Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Cannabis is not a drug

Am I missing something? Why is cannabis referred to as a drug? THC is a drug. Cannabis is a plant that contains a drug. This is like referring to poppies as a drug.Heqwm2 (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point, we don't refer to poppies as a drug. Opium is a drug. —Whig (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Please look at the WHO definition: http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/terminology/who_lexicon/en/

Drug: A term of varied usage. In medicine, it refers to any substance with the potential to prevent or cure disease or enhance physical or mental welfare, and in pharmacology to any chemical agent that alters the biochemical physiological processes of tissues or organisms. Hence, a drug is a substance that is, or could be, listed in a pharmacopoeia. In common usage, the term often refers specifically to psychoactive drugs, and often, even more specifically, to illicit drugs, of which there is non-medical use in addition to any medical use. Professional formulations (e.g. "alcohol and other drugs") often seek to make the point that caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, and other substances in common non- medical use are also drugs in the sense of being taken atleast in part for their psychoactive effects.

Cannabis fulfills the criteria of this definition. Panoramix303 (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Cannabis is a plant with many industrial uses. Some specially bred varieties of the plant have psychoactive properties. These varieties are mostly referred to by the press and in scholarly literatureas "marijuana".
That all is beside the point though, as "drug" is a loaded term. No other main drug article has the "(drug)" distinguisher in the title. It's not descriptive, as Panoramix points out it is "a term of varied usage". wp:TITLE states "Titles should be brief without being ambiguous; Titles should make linking to the article simple." Varied usage means ambiguity (is this article about the physiological effects of cannabis? or its use as a medical drug? a psychoactive drug? an illicit drug and it's legal/societal issues? WTF do we mean by drug here???). As for making "linking to the article simple", 'Marijuana' is 9 universally recognizable characters meaning exactly what this article is about to every single person who speaks English, vs. 15 characters which are not used together in the same sequence outside of Wikipedia. NJGW (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The distiguisher is there to distinguish from the cannabis article and this one. The cannabis article is about the plant. This is about the psychoactive use of the plant (i.e. the drug aspect of it). I suspect there was a page split a long time ago, as result of the whole "cannabis is not a drug" debate.--Loodog (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
You're right of course, but it raises 2 questions:
  1. Is Cannabis the proper term for the psychoactive use of Cannabis? (per the evidence above, it looks like Marijuana is much more frequently used and needs no distinguisher, fulfilling the requirements of wp:TITLE)
  2. If this page is to stay here, is "{drug}" the best distinguisher when even you have to say "the psychoactive use of the plant" so we'll understand what you mean by "drug"? Afterall, even according to the WHO the term is ambiguous.
I'd say the answer to the first question is that "Marijuana" better fits wp:TITLE better than the current title, and even better than just plain "Cannabis". Others editors have claimed that "marijuana" is slang, but I see no evidence of that assumption in this extensive compilation of sources, so it fails wp:V. Someone could argue (as I have recently) that the article should be moved to Cannabis (recreational use) (which would be much more descriptive of a title and less POV than the current title), but why make the title even longer when we can shorten it to a more standard AND recognizable form? NJGW (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Marijuana is just as ambiguous as cannabis since the definitions given are identical. Renaming this article to "marijuana" would be no more valid than moving the cannabis article to "marijuana". And both should be located at a place which international readers would agree is the most recognized, official name.
As for other suggestions about the distinguisher: "recreational use" is unwieldy, improper (seems to claim that if something is used differently, it ceases to be the same thing), and an awkward politically correct way to say "drug".--Loodog (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Unless, you want to claim that the cannabis article should be moved to cannabis (plant) or hemp. That's a different argument, which must be taken up there.--Loodog (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Loo, cherry picking a single dictionary ref gets us nowhere. Marijuana is preferred by scholars, journalists, and the public. Many languages use "Marijuana" or some derivative as their term for the recreational drug. It's internationally used and recognizable. I really don't understand the problem. "Drug" is ambiguous. There's no getting around that, and Cannabis will not end up being moved to "(plant)" (and you know this). I totally agree that in life, calling it "cannabis" is much cooler than calling it "marijuana". But wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And as cool as it WP is, it's nowhere near as cool as life... especially with all these policies we have to follow. NJGW (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm just looking up the first dictionary I know. I'm not cherry picking and I have no preference for whether the article goes here or to "marijuana". Please stop assuming I have some ulterior purpose or that I have an intention that I don't, and that the intention I have is for the wrong reasons.
It all comes down to three concepts, two are naming issues and the third is a question of WP:PRIMARYUSAGE: (1) how people most commonly refer to the plant this stuff grows on, (2) how people most commonly refer to the psychoactive parts of it, (3) what is commonly meant by the word "cannabis" or "marijuana".
Though I'm not well-versed in international naming, my experience that been that "marijuana" is a more common word for both. Therefore, if I had my way, this article would be located at marijuana (psychoactive) or marijuana (drug), the cannabis page would be located at marijuana (plant) and the search phrase "marijuana", being inherently ambiguous, would go to a dab page. But I don't know how popular "marijuana" is abroad. Addition - I would accept your google searches as representative of common usage.--Loodog (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Arguments ad Google are unreliable. In my experience as a former drug worker and trainer and as a colleague of researchers on the subject, "cannabis" is the generic term for the drug that we used. "Marijuana" was used to refer to herbal cannabis and "hashish" to resin. This may be a case where WP:ENGVAR applies.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Recreational use of cannabis seems to be the most appropriate wording to me (follows article naming such as Recreational use of dextromethorphan). The current title is inappropriate, as it specifically avoids discussion of medical cannabis, which should certainly be included if this is the article for the "drug" side of cannabis.--Remurmur (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The distinction being made here is between the whole plant and its psychoactive pieces, not between different usages of it.--Loodog (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. I didn't mean to come off as accusing you of ulterior motives. I just thought your mind was made up already. I think we need to agree on some basic facts of usage etc first, and then open an RFC with a few options. A page as visited (important?) as this needs a well thought out and wide consensus before being renamed or moved. NJGW (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a feeling we need to canvas the cannabis editors to get them in on the discussion. I personally think that since "cannabis" (or "marijuana" for that matter) is a word with no meaning predominanting, it needs to be a dab page. Although we'll probably get objections with the whole "number of clicks it takes to get to an article" argument. Ugh.--Loodog (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
We have had extensive discussion about this in the past and there has been consensus that marijuana is not the correct encyclopedic term. It is a term that was applied to cannabis by the US government and used to confuse the public so that people did not realize that it was cannabis. —Whig (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussions in the past are past consensuses. A new consensus can be formed at any time. As far as what the US government did in the early 1900s, that should be in the article, but wp:common name doesn't take the etymology of the term into account. The fact remains that "marijuana" is more common in scientific lit, news, and the general web. NJGW (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not think there is a present consensus to change to "marijuana." I would oppose such a change. —Whig (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
We haven't posed the question yet to gauge consensus. I think this would be a big question for the whole wikiproject, as there are discussions at Cannabis and Cannabis sativa that are also related. We would need a centralized discussion addressing the names of these three articles together. NJGW (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course, Consensus can change. My personal vote would be for marijuana actually, though I'm not too strongly attached to this. My reasoning: if "marijuana" is the most commonly used term in print and speech, then it is the most commonly used name, regardless of the history of the term.--Loodog (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It is, however, not the most commonly used term. "Cannabis" is used in major print far more often than "marijuana," I don't even know where you'd get hinted otherwise. Besides, the origins of the term "marijuana" are largely negative. There is a reason why the "Prostitute" article is not called "Whore." It is for the same reason that this article is called "Cannabis." That's the name of the subject. The name of the subject is not "marijuana," in the same way that it is not "weed," "pot," or "sticky icky." American news media wrongly refers to cannabis as "marijuana" surprisingly frequently. However, the British media unfailingly calls it "cannabis" almost every time, whether in a positive or negative light. News and media are not a determining factor for naming an article. I strongly oppose renaming this article to "Marijuana." Wikipedia is about science and truth, not popular terminology. "Marijuana" may be popular in some communities, but that doesn't make it true. Torvik (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Google searches, news articles, and most of my personal experience. As I've said, I'm not positing my experience as the absolute for most frequent usage worldwide so I'm open to argument. I don't mean to be confrontational, but I'm a bit confused by your argument: the basis for your objection seems to be that cannabis is the "real" or "true" name and that marijuana is this substitute name that's inaccurately dispensed.
1. If you're talking about "true" as closest to reality, than either word, really any word, is "true". Shakespeare once remarked, There's no semantic value in a name. Different people in different circles and countries give things different names; none of them is inherently superior or more "true". Science can't prove one word is more um.... real.
2. If you're talking about "true" as in "what the word means", language is defined by usage. If 75% of the US tomorrow starts calling pot "kerfoozle" over all other names, that becomes its name. In English, we have no Académie française, so the language becomes defined to mean whatever people use it for. Wikipedia's stated policy is Use the most easily recognized name because of this.
3. Verifiability, not truth. There's no point in pursuing what is true on wikipedia, because we only work based on what is verifiable, even if the sources aren't true.
--Loodog (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm talking about truth in that it is the scientific name (which also happens to be common speech). Consider the scientific name for human, homo sapiens, which is not really used in common speech. (It is, of course, in some situations, but news reporters never say "homo sapiens impact on the earth" or whatever.) That's why the article is called Human rather than Homo sapiens. It's different with cannabis; Cannabis is the scientific name, but it is also used in common speech (i.e. in print, news etc), therefore it is superior as an article title to any other term which is used in common speech but is NOT scientific, such as marijuana, weed, pot, etc. Torvik (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see section below (Naming of Article) where this matter was already resolved, I thought. —Whig (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Right, good call. Nevermind then. Torvik (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Cannabis is a substance derived from Psychedelic, Psychedelic itself can be called a sub-culture of Hippie (counter-culture). You have to read some of the articles below so that everything can be enlightened:
https://www.stoneeman.com/2022/10/the-word-psychedelic-comes-from-two.html
https://www.stoneeman.com/2022/10/Mengulik-Sejarah-Budaya-Hippie.html Stoneeman (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

How many is "many, many"?

What's the deal with that? How many kinds of THC are there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.83.78 (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Those aren't kinds of THC, those are kinds of cannabinoids. THC is just one cannabinoid. There are, probably, hundreds of cannabinoids in cannabis, but we don't know them all. That's why it says "many, many". Among them: THC, CBD, CBN, etc etc. Most of them aren't psychoactive. THC is the primary psychoactive one. CBD, for example, isn't psychoactive but it does produce mild relaxing effects. There isn't very much research done into cannabinoids, but it is suggested that THC, CBD, and perhaps other cannabinoids are tumor-suppressive and cancer-fighting. And it's illegal. For some reason. Torvik (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Illegalization in the US

The article states that the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 made cannabis use illegal, but the article on the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 states that the act didn't criminalize cannabis use or possession but created procedures for cannabis handling that if violated would be subject to fine.

The article also contains a reference to the fact that improper use of cannabis was already illegal in all US states by the time of the passage of the act: "Anslinger also referred to the International Opium Convention that from 1928 included cannabis as a drug, and that all states had some kind of laws against improper use of cannabis". Recreational use of cannabis it seems was already illegal at the state levels, and the intent behind the act seemed to have to do with alarm with a threat of mass importation of cannabis (from illegal Mexicans) to be sold specifically for those purposes that were already illegal. The procedures mandated by the act were a guarantee that cannabis sale or import wasn't intended for those illegal uses.

It references the International Opium Convention of 1928, an international drug control treaty, which listed cannabis as a drug and restricted the sale of Indian hemp to countries that prohibited it, and required shipments to state "exclusively for medical or scientific purposes." The US, among other countries, had attempted a broader ban on Indian hemp.

As it would appear, recreational use of cannabis was already illegal and attempts to enact bans were part of broader drug bans (such as at the International Opium Convention) which occurred in the Prohibition period (1919 - 1933). So, while there are a lot of interesting theories suggesting ulterior motives behind cannabis bans, it seems cannabis was targeted for bans at the same time alcohol and opium were targeted, which would suggest: there was a concern about all recreational drugs, under the idea they were social vices. Not only western societies were interested in bans, but also countries like China and Egypt, according to the article on the drug control treaty. The country mainly opposed to bans was India which was the main exporter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.167.151 (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, in the explanation of the rationale for it's illegalization, the line "The illegalization was rather a result of racism directed to associate American immigrants of Mexican and African descent with cannabis abuse," seems pretty conclusory, but I think the prior language in the article makes it clear that there were probably many reasons for weed's illegalization, not all of which are clear. Also, this language seems a bit "conspiracy theory." Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Republicofjosh01 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Cannabinoids

Why are CBL, CBC, CBG etc etc; all the minor, non-psychoactive cannabinoids listed in the Cannabis (drug) article? Doesn't it make sense to move these to Cannabis **But keeping THC and CBD in the marijuana article? Tdinatale (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The same issue is showing up in Medical cannabis with not only all the various cannabinoids but also pharmaceutical cannabinoids. We need to figure out article namings across multiple articles. —Whig (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I always believed in KISS -- keep it simple s*****. lol.. yeah.. it just makes sense to put more of that stuff in another "cannabinoid" section in the cannabis article. Tdinatale (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Cannabis (drug)

Right now (8/4/09 at 6:51 EST) the article says "[cannabis] ... refer[s] to any sort of preparation of the plants of the Cannabis genus intended for human ingestion for the purpose of inducing psychoactive effects. The most common form of Cannabis is the natural herbal form." Um... last time I checked ONLY the female plants are used for marijuana or as a drug. And furthermore they're always always always dried out and then smoked, sifted whatever. I wanted to change it to "[cannabis] ... refer[s] to any sort of preparation of the plants of the dried female flowers of the Cannabis genus intended for human ingestion for the purpose of inducing psychoactive effects. The most common form of Cannabis is the natural herbal form." User NJGW seems to disagree and I'd love to know why. Tdinatale (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that no one ever smokes the male leaves, the female leaves, the male flowers, etc? I'm sure there are places in the world that feel that anything less then organic, chronic, seedless female flowers is compost, but some people have even been known to smoke seeds and stems (on multiple occasions). Of course, if you have some source that says that marijuana is only the flowers of the female cannabis plant, I guess we have to go with it. NJGW (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Im saying I know what I'm talking about that's what I'm saying!!! And no, the male plants are only valued for breeding or hemp. Tdinatale (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but there are plenty of places on the world where cannabis is harvested and consumed, regardless of the plant sex. That the female plant is more potent is one thing but it does not mean that the male part is discarded. In some countries where it grows wild it is simply more convenient to harvest everything. Panoramix303 (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
There's loads of cannabidiol in male buds as far as I'm aware which should have some psychoactive effect. Supposed (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
There are no buds in the male plants; they only produce leaves and pollen sacs. Only the females have the buds that are smoked. Superjj (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, but if we're going to be a legitamate encyclopedia, it should be noted that generally speaking, the female plants are used for marijuana. Tdinatale (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

...yes? Maybe? Tdinatale (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

One would need to source that both sexes are used as a drug; common sense dictates that its the female plant that is used, this is easily referenceable and should be in the opening. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Different strains

Should "dro" be on this list?

