time on this as it's not really that important in the grand scheme, but FYI your character assassination[29], misquotes (I didn't say "don't edit wikipedia," I said "if you can't... work with consensus, don't edit wikipedia"[30]), MOS mistakes, and unfamiliarity with the topic (you're 18 and never heard the word ganja before?!) make editing this article with you very difficult. NJGW (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming of Article

This was being discussed in the past and I'd like to bring it back up. Basically, what name is most appropriate for the article, "Cannabis" or "marijuana"? One thing I'm wondering which could potentially be a serious factor in this matter is what does the U.S., U.K., U.N., international, or otherwise, respectively, officially refer to this drug as?

Some basic information.. "Cannabis" traditionally refers to the genus of these plants which includes Cannabis indica and Cannabis sativa, and good ol' "marijuana" has been a term used to describe the herb used as a drug for psychoactive recreational, pharmaceutical, or otherwise, purposes for literally hundreds of years. It's far more well-known than "Cannabis" is in my opinion. In fact, I distinctly remember seeing Paul McCartney on TV speak of "Cannabis" in the past a few years ago.. I didn't know what he was talking about and actually had to look it up and found that it was "marijuana" he was speaking of.

Additionally, nobody ever calls this drug "Cannabis", nor "ganja" for that matter. It's always referred to as either "marijuana" or an alternative slang term such as "weed", "pot", "bud/buddha", "grass", "herb", "reefer", "dope", "schag", "kush", "chronic", "skunk", and so forth. Of course those names would be inappropriate for the title, but I feel that "marijuana" would be a perfect word to use. It would also get rid of the annoying "Cannabis_(drug)" appendage and confusion with the "Cannabis" genus article. We could just call it "Marijuana", plain and simple. Notably, for a comparison of terms and their popularity, take a look at these results from Google Search:

• "Marijuana": 24,800,800 (24.8 million)
• "Ganja" 6,130,000 (6.1 million)
• "Cannabis" - 3,220,000 (3.2 million)

Also, take the plant species Papaver somniferum which is called the "Opium Poppy" for example. It's not typically referred to as say "papaver".. "somniferum".. "opium poppy".. "poppy" or "poppies", etc., when discussing the drug. It's always called "opium" when talked about in such manner, and contains "opiates" as the psychoactive compounds responsible for its effects. Likewise, regarding this page, in my opinion, it should not be titled Cannabis, as that refers to the genus/species in question, but "marijuana" instead, which clearly depicts the herb being used as a drug which we're talking about here. Oh, and of course, like the opiates in opium, "cannabinoids" are the psychoactive compounds responsible for the effects of this drug.

Discuss! Rocknroll714 (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that I've heard marijuana much more than cannabis, my experience has been that both the plant and the psychoactive extracts of the plant are referred to as marijuana. (e.g. "Yeah, she was smoking marijuana in her house." vs. "I'm pretty sure she was growing marijuana in her basement.") When clarification is needed in everyday language, I expect the speaker to specify "marijuana plant".--Loodog (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe you're entirely correct. While the western world may be far more accustomed to the term 'marijuana', the same isn't the case as you leave North America. It has not been around for hundreds of years, as it was brought to the English language in 1918. It's a translation of the proper name Maria Juana, which eventually boils down to Mary Jane, which is a folk name of unknown origin. Ganja on the other hand, has been used as a term in India for several hundred years (At least back to the twelfth century). Just looking at populations alone, I believe that ganja is known by a good half of the world. Marijuana is common, but not worldwide. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting.. I was unaware of that. I thought "marijuana" came about in the 1600s or 1700s or so. Never heard of ganjika or ganja before in my life until I read the Cannabis Wikipedia article. I guess it's not really a North American thing, eh? Rocknroll714 (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that cannabis was not known to the Americas before it was brought over from India. So any slang terms for cannabis used on this continent are clearly predated by earlier terms. Ganja is a more common word in the West Indies, where many Indians were settled, and remains popular among Rastafari and others. Whether you have personal familiarity with the scientific and traditional names of cannabis, marijuana is not one of them. —Whig (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The name bhanga occurs in the Sanskrit "Atharvaveda" (about 1400 B.C.), but the first mention of it as a medicine seems to be in the work of Susruta (before the eighth century A.D.), while in the tenth century A.D. its intoxicating nature seems to have been known, and the name "indracana" (Indra's food) first appears in literature. (Watt, Sir George. Commerical Products of India, p. 251, 1908.) A further evidence that hemp, for the production of fiber as well as the drug, has been distributed from central Asia or Persia is found in the common origin of the names used. The Sanskrit names "bhanga" and "gangika," slightly modified to "bhang" and "ganja," are still applied to the drugs, and the roots of these words, "and" and "an," recur in the names of hemp in all of the Indo-European and modern Semitic languages, as bhang, ganja, hanf, hamp, hemp, chanvre, canamo, kannab, cannabis. (De Candolle, Alphonse. Origin of Cultivated Plants, p. 143, 1886) [31] —Whig (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like "Cannabis" is perfectly suitable then. I drop my proposition! :) Rocknroll714 (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Addiction Section

I want to have an addiction section regarding the regular use of cannabis. We all know that cannabis is habituating but not physically addicting. Could we have some ideas about going through this? Also, a withdrawal subsection i think would be appropriate here too to make the cannabis (drug) article more complete, coherent and realistic. I know this is a very controversial topic so I'd like to get all the ideas in. Tdinatale (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hard to say what we think when we don't know what sources you're suggesting be used. They would need to be very RS and, barring some sort of clear academic consensus, be literature review articles on the subject which discuss the issues thoroughly. NJGW (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

the Marinol (dronabinol) labels say THC is habit forming; the Union: The Business Behind Getting High and my very own doctor all say cannabis is not addicting but habit forming.Tdinatale (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

THC is not marijuana, and your doctor and that documentary are not RS. Like I said, very good sources on the exact topic are needed for such a controversial issue. NJGW (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

agreed that's why originally I wanted more ideas to go about writing about it from an unbalanced perspective Tdinatale (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My idea is to find good sources so we can start discussing them. You can start here. NJGW (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur with NJGW. Wikipedia is not the place to write from personal knowledge of a subject without reliable sources. —Whig (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. When I get home from Savannah, GA, I'll post a sample here and we can edit it. Tdinatale (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a section title using the word(s) dependence and/or habituation would be better. Using the word addiction in the heading would be misleading. Brangifer (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Almost everything we do may be habit forming, from exercise to food likes; addiction is a different matter and if we had RSs re cannabis and addiction that would be great to add information on the subject as it strikes me as notable content; sources for the debate and then for is and isnt an addiction would be appropriate. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

marijuana and lung cancer

People who smoke marijuana--even heavy, long-term marijuana users--do not appear to be at increased risk of developing lung cancer.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm

As there is no proof that marijuana is harmful to a person's health, I believe that the section stating so in the marijuana section should be revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.78.236 (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't know of a single reliable (ie not funded by the US's anti-drug agencies) publication that actually claims any correlation to lung cancer. That section should be rewritten slightly. The main problem is that as soon as you claim certain studies over the results of others, you tend to break NPOV, and too many people can't see the fundamental flaw of research directed under the wing of a government that lied in the first place to illegalize the drug not only once, but twice! -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis contains no nicotine, a drug which hardens the bronchial tubes and promotes cancer. Cannabidiol grows in large quantities in cannabis. It is believed that cannabidiol prevents tumor growth. For these reasons it does not cause cancer, although if commercially grown and regulated, one would wonder the effects of pesticides... Tdinatale (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Article ordering

Ok, another suggestion, this article is good but it's screwy! And i didn't know why but I think I know why now. Can we switch the "Forms" and "Potency" sections around? It just makes sense to talk about Forms of the drug, then potency. Tdinatale (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Done Tdinatale (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor edit needed, but locked

"Individual studies also have been conducted indicating Cannabis to a gamut of conditions running from multiple sclerosis to depression." This sentence doesn't make sense, perhaps it was meant to say "indicating benefits of Cannabis for a gamut of conditions". 64.180.126.153 (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Another study showed that consumption of 15 mg of Δ9-THC resulted in no learning whatsoever occurring over a three-trial selective reminding task after two hours." This sentence also isn't clear on what it's trying to say. 64.180.126.153 (talk) 07:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed both. Torvik (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames in the lead

No one calls it "cannabis" in vernacular use. We ought list a few of the most-common nicknames in the lead (though I agree that it had ballooned too much before someone came along and cut them all out). –xeno^talk 20:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Cannabis, also known as marijuana or marihuana which is derived from the Spanish, and ganja (from Sanskrit: गांजा gañjā, hemp), as well as weed, pot, buddha or bud, grass, herb, green, reefer, and mary jane (M.J.),among many others, refers to any number of preparations of..."