I have never heard of a strain called "dro", and imagine that this was added to the list by someone who wasn't aware that "dro" is a slang term / abbreviation for hydroponic, which of course is a growing method not a strain at all. I could not find reference to "dro" on sites that sell seeds of various strains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superjj (talk • contribs) 07:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is no source provided for such a strain existing, it can be safely removed. I suspect you are correct about the slang meaning. —Whig (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Is anyone else wondering why the Cannabis article is protected indefinitely but not the Cannabis (drug) article? Is anyone else sick of reverting the endless vandalism? Or is that just me Tdinatale (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Biochemistry in intro

I'd like to see the 3rd paragraph, containing the biochemical information, moved down to its own section somewhere. It doesn't belong in the intro and is off-putting. -Jordgette (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the CBL, CBC, CBG etc cannabinoids listed? I agree, especially since they are not psychoactive, they shouldn't even really bare mentioning, unless you want to create a new section such as "Other cannabinoids" or so, go for it. Tdinatale (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Although keep THC and CBD in the introduction as these 2 are the most abundant cannabinoids by far. Tdinatale (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 Done Tdinatale (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A flower cluster, not a flower

Thanks, Tdinatale, for cleaning up the intro as I suggested. But I'm not sure why you reverted my tweak of the caption. The photo shows a cluster of cannabis flowers. Each flower is very small and produces two pistils. I edited the caption because it was wrong...the caption should be accurate. I think it should be changed to "flower cluster." I don't care if it says "bud" or not. Thanks. -Jordgette (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's safe to assume we're talking about a cluster. And unless that's a botany term it doesn't look professional. Similarly the word "bud" has a colloquial connotation. We're an encyclopedia, not urban dictionary. Tdinatale (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree about "bud" but not "flower." It wouldn't be accurate to show a bouquet of flowers and caption it as "a flower." That's exactly the same case here. "A flower" is patently inaccurate.
The botanical term for a flower cluster is inflorescence, so you could say "a dried inflorescence (flower cluster)," although that may sound unnecessarily jargon-ish.
Alternatively, you can do something about the singular word "flower" -- perhaps "a dried flowering structure" or "the dried flowering portion."
But the criterion that trumps all others here is accuracy, which is why I strongly object to "a flower" in the caption of that photograph. Thanks for your attention to this issue. -Jordgette (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a valid point. Plural flowers look better? I mean I get your point and I like it but it just looks better as simply "flowers" or if it looks better, "flowers from a/the female Cannabis plant." Cluster just doesn't look right as it just looks obviously like a cluster. It's like saying "Oh he has a Chihuahua dog." Well, obviously it's a dog. Just like well obviously its a cluster, as it looks like a ball. You see what I'm saying? If you want flowerS to suggest that its plural (more than 1) flower (therefore it is a cluster) I can agree with that. 23:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, that's a fine solution. It's accurate now, and that's all that matters. Thanks for listening. -Jordgette (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Glad you like it.. but if you have any suggestions/problems, please share! :) Tdinatale (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually I think it originally was "Dried flowerS" ... but of course someone changed it. Why this article isn't semi-protected and Cannabis is.. is beyond me. Tdinatale (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hash is not per definition stronger than weed

Come on people, that's just nonesense. There's plenty of incredibly strong weed varieties and there's plenty of very mellow hash varieties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.1.123 (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, find a reliable source and we'll put it in here, without the slang. And hash is just the trichomes, so yes it is more potent, unless you have a source saying otherwise. Tdinatale (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

I realize that the genus name in the Linnaeus taxonomic system should be capitalized, I understand that. When talking about the plant in proper scientific language, it should read Cannabis sativa or Cannabis indica with the genus capitalized and the species not. But do we really need to capitalize cannabis throughout the entire article just to stick to the biological taxonomic system? The article really isn't talking about the plant genus. The Cannabis article talks about that. This is basically the pot article, and when it says "cannabis" it's talking more generally about the plant, the drug, and the idea, concept or culture of cannabis as a whole, rather than specifically a genus name. I don't think we should capitalize cannabis throughout the entire article when just talking about pot. It looks sloppy and makes it clunky to read. Also, it probably doesn't need to be italicized either. Torvik (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice point, I agree. --John (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Just did it. I hope you all agree that it looks better. Please don't immediately revert it back without discussing here first, as it was a pretty big job, and I don't want to see it go to waste. Torvik (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
It's the name of a plant genus, used as a drug. It should be capitalized.. i think. Tdinatale (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
"The article really isn't talking about the plant genus. The Cannabis article talks about that. This is basically the pot article, and when it says "cannabis" it's talking more generally about the plant, the drug, and the idea, concept or culture of cannabis as a whole, rather than specifically a genus name [alone]." Do you not agree? Torvik (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis is NOT 'Cheeba'!!!

Cheeba is street slang for HEROINE - NOT Cannabis! Cheeba is Latin American (probably coined by Bolivian Miners in the infamously awful Potosi Mines) Slang word for, 'An Animal so stupid, that it will work itself to death for you - all for a handful of Plant Material!' The Hispanic Heroine Dealers are responsible for this addition to the Drug World Lexicon; as they think that the Heroine Addicts who they 'service' are just that; "Stupid Animals who will work themselves to DEATH for a handful of plant extract called Heroine. They make more money off of Marijuana, than they do off of Heroine; and far, far more money than they could off of working a Donkey/Mule to death, in a mine, their fields, whatever. Begging your pardons; but as a Chronic Neuropathic Pain Sufferer, who used Medical Marijuana to REPLACE the Methadone/Oxycontin 'Cocktail' that I was taking for Chronic Pain, in 2001; I'm offended that anyone would make such an ERROR! I am not a Stupid Animal! Would a stupid animal replace Methadone (which your graph clearly indicates is much more harmful than Cannabis) with the much, much less harmful Good Herb? Please, lets use Wiki to tell the Truth about the FAILURE of The War on Drugs, not to repeat the same LIES that, ultimately, led to my being forced - like many others have also been - to go back on Methadone, Morphine, Oxtcontin, etc.!!! Jimboficator (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the redirect of "cheeba" to the Cannabis (drug) article. Note that the word "cheeba" does not appear at all in the article, but if a longer article "Nicknames for cannabis" were to exist, I'm sure it would find its way in there. Though, perhaps we should add a hatnote, do you have a source for cheeba=heroin? –xenotalk 23:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I just looked over the results of a Google search for "cheeba", and everything for the first few pages of hits indicates that when "cheeba" relates to drugs, it means marijuana. So a source would definitely be needed -- a very good source in fact. Looie496 (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The funny thing about slang is that the definition of a slang term is whatever the majority of people think it means, and most people seem to think "cheeba" means "marijuana".--Remurmur (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Claims by 69.127.18.249

1)The source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16191670 state "Samples of cannabis preparations from randomly selected coffee shops were analyzed using gas chromatography (GC-FID) for THC, CBD and CBN. In 2004, the average THC level of Dutch home-grown marijuana (Nederwiet) (20.4% THC) was significantly higher than that of imported marijuana (7.0% THC)." As I read the text was the average level of THC 20.4 % in the samples from Dutch home-grown marijuana, so I can not understand your claim. Dala11a (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry you don't understand. Let me help you: Who cares what some samples of some Dutch hydro in 2004 were? Are you going to put the strength of every single strain in the world under the potency section? Good luck with that! 69.127.18.249 (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

2) You claim that "a press release in 2006 isn't authoritative". My answer: A fact is that FDA has it on www.fda.gov today, see [1] with the text "Page last updated 06/18/2009. You can not complain about that source. Dala11a (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No, a press release is not an official policy, nor is a Bush era announcement official US doctrine, nor is there call for what the Bush administration ordered the FDA to proclaim in 2006 in the second sentence of that section. You are obviously trying to poison the well by cherry picking public policy in a section set aside for scientific research. 69.127.18.249 (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a general information. The press release is of April 20, 2006. FDA reorganised their website in mid-June 2009, that's were the timestamp comes from (see WP:Medicine Talk Archive 14). You can compare the text with the webarchive, it's identical to the original tect. →Alfie±Talk 22:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

3)You wrote: how can THC be medicinal but herbal not? My answer: See FDA's text on [2]. Dala11a (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you please site scientific evidence for THC being medicinal while Marijuana is not? How about scientific consensus that says Marijuana is not medicinal? Or are you just going to sit there and say that public policy dictates science? 69.127.18.249 (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Listen, you are confusing legality with what is scientific and trying to make a case for the legality to not be in there because you don't like hearing it. Guess what?- There is no reason to not have a BRIEF medical legality paragraph in the medical use section. Yes? PS I moved it to the bottom of the section. Tdinatale (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Further comment from Tdinatale's talk page for context:

First, to have a separate paragraph that briefly describes the MEDICAL legality in the MEDICAL use section does not constitute a POV. You, my friend, are pushing the POV by doing your own WP:OR (original research) into why someone else is pushing for something. It's not appropriate. Second of all, I don't care about your opinion on the FDA -- there is no reason to not have its stance in that paragraph. Stop making conclusions. Tdinatale (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see you think the section is called "Medical". Well, it's actually called "Effects". Saying "One effect is that the FDA thinks there's no medical benefit" is a little weird, don't you think? A little strange that you think I'm the one "confusing legality with what is scientific". As for having multiple paragraphs in multiple sections of the article restating the legality all the time... why? Isn't that just clutter? When a reader looks at the effects section, they want to know the scientificlly proven effects of the substance... not what a political organization believes should be the correct usage of the substance. And if you're not familiar with the FDA as a political organization I can point you in a few directions that will help school you. 69.127.18.249 (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and pointing out another editor's COI is not OR... otherwise we'd have to get rid or this page and all the other noticeboards. (Oh shit... no more reporting vandalism!!!?) 69.127.18.249 (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, something medical is going to have an effect on the person... what planet are you living on? Again, I really dont care what the FDA thinks, YES i know they have their head up their asses, but that's not what wikipedia is for. I dont care what political ideology they have, what they think, regardless, should be in here somehow. Let history judge how bad they act, not you or me here, now. Tdinatale (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, I'm a little shocked you'd think about reporting vandalism on me for wanting to discuss my POV. I'm glad you're so sure of yourselfTdinatale (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
What statement did I make that made you think I was reporting vandalism on you? Was it the part where I said 'If users can't point out COI because it's OR, then users can't point out Vandalism for the same reason'? Cause your interpretation is really weird. I was just calling you out for not knowing what OR really means.
Also, it is the policy of wikipedia that editors should decide on the acceptability of sources. I agree that the FDA source can be used to state that the FDA doesn't condone use as medicine, but as you point out "they have their head up their asses" and thus "what political ideology they have" must be considered when deciding how to use them as a source. So I'm not sure what relevance they have outside of the legality section. Right now where you finally placed the statements as a blurb at the end is much better, but I still think the public policy debate doesn't belong in the science section. Also, soon there will be people trying to take that blurb out because this is a global encyclopedia, not one about American policy... and probably Dala will be coming in to add the medical legality of every single country in the world there instead of the legality section below. That section should be on the consensus of medical journals. 69.127.18.249 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You really need to be more specific. What "public policy"? What "science" section? There is no science section. If, as I assume, the FDA info in the Medical use subsection then we can talk about that. So I'm assuming that's what you're talking about.

So, here's the truth. The FDA is part of the US Gov't. OK? They aren't a private company or research group, they are the government, so that is a little different; otherwise I'd say, yes you have a point and isn't relevant. You can question the government but we can't sit here say "The FDA, or the USA Food and drug admin, you know the guys who your tax dollars support, but they don't support medical mj because they're from GWB's presidency and therefore are politically-motivated" isn't going to fly. I get your concern but that should be part of Criticism_of_the_Food_and_Drug_Administration, not the medical cannabis section. Also, the legality of more than one country is in there, so I'm glad you saw it wasn't just about American policy. This is a summary, only. Just the facts. k? Just like any other controversial item on Wikipedia, we aren't biased, only objective. Tdinatale (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"What "public policy"?" Uh, medical marijuana... it's the only policy issue being addressed here. Please do try to keep up.
"What "science" section?" "Effects". I said it 5 times already, but here's a sixth: "Effects" is only about scientific findings. If you're not clear about that, please say so. Everything in there should only be about scientific findings about the effects of marijuana.
And to fully hold your hand and walk you through this: Here's a letter written by some medical research doctors in response to that very press release that we've been talking about, here's a related news article in a research journal. Here's a journal article discussing the current state of affairs. As you can see, there is clear and troublesome conflict between policy and science. i love weed. We should not be in the business of making the same mistake, especially when reliable sources are here to show it to you with a neon sign. The FDA makes policy. Researchers produce scientific medical findings. The two are separate issues.
Now, like you said "this is a summary." Great, but the legality of the substance in two countries has nothing to do with the medical utility of a substance. A more pertinent statement would be about it's history as medicine, the evolution of that usage (as I understand it, George Washington once lost money on a medical marijuana venture), and then the general state of affairs globally. 69.127.18.249 (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you know what a legal summary is? Seriously, this is getting annoying. This is a summary. All the science can go in the Medical cannabis article. Take it there. Thanks. Tdinatale (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
But, if you have a proposal of what you'd like it to be, you are more than welcome to post it here. Tdinatale (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
We can talk about the science behind the "medical" marijuana if you want. I was some years ago supplier to a factory that manufactures a drug that is approved by the FDA for sale in the United States. I do not work for any drug manufacturer today. The drug was manufactured by fermentation (compare with fermentation of alcohol, but a very different product). All materials that came into the factory was controlled accurately before they could be used, even trivial things like water, employees in the production have clothing like the emergency department at a hospital, the air in the room, the water etc. must meet strict requirements for purity, there should be traceability back to the provider of everything. Every package that came into the factory, every raw material must come from an approved and reviewed vendor, supplied with a batch number which could be traced. Anyone who worked with the process must show proof that he was trained on the particular work situation. If you had visited the wrong area close to the factory the contract ordered you to go home for the rest of the day, take a shower and wash all clothing. Approximately 1 / 5 part of the workforce belonged to the powerful control department with the power to immediately reject the entire production from that week. All products that are shipped from the factory had a standard potency and purity. The product was used by patients with one very special defect. There was no doubt about very positive effect with no known serious side effects if you took recommended dose, not less and not more than the recommended dose.
From a scientific view is almost all “medical” marijuana from another planet, a joke, compared with the factory above. Traceable raw material?, standard potency ?, purity ?, approved suppliers?, trained staff?, approved clothing?, tested?, batch number on all raw material in the process?, batch number on finished products? and so on. 90.238.82.212 (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)90.238.82.212 (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Here is a link to GUIDELINE ON GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF PROCESS VALIDATION, a FDA document about how to produce drugs approved by FDA[3] Dala11a (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Price

The price of Cannabis is known to vary from region to region in the United States. Other factors such as quantity, quality, and location contribute to the overall price paid by the end users. Based on data collected from each US county, the average price of Cannabis in the United States is 18.89 per high-quality gram.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dopestats (talk • contribs) 06:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Why can't I edit the main page?

Why can't I edit the main page? AuroraDragonEmporer777 (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Because the page is semi-protected. Panoramix303 (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Graphic Chart addiction vs. harm... ghb looks good !

Hi! In the embedded chart depicting phisical harm vs addiction, GHB is placed near cannabis, ie. low physical harm and moderate addiction. While I could agree in the latter, I think GHB is one of the most dangerous drugs that can easily cause a comma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.37.9.17 (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Routes of administration

I would like to push for bubblers being listed on the routes of administration. I originally added it to the list, but it was removed by user A8UDI without any reason (other than 'what is a bubbler??'). I think that there's good reason to add bubbler to the list: the page mentions chillums, and a chillum is just a variant of a pipe. If this is allowed, I don't see why a bubbler, a variant of bong (and a fairly popular utensil among those who smoke cannabis) is inappropriate for the article. Perhaps the argument could be made for chillums as an exception because of their use in spiritual rituals, but even so, one hitters are also mentioned (yet another variant of a pipe), so I am not convinced that adding bubblers to the list would be redundant. I am also wary of someone making extensive edits to a page about cannabis consumption who does not know what a bubbler is. At any rate, I am not going to re-add it to the page because I do not want to get into an edit war, but I do believe that it is worth mentioning and discussing.

Reference: http://www.water-bongs-glass-pipes.com/bubbler/tp/ib/i-198/

I'm sure there are more reputable sources out there that discuss bubblers, but a quick google search brings up quite a lot of information on it. Quetzapretzel (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, it servers no useful purpose to the overall article. Now if you wanna add something about the biosynthesis or breakdown of THC or metabolites here, or add more on the history and ancient history, that on the other hand, would be very useful. A8UDI talk 00:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd love to take this article to be as good as the cocaine article; use that as a reference for where this article should go. A8UDI talk 00:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm really having a hard time seeing how listing a route of administration under the "Routes of Administration" section of the article serves no useful purpose. The article isn't solely about the pharmacological or biological aspects of cannabis, and the section that the edit would go under has nothing to do with how THC is processed (or anything of the sort) at any rate. Quetzapretzel (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
As I said earlier, see the cocaine article as a reference for where this article should go; "bubblers" doesn't mean anything to 99% of our readers. A8UDI talk 20:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, A8UDI. I don't know if you're a cannabis user, but the term "bubbler" is pretty universal in the cannabis community. Everybody who smokes knows what a bubbler is. And it is very much a distinction between a pipe and a bong. It is relevant. I agree with Quetzapretzel. Torvik (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
"Doesn't mean anything to 99% of our readers" That statement doesn't mean anything to 100% of anybody. The cocaine article goes into plenty of detail about administration methods about which I know nothing about, so what's your point, A8UDI? Bubblers are most definitely relevant to this article, and besides, why do you care so much anyway?69.251.39.23 (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The values cited here are misleading and interpreted wrong. Listing the boiling point of THC at .000026 Atm is misleading. The boiling point of THC at 1 Atm is substantially higher, 404.9°C. This does not mean that the THC is not present in a vaporizer. Compounds will evaporate at temperatures below their boiling point. The flash point is the minimum temperature at which the vapor can be ignited. Unless the method of smoking introduces an ignition source in the smoke stream, the flash point has no effect on the prevalence of the compounds in the smoke. If there somehow is an ignition source, the compound would be less prevalent in the smoke than the vapor. -Andy 63.253.102.91 (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Skunk (strain)

Did strains of 'skunk', or high potency cannabis, exist pre January 2004 (when cannabis was made class C in the UK)? If so, I think it would be worth noting near this:

"In revisions to cannabis rescheduling in the UK, the government has rescheduled cannabis back from C to B. One of the purported reasons is the appearance of high potency cannabis.[101]"

(In essence, I'm asking when it was first grown & how long it's been around.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by J05HYYY (talk • contribs) 02:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


The earliest date I could find was SKUNK #1, inbred since 1978. I will add it to the article. Please check the citation and tell me if it's okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J05HYYY (talk • contribs) 02:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if "skunk" refers to one particular strain - various kinds of marijuana can smell "skunky".76.111.17.151 (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not refer to one particular strain. It refers to selection of particular strains. Just, because something smells "skunky", doesn't mean it's a strain of skunk... in the same way as that some pears can often 'look' like apples - they may well share similar physical qualities, whilst having distinct genetic qualities.

People in the media or in politics often (and sometimes deliberately) confuse the two... it makes for a good scare tactic.--86.161.182.169 (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Soap bar and references

The recent edits (7.12.2009) contradict most scientific literature and also forensic reports. The claim that the adulterants include barbiturates (no report in the forensic literature), benzene and toluene (both with quite distinct smells and low boiling points) sound not too reliable. In my opinion it would be better to remove the whole section, since it is very UK specific and the sources are not of best quality. Panoramix303 (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I take the point about those two but removing the section is a big no no. The citation is from is not reliable so please replace it with this



Few people would question the recommendation for further research ' we need to understand more about the COMT gene and its triggers, and more about which consumption factors (dose, frequency etc) and other variables are involved in any triggering effect of cannabis. But the ACMD failed to suggest research into the adulterants in cannabis products. Yet, during research over the last decade, numerous cannabis users have complained to me about the increasing adulteration of cannabis ' particularly soap-bar resin, Britain's most popular cannabis product, but also pesticides in skunk. Indeed, one small study of five soap-bar samples seized by Customs in 2001 found huge adulteration by many toxic substances, including soil, glue, engine oil and animal shit ' any of these adulterants could contribute to the triggering of psychotic symptoms in users. This problem is never mentioned in official reports, and whenever I have asked government officials about this (eg. at conferences), they simply shake their heads at me and reply with stuff like 'there is no evidence whatsoever of the adulteration of cannabis'. Yes, but that's because there has been no research, and cannabis is not routinely analysed for adulterants by the FSS like powdered drugs are. Indeed, the belief that cannabis resin is not adulterated is found only among people with no first-hand experience of the British cannabis market. I challenge anyone to show a piece of standard soap-bar to coffee-shop managers in Amsterdam, and try to find one who recognises it as cannabis resin. Most would find visual assessment enough, but smelling it usually confirms its fake status (smoking it is neither necessary nor advisable).


[4]This is a very serious problem with cannabis, as with other drugs, that lacks proper documentation. I believe the lifeline project estimated at one point this cannabis made up about 50% of the UK market and we know many of these compounds are carcinogenic. Besides, if we want to determine whether cannabis causes lung cancer, we have to make people aware of this problem so they know to try and control for it in their studies. Supposed (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a blog post, and blogs are not usable sources by Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia is not the place to create awareness of problems that lack proper documentation -- all Wikipedia articles need to be based on proper documentation. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Lifeline is not a blog.[[5]]. Besides they're quoting the Home Office. Supposed (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The part on soap bar said, it can include xyz, not that it always includes xyz. Another reference to what's often in soap bar is similarly made on the Talk to FRANK website. That makes two separate sources so far. People need to know that as probably THE most common form of hash in the UK; "soap bar" is actual fact, unnecessarily 'dirty' (like what happened to moonshine and alcohol, when it was under prohibition). It definately needs to be in this article someway or another. I might 'publish' some test results on my website, if anyone would care to cite me :P --217.43.93.139 (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

... PROBLEM SOLVED. I added the words "According to both the "Talk to FRANK" website and the UKCIA website" before hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J05HYYY (talk • contribs) 02:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Adulteration is a subject that definitely needs addressing and not merely within the UK (where it is less of a problem than it was due to the unrelenting rise of skunk). And of course there is also good quality soap bar. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 16:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes it does need addressing. When I used to buy & smoke a lot - I would tell people to boycott soap bar because of this reason alone. I agree, by smoking herbal cannabis (often falsely referred to as skunk in the UK primarily by newspapers and politicians), the risks of additional adulterants are greatly reduced. I don't think it is possible to get good quality "soap bar"; hence the name but good quality hash does certainly exist ... a rarity here! Of course, there are no citations for the links between increased usage & lack of adulterants but it could be explained easily in this manner.

One of the reasons the UK government decided to reclassify the drug as a class B, was because of the increased usage of "skunk" (they mean herbal cannabis) and the belief that it contains higher THC levels than "what people used to smoke" (hash). Of course, hash oil is often stronger than herbal cannabis and skunk put together whereas "Soap bar" - probably the most common in type of hash in the UK, contains more adulterants ... so their logic was flawed ... no wonder more people are smoking skunk (I mean herbal cannabis); it's safer! Glad to see some states moving in the right way over at the U.S.A. --86.130.39.56 (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical error and unclear statement of the reasons behind illegalization

I was reading through this article and stumbled first upon the sentence "At least 66 other cannabinoids are also present in cannabis, including cannabidiol (CBD), cannabinol (CBN) and tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV) among many others, which are believed in influence the effects of THC alone."

The wording of "..which are believed in influence the effects..." is so unclear that I cannot even guess at the true meaning, though I would place a fair bet on it indicating that it influences the effects of THC upon the body, but thats a complete guess based upon outside logic.

I also came upon, in the last paragraph of the history article, this statement: "Those economic theories were criticized for not taking social aspect into account. The illegalization was rather a result of racism directed to associate American immigrants of Mexican and African descent with cannabis abuse." This seems to imply that another theory that opposes the others was put forth, but words it in such a way that makes it seem as though the theory was fact, by use of the word rather. I do not know if this theory has been ruled upon by historians as generally the most likely one, as the statement does not clarify whether it was true, or simply another theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.167.242 (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

i just want to add that when you smoke it does not impair your acktions like alcohol. It helps you consetrate more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.8.128.250 (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You're joking, right?Spounge84 (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Mistake in article.

Magic Silver & Gold,ot 'marketing brands' dealers use to sell 'herbal cannabis' at all. They are synthetic cannabinoids, usually JWH-018, sold as legal highs. stay high! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.66.89 (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

According to University of Bristol, Department of Social Medicine, the schizophrenia link to marijuana is overstated

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please add: Authors of Addiction, the journal in which the findings were published, said, “We continue to take the view that the evidence that cannabis use causes schizophrenia is neither very new, nor by normal criteria, particularly compelling. … For example, our recent modeling suggests that we would need to prevent between 3000 and 5000 cases of heavy cannabis use among young men and women to prevent one case of schizophrenia, and that four or five times more young people would need to avoid light cannabis use to prevent a single schizophrenia case. … We conclude that the strongest evidence of a possible causal relation between cannabis use and schizophrenia emerged more than 20 years ago and that the strength of more recent evidence may have been overstated.”

after: Indeed, a 2007 meta-analysis estimated that cannabis use is statistically associated, in a dose-dependent manner, to an increased risk in the development of psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia.

Citation: [2] http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123278062/HTMLSTART

The section in which I am requesting a change to is under Effects, subcategory Long-term effects, 4th paragraph (if you count every return as a paragraph).