I have removed this interminable list. For the following reasons:

1. WP:UNDUE weight on nicknames. It's a distracting list that shows up well after the topic of the article is clear.
2. No reliable sources have been produced for these names, which makes them Original Research. They are slang, which means anyone can add another name from some dubious word of mouth.
3. WP:TRIVIA

Readers wishing to have every possible nickname for marijuana, testicles, or prostitute can consult urbandictionary, wiktionary, or any site oriented to that subject. There is no place for this on wikipedia.--Loodog (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Merged with above. As stated, I think a few of the most common are necessary for the lead, as neither cannabis nor marijuana is commonly used in the vernacular. I actually think a section on this would be worthwhile and easily sourced. –xeno^talk 20:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't add "balls" to the testicles page, or "whore" to the prostitute article because it's not the most common vernacular. This is slang, not a difference of standardized terminology.

That being said, we could always create an article called List of slang words for cannabis, but to put such a list in this article is undue weight on the concept of naming pot, especially in the LEAD.--Loodog (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see how undue applies here. See, however, WP:BOLDTITLE for an MOS example where a few common names are included in the lead. –xeno^talk 20:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• As it will be impossible to agree on which are the most common I would support only two appearing in the lead: pot and weed. These I think are the most common. –xeno^talk 20:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The lead should contain the words that are of worldwide notability: Marijuana, weed, pot and ganja (The first and last especially due to their history). The remaining endless list of slang terms should be adapted into a prose format instead of a list, and incorporated into a new heading of the article, with explanations as to where/how the term originated. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, my above suggestion included both marijuana and ganja, and spoke only to the section "...as well as". –xeno^talk 20:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If you really want this list of 9 names to stay in the article, I definitely can't see dedicating a section to it. I would grant a footnote to the last 6 and have no problem keeping marijuana, cannabis, and ganja as proper terms. The purpose of listing multiple names is (1) to ensure the reader knows (s)he's in the right place and (2) to recognize a lack of a universal proper name. Given the giant picture of the flower and the words marijuana, cannabis, and ganga, I don't think any pothead who knows the more colloquial vernacular would be confused when (s)he doesn't see the word "weed".--Loodog (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I think we should have 5: cannabis, marjiuana, ganja, pot, weed. (My most recent self-revert to restore more names was because I noticed I had inadvertently broached 3R) –xeno^talk 23:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, I cite adding "balls" to the testicles page, or "hooker" to prostitute. I agree "pot" and "weed" to be absolutely common terms, but they are nonetheless slang. Wikipedia articles are not... "Usage guides or slang and idiom guides."--Loodog (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Does wikipedia have to wait for websters to officially make it a word for it to not be considered slang and thus tossed aside? I think when the word is used by the press and the governments of many countries world-wide, that a term has bridged the gap between regional slang and common usage. Wikipedia is not a dictionary is for short stub articles, and not for full fledged articles such as this where several terms are known world-wide. Cannabis should obviously be included because of the article name. Marijuana should be used because of its role in the first prohibition. Ganja should be used due to its cultural history and connection with the plant throughout the past, and as it is more recognized than Cannabis by most of the world. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly a nonrefutable source that would support a wikipedia article, and indeed ganja is there, as is cannabis, and marijuana. I would support these as standard nonslang terms for inclusion.--Loodog (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Then I guess there's no need to debate further, merriam-webster also list 'weed' and 'pot': [32] [33] –xeno^talk 20:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Pot and Weed are most often listed as slang: [34][35] NJGW (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Merriam Webster > Dictionary.com –xeno^talk 20:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

On related note, all the names I'm calling nonstandard have redirects on their dab pages to here anyway. So I would like your preference.

Preference

A - All 9 names in lead as is currently the case

B - 3 (cannabis, marijuana, ganja) mentioned in lead, footnote the other 6.

C - 3 (cannabis, marijuana, ganja) mentioned in lead with or without footnote for other 6 while all 9 mentioned in separate article List of terms used for cannabis

D - Other preference (specify).

I would not be averse to B or C, but believe A is inappropriate.--Loodog (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

E: C,M,G,pot,weed mentioned in lead. Sourcible per above. –xeno^talk 20:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ditto Loodog on prefs... the rest are slang ([36][37]) and don't need to be in the lead. B seems to be a good compromise, though a separate list or link to Wiktionary may be needed instead if people keep adding every word in the book to it (trees, smoke, stuff, blaze, etc, etc, etc). NJGW (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd go with Merriam-Webster over 'dictionary.com' which I don't believe qualifies as an RS. –xeno^talk 20:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Have another look, Dictionary.com compiles several sources which I believe you would be happy to call RS's in one easy to find place. They have no content of their own. NJGW (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

While I would grant to xeno that m-w does establish the latter 6 as being used, m-w is notably silent on type of usage, which dictionary.com also comments on. m-w does not contradict dictionary.com since the latter offers a consistent definition and additional detail.