Bbbreak (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this needs further discussion. This strikes me as dedicating quite a lot of space to just one paper. --Peter cohen (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I found the link to that text through NORML's blog. NORML is the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, and has a very active blog with information about it around the whole country, including bills in states that are for medical marijuana or legalized, and what their current status is. Their information on the subject: http://blog.norml.org/2010/02/16/supposed-marijuana-and-schizophrenia-link-%E2%80%9Coverstated%E2%80%9D/  : Bbbreak (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wake and bake

the act of smoking marijuana directly after waking up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OzzyUMass (talk • contribs) 00:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Since "Wake and bake" is redirected here, shouldn't I be able to find an explanation of what it means in the article? Mkro (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd expect so too, I don't think that the redirect is appropriate, own is a slang term for behaviour, the other about an object. Panoramix303 (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it should redirect here. I feel it would be more appropriate to redirect to Cannabis consumption. It might also be appropriate to add a section of slang and smoking terminology, e.g. use of "green" as a verb. If no one has any objections I'll go ahead and change the redirect. --Leodmacleod (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
An explanation of "wake and bake" is the kind of slang thing so unsourceable but so easily agreed upon that this is the territory of urban dictionary, not wikipedia. The phrase directs here because this is the most relevant article for that search phrase just like "oh, snap" goes to Biz Markie.--Louiedog (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I can agree on the slang thing. I am going to check out the OED and other reliable sources for consumption related lingo. However, I still think Cannabis consumption is a more directly relevant article to the phrase "wake and bake". Are there any other opinions? --Leodmacleod (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I changed the redirect to Cannabis consumption. Panoramix303 (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Social Stigma Leading to Criminalization

A more in-depth look at the social and political aspects of early Marijuana criminalization should be included. The racial and class implications regarding marijuana usage(historical and present)need to be examined, in order to get a more complete perspective on it's criminalization. --CaliFamouss (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"Resin"

I don't think this belongs under "Forms". This "resin" isn't exactly a form of cannabis - it's a byproduct of smoking any form of marijuana, created by smoke particles sticking to the inside of the smoking device. It is true that this stuff is scraped out and smoked, and that it does retain some psychoactive properties(*cough* original research), but it seems odd to count it as a form, alongside herb, hash, and kief. Plus, I don't know for sure, but I don't think the word "resin" actually refers to stuff like this. 69.251.39.23 (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think your right. When I think of resin, I think of shoddy soap bar. I don't think there is a name for this type of stuff ... although the name "toxic waste" comes to mind. --86.161.182.169 (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I might ask that we define "form" for the purposes of answering this question first. To me, a form in the sense of marijuana is just some way the drugs of the plant are "stored" before consumption. The categories of forms tend to be broad in definitions and can have several forms of administration within them. If this is a proper definition, then resin would be a form unto itself as it is a way people use to administer the drug via inhalation, and is a distinct way to store the drug before consumption. KyNephi (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a specific term meaning "condensed smoke"? Because that's essentially what this stuff is. Could be called Tar, as it usually is when discussing tobacco smoke, though that isn't technically right either. It shouldn't be under Forms, because it is a byproduct (of any other form) rather than a form, but it could be included somewhere, as people do in fact scrape the stuff out and smoke it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.17.151 (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think "condensed smoke" would be a proper term here. Many times what is contained in the resin is ash, bits of charred marijuana (hasn't been burnt completely), even things from the environment (for instance, in a water pipe, the resin contains a large amount of water IN it). Again, we need to define what a "form" is. If a form is just a way to "contain" or "store" THC/marijuana before it is consumed, then I don't see why resin wouldn't apply here. If by form we are referring to _deliberate_ ways THC/marijuana is stored prior to consumption, or preferred ways that it is stored prior to consumption, then the status of resin would definitely be questionable. Until we define "form", this discussion will not cease. KyNephi (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible Bug

The section "Residue" does not have an edit button. Mojokabobo (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see an edit button. I suspect this difference depends on the size and shape of our screens/windows as well as what web software we are using. There is a bug I know of that leads to edit bottons being stacked up when there is a run of images on the right hand side of the screen. If several images run on fromeach other on your view, then look near the bottom of the run for several edit buttons in a row and use the pointer to let you know which is which.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is WAY out of date, and most of it is Soooooo wrong.

I do not know who put this article together or why they decided to lock it so that others could not update this teribly out of date material. Whoever put this together, I am guessing by the overall content, is either someone who is not stayin on top of updateing the information, believes all the bunk they have been told by others - not bothering to do any independant research, or recieving some type of restution from the government, tobaccoo, or paper companies here in the US. Please, if you read this article take all I have said into account and just flip through a copy of High Times,visit the NORML web page, or do some of your own research from more up to date and true sorces. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MistressD (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor, welcome to wikipedia. Please sign your posts with 4 tildas like so ~~~~.
If you find something lacking with this article, please feel free to fix it, including the sources that document your content. Since no one has raised these issues before, it can be assumed that you're the first to notice them. You also seem to have read up on the subject matter and are motivated, and so would be in a better position to implement your proposed changes than anyone. Good luck!--Louiedog (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you please specify the mistakes in the article? This would be very helpful. Thanks, Panoramix303 (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah that would be helpful. Also, FYI, the page is protected b/c it's a frequent target of vandalism. It's the only way to stop us having to fix it every 10 or 15 minutes. --Leodmacleod (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I just went through the whole thing and the only thing I thought was shoddy was some of the government pricings. For example, at some point it lists the average street price as being between 150-250 dollars an ounce, and nearly 3000 dollars a pound. These prices are fairly inaccurate, and can actually vary and swing much wider than suggested, to the low end and the high end. For example SWIM (someone I know) says that standard brick bud can often be bought closer to 75-100 dollars an ounce, and around 800 a pound. If someone can find a more comprehensive price listing somewhere, that could definitely help improve the article, though any that I have ever found always seem grossly exaggerated. Mojokabobo (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You won't be able to find a comprehensive price listing, because it mainly varies by the quality of the marijuana, and where they are in the world. Where they are matters because as you go further away from the source, people are taking more risk by holding onto large amounts longer, which increases prices, especially if it's an area without a lot of competition, so they're basically one of the only sources. Around here, ounces can range from $80 at lowest, to up to $140 an ounce for middies (fairly low quality), but an ounce of heddies (higher quality) can be anywhere from $300-500, possibly even more. That is on the east coast. On the west coast, cousins of mine in California can get ounces of heddies for less than $150 usually because they're closer to Mexico which has cartels growing a LOT of pot. Bbbreak (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If no one objects in the next week, I am going to remove this section from talk. The OP doesn't even contribute to talk much less the article itself. Obvious trolling. KyNephi (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion was good faith and about the article. No reason to delete. You're free to archive it if you think it's no longer a current issue.--Louiedog (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

this is very out of date please visit www.norml.com when you decide to update it some of these facts have been proven wrong.

gateway drug theory

"Studies have shown that tobacco smoking is a better predictor of concurrent illicit hard drug use than smoking cannabis"
This statement is not supported by the articles referenced in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)#cite_note-pmid8246462-83. since they don't mention cannabis smoking at all. There is no comparison at all.

Are you referring to the abstract linked or the actual article itself? Note: the link just goes to an abstract and is not the full article. I have not found the full article in our archives here in town yet to find the cited statement yet. KyNephi (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

THC is not main psychoactive in Marijuana

This paper outlines a genetic study on marijuana, but is based on a narrowly accepted theory that THCA is the main psychoactive in marijuana. While solely apparently innert, THCA is decarboxylated when cannibis is smoked or baked (A long awaited explaination). The decarboxylated is either THC (or is in equilibrium with THC - I forget) and THC is the biologically pschoactive chemical component in the marijuan high (the sole cause - according to modernly accepted data). I beileive we should ammend the introductory paragraph to include information about marijuana's high THCA and low THC content in plant form and high THC low THCA content in marijuana smoke or baked goods.

This is a link to the article I have used as a sole source: http://www.jbc.org/content/279/38/39767.full

As a molecualr biologist myself I advise people to take this paper seriously - the people who are looking for the gene tend to know more truth about the subject than most.

I invite anyone to actually write the ammendment - this is my only contribution.

Sincerely,

Dr. Greenthumb


PRAY FOR PEACE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.2.145 (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The article characterizes the enzyme which catalyzes the cyclization of cannabigerolic acid to THC acid but does not state that THC acid is the main psychoactive compound in marihuana. THC acid has a negligible affinity for CB1 receptors, therefore it is extremely unlikely to be the "main psychoactive". It is simply the precursor for THC and I therefore strongly disagree to put this statement in the wiki article. Panoramix303 (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Though "Dr. Greenthumb" leaves me to believe the OP in this article has no actual degree (I would think ALL people who have earned a Doctorate would understand the need to SIGN your posts), he is correct. Technically speaking, marijuana has ZERO THC in it. The form that you and I get high from when smoking is formed from the burning processes or being exposed to high temperatures (ie, baking it). This is why you cannot eat raw marijuana and get high off of it. I have reference for this, but it is from a study done in the 70's and its referenced using "The Marijuana Grower's Guide" by Ed Rosenthal. A great book, but the edition I have is a hardback book some 20+ years old, so I would think there is a more up to date article we can reference for this. KyNephi (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Marijuana

We should move Marijuana (disambiguation) to marijuana. Please discuss. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, I think marijuana should actually be split into a page about marijuana (aka "herbal cannabis") rather than redirecting to cannabis (drug). While marijuana is cannabis, cannabis is not necessarily marijuana. –xenotalk 15:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
It is true that cannabis is not necessarily marijuana. Xtzou (Talk) 15:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Cannabis is the plant, marijuana the slang term for the drug, not the other way around. I think Marijuana should redirect to this article, while cannabis redirects to the plant. Hemp meanwhile, would redirect to the uses of cannabis. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawal?

maybe i wasnt looking hard enough but there doesnt seem to be any information about withdrawal. 01:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that too. There should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.48.33 (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no withdrawal effects for marijuana...there is no need for that section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.81.5 (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Then someone should try and find a study indicating that there are no withdrawal/limited withdrawal effects and include that information with a citation. Mojokabobo (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

[3] According to Ryan Vandrey, Ph.D., of the Department of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, HEAVY marijuana use is suggested to have a withdrawal similar to that of cigarettes.

From the article: "Results showed that overall withdrawal severity associated with marijuana alone and tobacco alone was of similar frequency and intensity. Sleep disturbance seemed to be more pronounced during marijuana abstinence, while some of the general mood effects (anxiety, anger) seemed to be greater during tobacco abstinence. In addition, six of the participants reported that quitting both marijuana and tobacco at the same time was more difficult than quitting either drug alone, whereas the remaining six found that it was easier to quit marijuana or cigarettes individually than it was to abstain from the two substances simultaneously."

However, note the symptoms listed that had consistent results - mainly sleep disturbance and some mood effects (which was more prevalent in tobacco use). No withdrawal effects like that from alcohol, heroin, or other hard drugs. Bbbreak (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There is actually a lot of evidence that marijuana cessation can be associated with withdrawal symptoms (not including a ton of anecdotal evidence that can be found online), despite the oft-repeated myth. Consider Huang et al. 2010 "Anxiety-like effects of SR141716-precipitated delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol withdrawal in mice in the elevated plus-maze." showing anxiety effects in mice. And Vorspan et al. 2010 "Self-reported sleep disturbances during cannabis withdrawal in cannabis-dependent outpatients with and without opioid dependence." And Cornelius et al. 2008 "Cannabis withdrawal is common among treatment-seeking adolescents with cannabis dependence and major depression, and is associated with rapid relapse to dependence." Or Hasin et al. 2008 "Cannabis withdrawal in the United States: results from NESARC.". Just search on pubmed.com and you'll find more references than you'll have time to read. It should definitely be added to the article. 97.13.61.57 (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

i dont think its an issue of proving whether it exists, we know it exists we just need sources, the above one sounds good, im going to add a few more citations and would really appreciate it of somebody would go in and actually right the pertinent section (im a horrible writer but if i have to do it i will). links to pot withdrawal info (that prove that pot withdrawal exists and what the symptoms are) http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/carfax/cadd/1999/00000094/00000009/art00004 http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/carfax/cadd/1996/00000091/00000010/art00006 http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2000-02949-004&CFID=8565411&CFTOKEN=33725645 http://www.springerlink.com/content/frwu8wmjjkaknmdt/ http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/112/3/393/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.78.252 (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No causal link between Cannabis use and Schizophrenia

Shouldn't the Long Term Effects section discussing the connection between cannabis use and schizophrenia include the very important point that areas/locations that have seen cannabis use increase significantly have NOT seen a related increase in cases of schizophrenia/psychotic episodes. This fact seems to obliterate any possibility of a causal link, and leaving the article the way it is gives a false impression of the significance of this study which is trying to create a link.

"People are no more likely to be psychotic in Canada or the United States (two nations where large percentages of citizens use cannabis) than they are in Sweden or Japan (where self-reported marijuana use is extremely low). Even after the enormous popularity of cannabis in the 1960s and 1970s, rates of psychotic disorders haven't increased." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-armentano-and-mitch-earleywine/interpreting-hazy-warning_b_59543.html

"Previous research has suggested cannabis use increases the risk of being diagnosed with either psychosis or schizophrenia. This latest study, led by Dr. Martin Frisher of Keele University, examined the records of 600,000 patients aged between 16 and 44, but failed to find a similar link. According to the study, cannabis use in the United Kingdom between 1972 and 2002 has increased four-fold in the general population, and 18-fold among under-18s. Based on the literature supporting the link, the authors argue that this should be followed by an increase in schizophrenia incidence of 29 per cent between 1990 and 2010. But the researchers found no increase in the rates of schizophrenia and psychosis diagnosis during that period. In fact, some of the data suggested the incidence of these conditions had decreased. "This study does not therefore support the specific causal link between cannabis use and the incidence of psychotic disorders," the authors say. "This concurs with other reports indicating that increases in population cannabis use have not been followed by increases in psychotic incidence." http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/09/02/cannabis-schizophrenia.html Mismos00 (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the relationship between cannabis and psychoses including schizophrenia is a fairly mature scientific field, it should rely on the WP:MEDRS guidelines and all claims regarding this relationship should be cited to secondary sources such as peer-reviewed literature reviews and meta-analyses. A quick PubMed search for recent (2009) cannabis reviews gives some useful sources:
  • PMID 19629449: Cannabis abuse is a risk factor for psychosis in predisposed people, it can affect neurodevelopment during adolescence leading to schizophrenia, and a dysregulation of the endocannabinoid system can participate in schizophrenia.
  • PMID 19609589: Converging lines of evidence suggest that cannabinoids can produce a full range of transient schizophrenia-like positive, negative, and cognitive symptoms in some healthy individuals. Also clear is that in individuals with an established psychotic disorder, cannabinoids can exacerbate symptoms, trigger relapse, and have negative consequences on the course of the illness...only a very small proportion of the general population exposed to cannabinoids develop a psychotic illness. It is likely that cannabis exposure is a "component cause" that interacts with other factors to "cause" schizophrenia or a psychotic disorder, but is neither necessary nor sufficient to do so alone.
  • PMID 19367509: Case series, autobiographical accounts, and surveys of cannabis users in the general population suggest an association between cannabis and psychosis. Cross-sectional studies document an association between cannabis use and psychotic symptoms, and longitudinal studies suggest that early exposure to cannabis confers a close to two-fold increase in the risk of developing schizophrenia. Pharmacological studies show that cannabinoids can induce a full range of transient positive, negative, and cognitive symptoms in healthy individuals that are similar to those seen in schizophrenia. There is considerable evidence that in individuals with an established psychotic disorder such as schizophrenia, exposure to cannabis can exacerbate symptoms, trigger relapse, and worsen the course of the illness. Only a very small proportion of the general population exposed to cannabis develop a psychotic illness. It is likely that cannabis exposure is a 'component cause' that interacts with other factors to 'cause' schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder, but is neither necessary nor sufficient to do so alone.
It would definitely not be appropriate to counter peer-reviewed sources such as these with an article in the Huffington Post, nor is it appropriate (per WP:MEDRS) to counter these sources with a single research study. Stick to the medical reviews--they'll change over time to reflect any shifting opinions. — Scientizzle 14:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I understand what you're saying about proper sources (are you saying the study in the CBC link, done by Dr. Martin Frisher of Keele University, wasn't peer-reviewed? Isn't he the 'peer' that is reviewing these 'claims'?). Some studies have found this correlation which is to imply a causation. This is a straight forward statistical claim (despite the complexities of schizophrenia) and quite quickly debunked when anyone (not just a scientist) compares the data that is out there regarding both cannabis use and Schizophrenia. It's frustrating that someone can spit in your face and tell you it's raining, and you have to wait for a peer-reviewed study before you can respond! It's too easy to just respond, "Look up you idiot".

http://www.mentalhealth.com/mag1/scz/sb-time.html

Can someone point to a proper source for the information linked above? Then can't we just present the 'peer-reviewed' stats of Cannabis Use Over Time next to the Diagnosis of Schizophrenia Over Time? Shouldn't that even be required in this blurb about Cannabis and Schizophrenia for context? How could there possibly be a serious link between cannabis use and schizophrenia if the data clearly shows Schizophrenia rates going down when cannabis use just started picking up?

Mismos00 (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

To answer your first question directly: your link to the CBC news article does not constitute peer reviewed criticism by any stretch, but is more akin to the press releases that commonly are published along with interesting new studies. The actual paper by Frisher's group can be found at PMID 19560900. The report did not find any evidence of increasing schizophrenia or psychoses in the general population from 1996 to 2005 in England, but it's only a single study. There have been many different types of studies with different cohorts and varying strengths and weaknesses. The researchers publishing in peer-reviewed literature are the appropriate individuals to sort out to what extent (if any) the repeated associations between cannabis use and various psychoses are the result of a causal relationship. For Wikipedia to present a different picture than what is represented in the most reliable sources would violate our neutrality policy; to present primary source data in a manner to suggest a particular point of view likely will violate the policy against original research.
Speaking as a scientist with an interest in communicating science to the lay public now: be cautious when you start interpreting scientific data if you're not actually trained to do it...There are many, many reasons why schizophrenia diagnosis rates have changed over time and it's a fool's errand to attribute any particular effect to a single independent variable when it's well-known that there are dozens of (or more) other independent variables that likely have effects. In fact, given that the relative risk (1.5-3X more likely) is modest, that the absolute risk for psychoses is fairly small, and that cannabis use is far from universal, any causative relationship between cannabis and psychoses driving some difference in psychosis prevalence could easily be drowned out by the massive effects attributed to shifts in diagnostic criteria, as clearly suggested in your second link above. Only careful independent component analysis can tease out the effects of complicated systems like this...Do not assume that because you don't think it's raining, someone must be spitting in your face... :) — Scientizzle 16:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Many teens check this web site to understand more about the drug and understand the health factors, but what about the effects that they will notice right away? Like hunger, paranoia, sleepiness, dizziness and a sense of heavy feeling. Plus how it can effect driving, but not as much as the other substances out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italiala (talk • contribs) 03:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Many teens check this web site to understand more about the drug and understand the health factors, but what about the effects that they will notice right away? Like hunger, paranoia, sleepiness, dizziness and a sense of heavy feeling. Plus how it can effect driving, but not as much as the other substances out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italiala (talk • contribs) 03:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Add content to medical marijuana section

In 2003 the US federal government filed US Patent 6630507 titled "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants" is assigned to The United States of America, as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services. This patent outlines that "Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia."


I think that this is a very important piece of information that is not readily available on wiki. I suggest that this is vital for that section in which it says that the US government denies the usefulness of medical MJ. I also believe that the reference to "several" ailments that it can treat should be altered to "many" or a similiar word which would prove to be more acurate.

I feel very strongly that this piece of information is vital to the accuracy and nuetrality of the article and that failure to include this information would be a deplorable failure to provide fair, balanced information on wiki and would deprive readers of valuable information that is not readily available at this current moment.

Thank you for your consideration, benson12345, 5/25/10 please give me feedback or talk if your interested in helping me.

Benson12345 (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Benson, in order to include this information, we'd need a source to ensure: (1) accuracy of this claim and (2) notability of this claim.--Louiedog (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6630507.html this source is the the full text of the us held patent this should be more than enough of a source to cite as the above text is a quote from the patent Benson12345 (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

A couple issues:
  1. The patent refers to "Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids", which is related to medical marijuana, but is not medical marijuana.
  2. There's no indication that this is a notable aspect of cannabinoids. The link to the patent seems relatively obscure, not to mention, citing a filed patent to attest to scientific fact is hardly what it's intended for. A scientific journal should be what we're aiming for. Better yet, would be a secondary source to show notability.--Louiedog (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The patent is issued to the same people who published virtually the same information in PNAS. The article (Hampson AJ, Grimaldi M, Axelrod J, Wink D (July 1998). "Cannabidiol and (-)Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol are neuroprotective antioxidants". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95 (14): 8268–73) is mentioned both in the wiki article about tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol. Since the authors are talking about isolated compounds in vitro and not medical marihuana in vivo I don't see any reason to include it in the article about cannabis. From a scientifc point of view the findings are interesting, from a practical point of view pretty useless because the effective concentration in vitro is at least two orders of magnitude different from the concentration in humans. Panoramix303 (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 174.3.103.141, 27 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

oral description incomplete

it is easy to make sure all the THC is decarboxylated and is at full strength before it is extracted. Although decarboxylation takes place rapidly at 106? C, it proceeds at a more gradual pace by placing the cannabis in a room with low relative humidity and room temperature. As the temperature rises, the rate of decarboxylation increases. Therefore, it is not absolutely necessary to heat the drug in order to ingest it.


174.3.103.141 (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —fetch·comms 01:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

THC levels

Reference 40 leads to a dead link on the University of Missisippi's website. The following link, http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/pdf/FullPotencyReports.pdf, has the information the Potency Project found which was ordered through a contract with NIDA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.68.195 (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Addiction Clarification?

There is no mention in this article of the addiction potential of cannabis, naturally because it has none. Since it is a widely believed myth that cannabis is addictive, shouldn't there be info clarifying that cannabis is a non-addictive drug so as to inform those who would use this article for research on the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan7077 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned?

Should it be mentioned that only pot smokers support legalizing marijuana? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.222.222 (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Only if you can provide reliable sources to back up the claim. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
You won't find supporting evidence, as this is an incorrect claim. 168.122.246.132 (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you prove it, pothead? 71.162.29.59 71.162.29.59's ID added manually by Mitch Ames
I think the onus is on the maker of the claim (that only pot smokers support legalizing marijuana) to provide the evidence to support the claim. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
... and Wikipedia policy agrees with me. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll provide the evidence in the form of a question: Have you ever heard of a non-smoker supporting legalization or any reason for supporting it if they don't smoke it? In case you were wondering why I'm making a big deal about this is because this is the reason why it will never be legal and why the drug should not be viewed in a positive light. 71.162.29.59 71.162.29.59's ID added manually by Mitch Ames
Unless you assume that all 500 economist are marihuana-dependent, here is the example you are asking for: http://economics.about.com/od/incometaxestaxcuts/a/legalize_pot.htm . Of course among marihuana user a bigger percentage will favor legalization but this does not exclude the possibility that non-users support legalization for other reasons (medical, economical, ideological, whatver). Panoramix303 (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
71.162.29.59, I don't think you understand what "evidence" is. Asking a question is not providing evidence. Evidence for the original claim that "only pot smokers support legalizing marijuana" would need to be something like a statistically meaningful (ie large, diverse) survey of people who support legalizing marijuana, in which ALL of the people surveyed say that they smoke it themselves. (The claim could be refuted, probably much more easily, by find ONE person who does not smoke marijuana but does support legalization. But remember the onus is on anyone making or supporting the claim (eg 72.65.222.222 or 71.162.29.59) that "only pot smokers support legalizing marijuana" to provide the evidence - not on anyone else (eg me or 168.122.246.132) to provide contrary evidence.) Mitch Ames (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I've got an obvious piece of counter-evidence: L.E.A.P., or Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. But none of this is relevant to improving the article. We're not here to debate legalization. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 13:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
71.162.29.59, could you please sign your posts by appending ~~~~, as it makes the conversation easier to follow if you know who wrote what, and when. I've manually "signed" your edits (I don't know why SineBot didn't do it.) Mitch Ames (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Just thought I'd add, I don't smoke Cannabis or tobacco but am completely in favor of legalising it BritishHeadbanger talk 21:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I also. I don't use cannabis (or any other drug) and I support legalising, not just cannabis, but every other drug as well. 124.170.18.247 (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Bad Citation

It says in this article that "Though cannabis use has at times been associated with stroke, there is no firmly established link, and potential mechanisms are unknown." I looked at the study listed in the citations(its number 73), Halpin SF, Yeoman L, Dundas DD (October 1991). "Radiographic examination of the lumbar spine in a community hospital: an audit of current practice" I see no reference anywhere in this study to marijuana OR strokes. Is this a mistake? If so, I'd be interested in the actual correct study. But that aside, something that actually mentions to the statement in question should probably be found or it should probably be removed from the article. I apologize if when skimming through and using the search function I somehow missed the relevant information, but even the name of it seems to suggest it's nothing to do with marijuana. Five- (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Mention as a drug

Should Cannabis be mentioned as a drug? I don't see alcohol or tobacco labelled as a drug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.46.97.71 (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

(drug) differentiates this article from the cannabis as-a-plant article.--Louiedog (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be categorized as a plant because that's what it is —Preceding unsigned comment added by C lawnmower (talk • contribs) 07:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, cannabis is a plant. This is the article about the psychoactive compounds in it.--Louiedog (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

BREAKING NEWS

http://www.kval.com/news/local/96612724.html  !!<<BREAKING NEWS>>!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.179.92 (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

(Redirected from The munchies) error?

i was redirected here from Obesity. but well the article doesn´t even mention the word munchies. so could anyone explain the term in the article? --81.189.93.40 (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The Obesity article includes the link in this sentence (I've added bold here for emphasis): It has been developed from the knowledge that cannabis smokers often experience hunger, which is often referred to as "the munchies"., so in that context a link to the Cannabis article is hardly surprising. To be fair though, "munchies" can also refer to any other desire for food, not just drug-induced, so the redirect on "munchies" is probably wrong. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed the Obesity article so that the word "cannabis" links here instead. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Also fixed "the munchies" redirect, and munchies disambiguation page. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Article Citation/Talk page archive issues

I mentioned this first issue before and got no response so I hope it is okay mentioning it again, it's kind of something that should be addressed. I've looked through it thoroughly now and this citation has nothing to do with the sentence it's added to or this article at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)#cite_note-pmid1932970-76 The cited article is about the efficacy of lumbar spine radiographs and the guidelines for requesting them. I'm not confident I know how to remove citations correctly, or if the sentence it's suppose to acknowledge should be removed as well, or I would make the edit myself. If someone could show me how, or do it themselves, I would appreciate it. The second issue I came across when trying to find my original mention of this in the archives, which I found in archive 6 eventually. Currently the talk page links to Talk:Cannabis/Archive 1 & 2 and Talk:Cannabis_(drug)/Archive 1 through 4. While 5 and 6 would be the most recent, there is no link to them on the main talk page. If you go to archive 5 or 6, "[6]" there are links with arrows at the top that allow you to go back and forth between archives. These links only exist on the two most recent archives that are not linked to. I would edit this myself as well, but I don't know the rules mediating how archives are handled. I would think that links to the the most recent archives should be included in the main talk page along with the later ones, and that archives 1-4 should include the arrow links at the top of them like 5 and 6 do, so one could use them to move through each archive. If anyone can make either of these changes or show me how to do it myself, I think it'd improve the article/talk page. Five- (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{editsemiprotected}} 5.1 Classification "perhaps leaning the most towards hallucinogen or psychedelic properties" This is untrue. This is a government label that is entirely inaccurate. Find one person who smokes marijuana and I guarantee you will not find that they experience any hallucainations. It is calming, makes you hungry, and think deeply. Hallucinations are what LSD give you. Entirely different. There should be a note of this. It is incorrect claims like this that allow the government to continue claiming it is dangerous, psychedelic, etc. This is wrong. Marijuana should at best be described as a relaxant. It does not depress the user, nor does it stimulate. Has the person who wrote this even tried it before? This article needs to be written and/or edited by users, people who KNOW what they're talking about. That's the problem, if you haven't used it you just pass on information find and not what you actually know. If someone has had hallucinations from marijuana, I'd love to know what it was LACED with! Just consider making a note of this truth. It's not psychedelic, man.