All that aside, I am unconvinced that "pot", "grass", etc.. are ever used as anything other than slang.--Loodog (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like semantics to me. "Weed" and "Pot" are very common terms for the drug [38] [39]. –xeno^talk 20:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What is slang

Oh shit, now we're in a real can of worms. Even linguists don't really know what slang is. One thing is for sure... slang is just semantics. As for the guideline, wp:LEAD#Alternative names seems to indicate that names in the lead are to help people know they are in the right place. It goes on to say, "Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves." This might not apply to slang though (no clear statement in wp:LEAD.

On a side note to this, wp:Common name seems to suggest that this whole article be renamed "Marijuana", since hardly anyone outside of scholarly literature (including gov, news, smokers, parents....) calls it "cannabis". NJGW (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Support move to Marijuana, and three alternate names (ganja, weed, pot) in the lead with "cannabis" as the medical name and (possibly) a section on Names. –xeno^talk 21:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose At the risk of seeming maniacal about a minor thing, pot and weed are colloquial slang. Ganja, cannabis, and marijuana all have a degree of "officialness" to them.

Side note: slang is apparently defined as either (1) terminology particular to a group or (2) nonstandard vocabulary typically composed of [things not immediately fitting what we have here]. --Loodog (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Marijuana is almost never used in the UK and I guess in NZ and Aus so changing it to that seems a bit rash. Herbal Hi (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As a slang term (daily use by users/dealers) "Marijuana" is probably not used anywhere. It's the term used/clearly-understood in many places around the world by press, law enforcement, citizens, schools, etc... What term is used semi-formally (ie not just by researchers) in the UK? NJGW (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Simply cannabis. I think the current name is the clearest way of organising this and the main cannabis article. Is cannabis never used in the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbal Hi (talk • contribs) 23:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Cannabis" is used much less often then "Marijuana" [40][41], and the same could probably be said for pot/weed/grass. Users/dealers seem to have a very localized set of term preferences that avoids most of the above (though ironically "cannabis" is beginning to gain acceptance as a much cooler alternative to the classic slang terms). The big question is raised by wp:Common name. "Marijuana" is instantly recognizable by anyone in the world as the drug from the Cannabis plant. NJGW (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Can I just say that I have almost never heard anyone use the term "marijuana" in day to day life in the UK... except when watching American films. As for "pot", it's also almost never used here. "Cannabis" is pretty much the common term used in the UK, and I believe most of Europe. Marijuana is more of an American term. The two main slang words here are "hash" (for cannabis resin) and "weed" (for herbal cannabis). Please be careful not to be too US-centric. 91.84.87.110 (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Follow up: besides the article currently clearly states "The term marijuana refers to the dried leaves of the Cannabis plants and the flowers of female plants". But the article is not just about weed, it's about hash and other cannabis products too. So marijuana is not even a synonym for cannabis. Also your Google News search shows that for "marijuana", all the top articles are American, and for "cannabis", most are British, but a few are American too. Besides almost everyone might smoke marijuana in the States, but hash is traditionally a lot more common in the UK and Europe, although weed is also quite popular and increasingly so. 91.84.87.110 (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, marijuana is a US centric term not really usedd outside North America - unfortunately Americans will keep thinking this is na US encyclopedia and repeat this mistake which we have been arguing about for years. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 13:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm going to have to oppose this on one particular point but also I generally agree with some of the points made. Specifically the title says "the effects of the drug cannabis are mediated by cannabinoids". Cannabidiol is one such cannbinoid and it does not just occur in female plant but occurs in large quantities in hemp. There are parts of wikipedia that state it isn't psychoactive, however it has been found to be as effective as atypical anti-psychotics in treating schizophirenia and is thought to be an anxiolytic drug. A minor point perhaps but we do not need a seperate 'effects of hemp' article. Supposed (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I think that Supposed's point about hemp above is very important, and psychoactive use of cannabis is not necessarily use of the flowers of the female plant, i.e. what the US government calls marijuana. The plant is cannabis, and that's how the article should be named. I also think it is worth noting that Ganja is not Sanskrit but modern Hindu, the original Sanskrit name is Ganjika, which has meaning in that language. —Whig (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Though "marijuana" is more common in official US use, my understanding for the current name is that "marijuana" was a contrived name, created to sound Spanish, while "cannabis" comes straight from Latin, which in turn was descended from Greek.[42] "Ganja" traces back to Sanskrit.[43].--Loodog (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)