Medical Use Correct the number of states that have legalized marijuana from 13 to 14. See this link for proof. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881

 Not done. This is a discussion. You may rewrite the article, paste your work here and request for a page edit using the {{editsemiprotected}} tag again. Please then state clearly what you want to change (for example, please change X to Y). Thanks,  Davtra  (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


A relaxant? The closest class of drugs to that would be muscle relaxants, and though cannabis causes this, it's definately not the major sought after effect.
As you said, thinking deeply is a major effect, just as it is in every other psychedelic substance. The reason for this is because that's basically what psychedelic means. Therefore, cannabis is a psychedelic.
Also, the reason it is a stimulant is because it causes a faster heart rate. Again, that's what stimulant means. You really should do some research before spouting off such false truths.
For the record, I and many others have experienced similar effects of a mild dose of a hallucinogen such as LSD, with cannabis.
Psychedelic hallucinations shouldn't even be classed as hallucinations. ElectricWizard 0 (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

MMM, as long as you don't claim that weed is bad for you, than it's all good. Seriously, weed doesn't hurt the casual smoker. Only in chronic usages, like every single day at least twice, or constant use, does it damage you. and yes, I think we all know the effects of getting too cozy with weed. key thing is, no it is NOT addictive physiolgoically, the way cigarettes are. It's addictive mentally, a little like some people claim sex can be. or workaholic-ness. you just NEED the high. if you deal with that problem, your probably bored outta your skull and I suggest getting into a hobby, something a little pro-active, anything that is adrenaline pumping. go-karting, skydiving, paintballing, if your a kid or an adult with no money, try out racing cars on your skateboard (not seriously, but skateboarding is a good option). these are all good alternatives to using weed all the time. And btw, yeah weed is an uber relaxant. if you've ever smoked, you know the feeling when your legs go, or your arms, don't know if it works for everyone but my legs just disappear, and they are really relaxed when I get straight again. why do you think that medecinal marijuana is legal in Canada? it's NOT because it's the only way to get it, trust me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.146.14 (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Current street prices, 1 oz, high quality bud in Austin, Texas August 2010

Current street price of high quality marijuana (AK-47, Blue Dream, and Trainwreck) is $380 per ounce retail, quantity 1 ounce, in Austin, Texas USA. Ranges for superhigh quality "dank" go up to $440 per ounce. All money is August 2010 US dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.62.183 (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

THe Key thing to remember is that it depends on how far removed you are from the source, i.e. how many hands it passes through before it reaches your infinitly appreciative clutches. I live in Canada, where we go by grams, there are roughly 28 grams to an ounce, and i could get a gram of weed for free from friends, ten bucks from a proper supplier. BUT, you can make it last if you use an amazing device called a lung. take the bowl shaped part of a 2l pop bottle, attach a plastic bag, like the kind you get bread in, to it, make sure it's perfectly airtight or else you just waste your weed, and tape the bottom inch or so of the plastic bag so it's kinda like a handle. cover the cap with tinfoil, poke some wholes in it with a needle, light your weed on fire and pull down on the little taped bit at the end. Voila, inhale your precious vapors and enjoy! But the main thing is that you only need .2 or .3 g to achieve a high, so you can make a gram last a while if smoke conservatively. so, a gram to us is quite a long time of weed, and it only costs ten bucks. I highly recommend anything that allows you to precisely control the amount of weed you use, it saves you alot of money and weed. don't delete this post, it's relevant 24.222.146.14 (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Herbowicz, 12 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

A proper link for: Tar

Herbowicz (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, but considering that you have more than ten edits and your account is more than four days old, you should have been able to make that edit yourself. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Earliest use 3rd cent. bce? Come on...

Surely 3rd cent. bce. is a far too conservative date? Wine and beer which are produced or manufactured items are easily shown to have been made and consumed around 6000bce and earlier and the first cannabis would have been smoked that time some early humans (or even pre-humans) threw a cannabis plant on the fire as fuel and ended up breathing the smoke. I'm sure some reference worthy research can be found to improve reference 6 and the date pushed way back. A cursory search throws up http://www.amsterdamcannabisseeds.com/religion-marijuana-use.html for example. Sadly no date for Taoist use which must predate Buddhist use set at 5000bce. I'm contacting them for their references. 196.30.31.182 (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC) (✓)

Found this http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/15/4171 , finding that shaman certainly pushes the date back a bit. Suggest the 2nd sentence of the history paragraph : "Evidence of the inhalation of cannabis smoke can be found in the 3rd millennium B.C., as indicated by charred cannabis seeds found in a ritual brazier at an ancient burial site in present day Romania.[7]" be changed to "Evidence of the inhalation of cannabis smoke can be found from 1200 B.C.E. as indicated by the discovery of a large amount of cannabis and cannabis seeds within the tomb of what is undoubtedly a shaman of the Jüshi, or Cheshi people in present day China.[7]" (Not sure if its written BCE, bce, B.C.E., etc) Reference 7 can then be changed to "Russo EB (2008). | Phytochemical and genetic analyses of ancient cannabis from Central Asia" or similar, not sure on the format. Would the gods who moderate this locked page please implement?196.30.31.182 (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)(✓)

So what happens now? Is this a change that can be made or not? Hello, anyone???? 196.30.31.182 (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

What happens is that you work out the wording you want and add the Template:editsemiprotected. You do this by putting "editsemiprotected" in side double curly brackets.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sweet ok, then that should be something like this:

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change "Evidence of the inhalation of cannabis smoke can be found in the 3rd millennium B.C., as indicated by charred cannabis seeds found in a ritual brazier at an ancient burial site in present day Romania.[7]" from that to "Evidence of the inhalation of cannabis smoke can be found from 1200 BCE., as indicated by the discovery of a large amount of cannabis and cannabis seeds within the tomb of what is undoubtedly a shaman of the Jüshi, or Cheshi people in present day China.[7] (✓)

Reference 7 would then be Russo EB (2008). Phytochemical and genetic analyses of ancient cannabis from Central Asia but I cant get the syntax exactly right to not show the "|". (✓)
I hope this is what is needed. Now please excuse me the double curly bracket twins and I are going to have some sexy time. 196.30.31.182 (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Question: Do you realise that the 3rd millennium B.C. is earlier than 1200B.C.? --Stickee (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Not done for now: Pending response. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Er, fork. Whole time was reading it as century, not millennium! Oh well... 196.30.31.182 (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of (drug) from title

Cannabis itself is a plant - not a drug. There is a chemical coumpound in the Cannabis plant that can be considered a drug, but here it is misleading.

(Pethol (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)).

I think WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Also we need to call the article something to distinguish it from the Cannabis article about the plant. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing misleading. Please note that this mesage appears at the top of the article: "For the plant genus, see Cannabis."Novangelis (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Cannabis is another name for the drug marijuana. 75.95.7.41 (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

5.2 medical use

This section about the different formulations is way too detailed and especially hard to read (even for someone who can understands what's written there). Any suggestions how to improve it? Panoramix303 (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Also the more detailed paragraphs that refer to the 1929-1930 Physicians' Catalog look more like they belong in a "history" section. I suggest that most of the detail be removed, and and only the historical content kept. Eg
Some minor rewording may be required, and the three sentences should probably be all one paragraph, but the above quote demonstrates what I propose keeping and deleting. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Any objections? Panoramix303 (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
In the absensce of any objections, I've made the changes. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Spice/K2/synthetic cannabis

Should some mention of synthetic cannabis aka Spice, K2 etc. be made in the article? Smartse (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Cannabis (drug?)

Cannabis is a plant, THC is a drug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.17.150 (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That's why we have a separate article on the plant. Cannabis contains more cannabinoids than just THC, as explained at the start of the article. Smartse (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pethol (talk • contribs) 19:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Joint Photo Description, Part II

I previously removed the statement "Burning temperature can reach 700°C., destroying cannabinoids" because it contained no reference. The editor has placed it back. So, rather than getting into an edit war, I just want to formally request that (a) you provide a suitable reference for this statement; or (b) that you remove the statement.JoelWhy (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed this per WP:BURDEN and left User:Tokerdesigner a note reminding them that it needs to be backed up by a reliable source before it is replaced. SmartSE (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the following would suffice, with a few additional clarifying words to the effect that the researchers actually tested a typical 700-mg. tobacco cigarette (about the same weight of contents as the joint pictured here):
According to a table in the Vaporizer article, cannabis and tobacco have a similar burning point (near 410°F.), therefore it is reasonable to suppose a joint of this size would have nearly the same potential top temperature as a cigarette. (In fact, since the 70's I have often heard it said a tobacco cigarette can reach 1500°F./860°C.).
As I said above, researchers have been afraid to publish anything that contradicts government policy. The high temperature combustion in a joint provides heat shock and carbon monoxide and other toxins, producing "dopy" drug effects attributed to the cannabinol, thus playing into the hands of anti-cannabis sloganeers (90's Partnership for a Drug-Free America radio ad in US: "Why do you think they call it dope?") Meanwhile the subtle thing about tobacco is that the nicotine (temporarily) overrides or conceals these "dopy" effects of heat shock, carbon monoxide etc., often making a tobacco smoker appear relatively unimpaired compared to a cannabis joint smoker (but compare the death statistics). Can Wikipedia be Source of Last Resort to unmask the lethal deception which rides on the popularity of the "joint" (a walking cigarette ad) versus vaporizer, one-hitter etc.?Tokerdesigner (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
No, you generally cannot use another Wiki article as a reference. The other article should have a citation referencing that information -- if it doesn't, than it should be removed from there, not perpetuated by adding more unsourced information on this article.
As for your claim about 'researchers being afraid to publish anything that contradicts government policy', I pointed out above why that argument fails. The most obvious reason that argument falls flat is that many countries in Europe do allow for such research. I am most certainly NOT an anti-pot advocate. But, if you can't find peer-reviewed studies that back your scientific claims, 'government cover-up' seems a lot less likely than your believed claims simply being wrong (or, at the very least, unsubstantiated.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 01:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
See WP:CIRCULAR, you can never use another article as a reference. I am also not anti-cannabis but try to stop any original research slipping into any articles. Thinking about this logically, even if joints do burn at 700°C as you claim, that doesn't mean that cannabinoids will be oxidised - the tip of the joint will be that hot, but taking a toke will draw hot air down the joint, vaporising the cannabinoids. By the time part of the joint is burning, most of the cannabinoids will have already been liberated. SmartSE (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Lest there be misunderstanding, the recommended citation is http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae1.cfm-- not the Vaporizer article, which merely supports the supposition that the burning temperature in a joint is not far different from that of a similar-sized commercial $igarette as tested by the physlink guys. I have encountered no disagreement with the figure of 700-C. in that study, nor with the 1500-F. I heard for years.
Smartse has the process right, vapors are harvested from the herb particles in a zone next further down the joint from an intersurface with the burning. Problem is, a joint burns too fast; too few vapors escape oxidizing-- I have seen estimates of as little as 20% of the potential cannabinoid being received by the user, thus the article should unambiguously note that the joint is wasteful compared to a vaporizer or one-hitter, and detracts from mental functioning due to heat shock and carbon monoxide, resulting in false "drug" blame fastened upon the cannabinoids.Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Joint Photo Description

The photograph of a joint is labelled as being "700 mg". That's equal to 0.7 grams of marijuana, which isn't that much. 7 grams (or 7,000 mg) would be a much more accurate description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redpill93 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


No, 700 MG is probably an accurate description. 7 grams is roughly 1/4 ounce, and I would bet my on my life that there is not $90 US dollars of weed in that joint. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Please leave the description as it is. Sdukeminloodwig3 (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The stranger thing about this caption is the next sentence - "Temperatures can reach 700°C., destroying cannabinoids but causing "drug effects" attributed to the cannabis." This implies that cannabinoids don't cause the effects, and it seems to suggest some kind of placebo effect. Is there any basis for this? -DarthTaper (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

An argument for retaining the "drug effects attributed to the cannabis" warning: the reason for special difficulty finding sources for the view that cannabis per se (without heat shock and carbon monoxide) is not a drug but a nutritional supplement to encourage inspiration and creativity, is that in today's society any academician who publishes findings to that effect would risk being asked, "How do you know" i.e. having first-hand knowledge about cannabis constitutes guilt and liability, loss of career etc. It is therefore easier for "experts" to go along with the "drug" talk and avoid risking getting pounced on by drug war hawks. But under the prevailing Wikipedia viewpoint, that "Original Research" is not admissable, no elsewhere unpublished challenge to the possibly fraudulent "cannabis = drug" orthodoxy survives in the article. I think though the ban on Original Research is mostly correct, there must be a few exceptions where Wikipedia stands as Forum of Last Resort for suppressed true information. (Admittedly this also challenges the title of the article-- there is no scientific basis for assuming that cannabis itself is a drug.)Tokerdesigner (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Toker, this argument just doesn't hold water. First of all, if a researcher came to this conclusion based on personal use, the problem is not that he/she would be admitting guilt, etc. The problem would be that this doesn't constitute real research. It would be an un-blinded, anecdotal account of a single subject with no control group. No reputable science journal would ever consider such terrible "research" for publication. Moreover, while the U.S. severely restricts scientists from conducting research on pot, many other countries do not. Finally, I think the real problem here is that you do not understand what the term "drug" truly means. If the substance contains active ingredients that in some way affects the mind or body, it is a drug. That doesn't mean it's good or bad. So, if, as you claim, pot really does "encourage inspiration and creativity" then, by definition, it is a drug. (Well, that's not entirely true. If you mean that it tastes good, looks pretty, etc, and that serves as an inspiration, then that's not a drug. But, if it has any type of objective impact on the person beyond a placebo effect or of serving as a fuel source, like all food does, it is a drug.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 20:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
If granted that the herb contains female plant hormones which "inspire" human responses at endocannabinoid receptors etc., these might be considered instruction or propaganda rather than "drug".Tokerdesigner (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

ok.. in regards to the picture of the joint. there could very well be a quad in that J. i have rolled 7 grams into a blunt before, and it was roughy .75 inches in diameter, filling the entire length of the wrap. so it could very well be 7 grams. but in actuality, it is probably more around 3.5 grams (an eighth), or possibly 4 grams. but i do agree that there is no way that there is only .7 grams in that J. a dime would NEVER make a J that fat. unless it was shitty swag. Jacob McKinley (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going by the apparent size of the "filter" which suggests the joint pictured contains about as much net weight of cannabis as a commercial filter $igarette which is 700-mg. (At 2010 prices why would anyone smoke away a gram in a few minutes instead of dividing it into 40 pre-sifted one-hitter servings of 25-mg.?Tokerdesigner (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
dude... if you divide a gram into 40 snaps, then you must have a crazy low tolerance. a gram would get me kinda high. but not that high, regardless of how it was consumed. and im fomr cali my man, best bud worldwide. once you step up, you start going through like an eighth a day easy. and its not too bad price wise if you buy from clinics. and i do seeing as i have my card. and you failed to notice that that J was not the same thickness as a cig. also, cigs contain a lot of empty space, they arn't that tightly packed. a good J should be quite firm. buy a gram and roll it up. it will be much thinner than a ciggy. i got this on lock mane. i mean, i totally respect your opinion, but in this case, i know what i'm talking about.

Jacob McKinley (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, McKinley is right dude. A gram rolled up is much smaller than a cig, no matter the density of your buds, a joint is much more dense than a smoke %99 of the time if you can roll at all. I guess American Spirits would be the exception there. If you are going for economy, get yourself a Volcano man, those 25mg servings go waaaaaaaayy further. Psilocelium 08:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psilocelium (talk • contribs)

Accuracy and precision problem

In section 3 entitled Potency, it states:

"(NCPIC) states that the buds (flowers) of the female cannabis plant contain the highest concentration of THC, followed by the leaves. The stalks and seeds have "much lower THC levels".[37] The UN states that the leaves can contain ten times less THC than the buds, and the stalks one hundred times less THC."

However, the UN report cited actually says:

"The THC content varies in the different parts of the plant: from 10-12 per cent in flowers, 1-2 per cent in leaves, 0.1-0.3 per cent in stalks, to less than 0.03 per cent in the roots."

I have three issues: the construction "X times less" doesn't bother me personally, but it is not an ideal or accurate way to express the ratio given the alternatives. I also think this is phrased badly given the sentences that precede it. And also we don't need to reference the information about stalks and leaves from the NCPIC report if we have a UN report giving us actual percentages--we should use the more precise figure. I think we should go for a chiasmus to keep people's attention. Can't we just say:

(NCPIC) states that the buds (flowers) of the female cannabis plant contain the highest concentration of THC. The seeds have "much lower THC levels".[37] The leaves, however, typically contain only ten percent the THC level of the buds, and the stalks just one to two percent, according to the UN.

So in order of mention, we have: "NCPIC states", "buds". "seeds". "leaves", stalks", "according to the UN".

Just some thoughts

--Canismajoris (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


Again, on the subject of accuracy, the word "reefer" is used several times as a word to describe cannabis. This is not correct, and is simply a slang word for the "ready to smoke" article if you will, and is actually better likened to "a joint" or "a spliff". Again, these refer to the end product that would be smoked, and not the plant, or buds as they are sold.

90.220.16.160 (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC) An anti PC smoker, UK 90.220.16.160 (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC) 06/09/2010

I agree. The implications of using street terminology doesnt fit well considering this should be treated as a research journal so to speak. Especially slang pertaining to use, sale, etc, should be kept to an appropriate amount or used only when referring to those specifically. Psilocelium 07:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psilocelium (talk • contribs)

Control and Elimination

It is well known that Cannabis is a sturdy weed, and difficult to eliminate. Most growers seem to cater to the plant, stimulating it for maximum grown, and chemical output. But what if you need to remove this pestilence? Are there no known effective herbicides to combat this plague-plant?
Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.31.182 (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Depending on the legal status of marijuana in your state those could be valuable weeds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3dec3 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Try reading our herbicide article for some ideas. Smartse (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take them.Tick avenger (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

in kansas it grows wild you are supposed to contact local police before you remove it because it could be considered harvesting (76.120.39.39 (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

You make a valid point. Though I was referring to ways to poison them off without putting potential users at risk, I think that your notation about the legality of removal, or "harvesting" the weeds should be noted in the main article.
Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 11:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Excessive hyperlinking in introduction?

We don't need links on flowers, leaves, stalks, female, world's adult population, world, or countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomLurker (talk • contribs) 22:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Eating the whole preparation as compared to taking a specific alkaloid extract as a drug in tablet/pharmaceutical form.

Here is a post from a forum elsewhere considering the differences and how they should be attested and explained; a useful question if ever reference-able and notable as from a valued source producing an answer as something to touch upon in an article here on Wikipedia about such: "Has anyone had Dronabinol who also is experienced enough with cannabis cookery to compare the highs? I know from what I've been told that Dronabinol is more intense than smoking/vaporizing-inhalation. Though Dronabinol is just the THC molecule and the plant is inclusive to hundreds of inactive & arguably peripherally active (when with or without conjunction to THC in the body), alkaloids. . . . Potentially I'm thinking (if any of the other cannabinoid alkaloids that aren't THC are prodrugs to THC or otherwise peripherally active) eating the plant may be a completely different high, as someone wrote earlier perhaps without this even in mind; all the other alkaloids would be ingested in the stomach at the same time and not require the same evaporation point when smoked/vaporized that may be losing out as the smoker of the whole cannabis plant preparation; alternating 'hits/tokes' may yield different peripherally active cannabinoid pseudo-THC alkaloids yielding a different coloration of effects at a different spectrum range of onsets and synergies for each. Whereas eating a brownie would have these all hit relatively in one deft timing, and leave a THC/cannabinol (proper)/Dronabinol tablet or otherwise (powder?) ingestion seeming different by comparison with how the whole plant preparation and its hundreds of alkaloids adjunct to one another while in first pass metabolism of eating." 184.76.53.217 (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hashish

"THE UNION - the business of bud" is a documentary Made recently in 2009 that tells a lot about Cannabis and should be seen by all who are even slightly related to this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.159.1 (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This section does not seem to accurately portray what hashish is at all.-Hashish (also spelled hasheesh, hashisha, or simply hash) is a concentrated resin produced from the flowers of the female cannabis plant.- The names are fine, maybe some fine tuning but the "concentrated resin produced from the flowers of the female plant" part is off. It is overall packed with resin but I believe most large growers use clippings and lesser quality bud trim from lower areas of the harvest. "Female flowers" would be likely the secondary source for trichomes used in hash production as they are worth as much& sometimes more than hashish.

--- Hashish is composed of many individual trichomes that have been removed from the plant matter by means of many devices. Screens, Bubble Bags, the Freeze and Shake Method are just a few of the ways this can be done. These trichomes are then either run through progressively smaller diameter openings for a finer product or collected after the first run through and compressed. Heat is usually applied to "melt" the trichomes together with the viscous resin contained.

These are just a couple ideas I had, bedtime is here otherwise I would sit and do this all night haha!!! Cannabis is so wonderful :]Psilocelium 07:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jbarraco, 14 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Would like to add an updated picture

Cannabis Colors Macro

thank you

Jbarraco (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You'd have to remove the watermark first for it to be considered - see WP:WATERMARK. SmartSE (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

article on research

just came across this which was published today. key points:

  • "A new Australian study has found conclusive evidence that using cannabis can hasten the onset of psychotic illnesses such as schizophrenia."
  • "The risks are especially high for young people whose brains are still developing."
  • "research can't distinguish about whether cannabis causes schizophrenia or brings it out in vulnerable people"

I'll leave this up to other to determine if it is worth including as I know this is a controversial wikipedia article.--Hypo Mix (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

have they shown proof that this is so? Smokiewight (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"A new Australian study has found strong evidence..." so yes as far as scientific studies can 'prove' anything (it was a peer reviewed article).--Hypo Mix (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article should be included. But, to be clear, this article most certainly does NOT present "conclusive evidence" of anything. No single study presents conclusive evidence, certainly not of a causal relationship. This does support the hypothesis, however, and should be included. The fact that this wiki article may be perceived as "controversial" is irrelevant. The source you've provided meets wiki standards, it's relevant to this topic, and the fact that some people may wish it were not so should not be taken into consideration.JoelWhy (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea how to write wiki-pages, but this article from the same website goes towards refuting the above research: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/09/01/2673334.htm Thought it should be included along side this one in the article. --69.245.43.212 (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice catch, yes, this should be included in addition the previously mentioned study.JoelWhy (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Effects/Blood pressure

A citation is needed for the statement that Cannabis lowers blood pressure, or preferable rewriting that paragraph as different sources state different effects cannabis has on the blood pressure - or at least that it has a individual variance. (Zewz (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)) This is not an easy subject. Does cannabis raise blood pressure or lower it. In general, it does lower the blood pressure of a cannabis smoking individual, and hypotensive states can then lead to tachycardia. There are studies however, where cannabis products did also raise blood pressure. So overall, the heterogenous drug products produced from cannabis can have varying effects on an individual. As a medicine, certainly, there are some indications for cannabis, but usually the effect of smokable cannabis is unreliably predicted and smokable products vary greatly with regard to the cannabinoid profile. Smokable cannabis therefore is an unreliable pharmacological agent since it was originally bred and selected for ceremonial and recreational purposes. 85.3.49.161 (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Impact on blood pressure could also vary depending whether the herb is "smoked" i.e. combusted with heat shock, carbon monoxide and other toxic issues, or vaporized ( which can be done with a vaporizer, a cheap hand-made one hitter or, as announced in California in June 2010, with a cannabinoid e-cigarette ("Vapor Rush"). Research on these variables could be as important to search down and/or supply as on the cannabinoid profile of the herb used.Tokerdesigner (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.13.187.217, 3 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} On the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana the word "marijuana" has been replaced with "a fat shtinking potent cheddar" 86.13.187.217 (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, that was vandalism that was immediately corrected by a clever robot. You were unlucky to notice it. SmartSE (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Trinidadianking, 11 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The typical herbal form of cannabis consists of the flowers and subtending leaves and stalks of mature pistillate of female plants.

The major psychoactive chemical compound in cannabis is Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (commonly abbreviated as THC). Cannabis contains more than 400 different chemical compounds, including at least 66 other cannabinoids (cannabidiol (CBD), cannabinol (CBN) and tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV), etc.) which can result in different effects from those of THC alone.[7]

Cannabis use has been found to have occurred as long ago as the 3rd millennium BC[8] Where just as it is today, it was used for Medicinal purposes, Religious or Spiritual and also Recreational activities.

Trinidadianking (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that's mostly copy-and-paste from the current article with the addition of inappropriate capitalization. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Please repost the template when you decide just what you want to change. Remember, because of Wikipedia:Verifiability we need a reference for most changes, like what that [7] is in the actual article. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

overgrown??? can you overgrow a marijuanna plant?

How do you know when the budded plant is finished and ready to harvest? I am [email redacted]. I am a licensed cultivater, through health Canada..

someone said that it could get overgrown and it looses the potency.. Is this true?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.87.102 (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't an instruction manual or a forum for discussing such matters. Per Wiki policies, please limit postings on the Talk page to issues relevant to the article.JoelWhy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC).

Hemp/marijuana

These are the same plant. The name marijuana is simply the Spanish word for the English word hemp. They both refer to the same plant Cannabis sativa . Any good dictionary will confirm this. (I am using Chambers.) The last paragraph of the History section makes some excellent points but this crucial sameness is missed out. SmokeyTheCat 12:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The translation for hemp in spanish is not marijuana or marihuana, it is Cáñamo. --KDesk (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kaizentrader, 1 May 2011

Please delete the pictures of the midwakh pipes that are located in the "mechanism for action" section of this very informative article. The midwakh pipe is only used for dokha tobacco & not cannabis. I hope you consider this urgent request as the trade supports families in the UAE and such a misleading picture can have very severe consequences in a country with zero tolerance towards drugs. Thank you for your consideration Kaizentrader (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Done Although the midwakh is no doubt used for smoking cannabis, that is not its purpose in its country of origin. Use of this image in this context tends to imply otherwise, so I agree that it should be removed. I've replaced it with one of a joint being smoked, which appears to be just as relevant. The midwakh photo is pretty poor quality, and I think part of the problem is that we don't have any decent generic images of one hitters that are specifically used for smoking cannabis (at least I can't find any) - can someone upload a few to Commons?  —SMALLJIM  12:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an example of how politics reaches in to deform Wikipedia coverage. (I am not so sure exhibiting a midwakh in this article need imply anything about its use in UAE, or at least the caption could be redesigned to clarify that.) Though the "bat" photo does not clearly show the important narrowness of crater which permits healthy low-temperature operation, I am including that until someone responds to Smalljim's challenge by furnishing a better one hitter pic.
Guess what-- another "zero tolerance toward drugs" country-- Egypt-- launched a "crackdown on hashish" (April-May 2010); where is that government today?Tokerdesigner (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

some problems in the article

The term "skunk" is used before it is defined. Please add "(a high potency strain)" and a link to its definition below. "class b" is used without being defined, please add a link to an article about England's drug classes. The US classification is not mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.25.149 (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

POV

This article seems to have a subtle but clear bias toward the legalization of cannabis and the "good" side of cannabis. I'm adding a POV template for now. G man yo (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should provide examples. Here are some:

- The first line of long term effects starts with "Although cannabis smoke is not nearly as harmful as tobacco smoke..."

- Almost every fact is about how Marijuana isn't bad.

- "Currently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved smoked marijuana for any condition or disease in the United States, largely because good quality scientific evidence for its use from U.S. studies is lacking; however, a major barrier to acquiring the necessary evidence is the lack of federal funding for this kind of research."

Someone else needs to get on this computer, but there are several other examples. Many of them on their own would not be bad, but together they make a pretty clear bias.G man yo (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't think this article warrants the POV tag. I see what you're getting at, but facts are facts. We should probably delete some of what has been added (including the 'not as bad as cigarette smoke...we don't indicate in the tobacco page that it's not as bad as smoking crack.) But, it's only marginally POV.JoelWhy (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

i actually agree that this isnt neutral, but i think the problem is in the phrasing. for example they its "effective for treating glaucoma" when in reality all it does is temporarily alleviate the symptoms, it isnt a long term treatment (right? did i make that up?). cannabis has many applications, i dont think this is a disputed fact. is this not true (if you think it isnt than the burden of evidence or whatever its called is on you) just because the number of pros is greater then cons doesnt mean that its biased. the fact remains that cannabis still has many negative effects, which are documented in this and other articles. im unclear as to why you didnt like the part about how US isnt funding studies of cannabis. is this not true? could you give more specific examples of what you view as biased in this article? i dont see whats wrong with the part about tobacco smoke, it isnt nearly as harmful, thats a fact (when it comes to the lungs). and with all of the propaganda a few years back about one joint being equal to 4 cigarettes in terms of "tar" i think its kind of appropriate. no we dont say that smoking tobacco isnt as bad as crack, but thats because in this article we are talking about the respiratory effects, not the effects of the drug on the mind and life of a person. if you want to argue that there is a POV issue it would help if you gave more examples and some scholarly sources. you cant just slap a POV tag on it just because you have a different pov. what you say has no bearing unless you have something to back it up with. i vote to remove the pov tag. Hoginford (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Indented line Agreed Hoginford, I vote the POV should be removed from the article unless G man yo can offer proof of this bias POV. TriXteR Phillips

--75.120.53.116 (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit explanation due to semi protect

I removed "at times" from the Adulterants section due to it being possibly a localized instances, and removed the challenged and uncited statement that began the section which I forgot to mention in the edit summary.--Mjpresson (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm continuing some edits despite my reluctance here. Some sections are extremely long and any unreferenced statements must be removed. If there's a section redirect at the head of the article to a longer article then the content in this article must stay under control.--Mjpresson (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
It is a shame that this was once a Good Article until it was compromised with fan fluff and weasel edits. I don't know if it's possible but we should try to restore its status. Excuse me for being bold, but perhaps this means that the previous editors who have piled on this article in the past and have had their edits reverted take a break from adding their cannabis acumen. --Mjpresson (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I feel the image in the infobox should show cannabis in its natural form with the current image of cured cannabis in another section. Feedback?--Mjpresson (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Including a one hitter over a joint

This is primarily addressed to TokerDesigner: we do not need a shot of the one hitter. Compared to a joint, the one hitter is an obscure means of consumption. The joint is so ubiquitous that the meaning of "smoke two joints" is readily manifest. To eschew a picture of a joint and include something so much rarer would betray the intent of a wikipedia article to convey information proportionate to its notability.--Louiedog (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Terms for including one-hitter AND joint

Agree with presentation of a photo of a joint so long as a picture of... a joint is substituted for the previous picture of a man smoking one.
(a) Contrary to the belief of another recent editor, a picture in Wikipedia can suggest WP approval. In this case, the picture of a man smoking a joint was the only picture in the widely consulted "Cannabis (drug)" article (27,000 hits a day according to a ratings survey in October 2010) of an actual human being demonstrating any equipment, thus it was the one picture mostly likely to attract the attention of pre-reading age children (who may be viewing the article in the company of their parents; there is to my knowledge no such thing as a warning template on any WP articles that they are not advisable to be seen by children).
(b) The addition of an estimated dosage figure-- 500 mg-- to the caption of the "joint" picture, objected to as "toker fluff" in the recent past by one or two editors, is warranted because dosage size has a bearing on the definition of cannabis as "drug" in the popular but unfortunate title. This figure should be presented near the single serving figure of 25 mg (in an adjoining text or illustration)-- also an estimate, to be sure-- for best information value. Smoking a "joint" (in which burning temperatures can reach 700° C) may produce "drug" effects that are then available to be ignorantly-- or maliciously-- attributed to cannabis itself.
(c) The most frequent objection to estimated dosage figures (even though their "ball park" accuracy is hardly in doubt) has been that they are prohibited by the rule against Original Research. In view of political obstruction against cannabis research over the decades, this is surely an occasion for Original Research as Last Resort (WP:Ignore All Rules). The appearance of such data in WP articles, like red links, can serve as a spur to editors or to readers from the professional research communities to undertake challenging research tasks which have been deferred too long.Tokerdesigner (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
"Terms"? Regarding (a), Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of pre-reading age children who are reading an article on Cannabis for some reason by some method. There is no occasion for original research, and if you insert it, it will be removed. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
(a) Agree with Jpgordan. Wikipedia has pictures of genitalia, depictions of sexual and oral intercourse, pictures of people consuming cocaine, pictures of a person injecting himself with heroin, pictures of people smoking hookah, pictures of various types of genital piercing, uncensored use of the words "fuck", "shit", and an article on the Seven dirty words. Personal value judgments of the subject matter and how it should be thought of are complete irrelevant.
(b) How does the quantity of cannabis consumed change it from a drug to not a drug?
(c) Motivation for inclusion of material isn't nearly as relevant as whether it follows wikipedia policies. If the quantity of cannabis is essentially common knowledge, I would have no objection to an estimate being given, though it might seem a bit odd to include in a picture caption.
--Louiedog (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
(a) Agreed, there is (officially) no censorship, I don't advocate any; in this case, a picture of someone smoking a joint, rather than just a picture of a joint, adds an element of WP:SPAM-- without adding any information value. After a century of advertising practice, and a May 30, 2011 WHO estimate of 6 million deaths attributed to tobacco (but almost entirely from cigarette smoking), any picture of a cigarette being smoked-- even if recognized by knowledgeable readers as a joint-- is a cigarette advertisement. Especially if it's the only picture of a human being doing something in the article. For a "different" opinion, check recent edits by the editor (uh oh, see next heading, below) who removed the plain joint photo and substituted this one.
(b) Same way filling your lungs with a quart of water in seconds, instead of drinking one glass, turns water into a drug-- or do you pronounce it drown?-- it's the overdose factor. By the way, one or two editors have vehemently objected to mentioning the (700° C) temperature; I can enter a ref to a website where someone in a lab measured the burning temperature of a draw on a "regular cigarette" as 700° C, and according to a table in the Vaporizer (cannabis) article, the vaporization (under 200° C) temperatures for tobacco and cannabis are not far apart; would that do? I think readers, especially youngsters, should know about that difference before they roll a "joint".
(c) Experience seems to indicate that careless or inexperienced readers (who are most at risk) are more likely to notice certain critical bits of info if they are in a picture caption. In this case, knowing that in some places "a joint" means mixing hashish with tobacco, perhaps it is a service to invoke WP:Ignore all rules and include "ball park" data that makes a joint as unattractive as it deserves to be. Readers who notice the "500 mg" in the joint pic and a "25 mg" single serving figure in an adjoining image of a one-hitter may consider their pocketbook and, as a side benefit, escape heat shock and carbon monoxide overdose.Tokerdesigner (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
What?Mjpresson (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
(a) As I've said, we have copious other examples in wikipedia of unhealthy lifestyles being "advertised". However, if you feel that the concept of a joint is better demonstrated by a picture of a joint alone, with the person smoking only being implied, feel free to upload a picture of that and use it as a substitute. I have no preference as long as a joint, probably the most ubiquitous form of consumption (esp. around the world), is represented in the article.
(b) Same way filling your lungs with a quart of water in seconds, instead of drinking one glass, turns water into a drug-- or do you pronounce it drown?-- it's the overdose factor. (1) One example is drinking and the other is inhaling. You can drink a quart of water without it being overdose. (2) You can't overdose on cannabis and I don't believe you're suggesting that you have to die using cannabis for that usage to qualify as "drug". Is your threshold for the difference between "drug" and "not drug" simply whether sufficient quantity has been consumed to have discernible effect?
(c) I think knowing the relative quantities is an interesting tidbit by itself. And there are sources. The joint(cannabis) article already has the citation you're looking for: World Health Organization: Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse (1997). Cannabis: a health perspective and research agenda (PDF). p. 11. WHO/MSA/PSA/97.4.: "typically containing between 250–750 mg net weight of cannabis and/or fillers". Problem solved.
--Louiedog (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your measured response. By the way, check out what the same editor who entered the mysterious four-letter word right above your message has been doing in the Cannabis smoking article today-- besides prosecuting me on the Noticeboard/Incidents page (you can find it by looking up his Contributions). Would you agree with me that editor's agenda is to remove (a) warnings against overdose, (b) warnings against mixing with tobacco, (c) specific information about alternatives to cigarette (joint) smoking, (d) links to such information (wikiHow articles etc.)?
Re (b): I think we should distinguish between non-drug discernable effects (inspiration, creativity) and overdose-associated effects ("dopiness", "amotivational syndrome' etc.).
Re (c): Thanks for finding that citation, if you have time maybe you can decide how to enter it as I will be tied up defending non-overdose, non-pro-tobacco-industry cannabis information (and myself) on ANI...Tokerdesigner (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
P.S. How's this for civility?--
(cur | prev) 20:35, 7 June 2011 Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (81,189 bytes) (GUESSTIMATIONS NOT ALLOWED FOR THE THIRE TIME, TOKERDESIGNERUndid revision 433082122 by Tokerdesigner (talk)) (undo)
I don't want to speculate on motives and it's wikipedia policy to assume good faith. I'm sure (S)he has his/her reasons just as you have yours. If you think there is an outstanding issue regarding the editor in question you can always file a request for comment or ask for mediation. Either of those tends to slow down the process so the best case scenario is always to be able to work with the person directly and see if you can't abide his/her concerns.
(b) It sounds like you're differentiating the "drug" effects from the "non-drug" effects simply by whether they're desirable. As a simple objective fact: consuming marijuana in sufficient quantities produces a variety of psychotropic effects for the duration of the intoxication. These effects may vary by quantity consumed. Some effects (e.g. heart rate) are easy to quantify, while some (e.g. creative thought) are harder to observe/measure. We can't really separate out the effects into "drug" and "non-drug" when all effects produced are a result of the same substance.
(c) It should be relatively simple to include in the caption, "A joint, a common means of consumption, typically contains between 250mg and 750mg of cannabis [cite]." I don't think there's anything controversial about that.
--Louiedog (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Gallery for images?

This article has many images both left and right. Would a gallery be a good addition in order to keep good page formatting and show all the images. For now I have removed the pic of globs of burnt pipe resin, is that necessary? It's a waste product and its mention and description is enough, I feel. Mjpresson (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a gallery is a good idea: it will reduce the WP:SPAM impact of the "man smoking a joint" (see discussion, above) and also permit including more coverage of alternative, microdosage equipment that reduces "drug effects" falsely attributed to cannabis itself.Tokerdesigner (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the joint picture, and the rest of your post is unintelligible. A gallery certainly would not be the place to continue pushing your odd "one hitter" philosophy. Mjpresson (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson

there is evidence (diaries and letters) that they grew and promoted the production of hemp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.247.44 (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

And therefore ... ? Looie496 (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

therefore it should be included as part of the cultural history of the usage of cannabis and cannabis related products in parts of the globe; it's relationship to trade and early agriculture in the American colonies, and perhaps also the socio-cultural values attached to its use and value, including the agricultural means of its production by two "founding fathers" who are noted for having had progressive attitudes toward the slaves they owned. In any case, it should be included as part of the history of marijuana as much as might Baudelaire's On Hashish and Walter Benjamin's book on Hashish be included in the cultural discourse surrounding hashish. It is no mistake that the negative attitudes toward the substance (in North America) is very much a product of very recent government and societal campaigns, and have as much a part in the cultural history of america as would the politics surrounding, for example, alcohol. For a wikipedia entry on cannabis as a drug I assume there would be no controversy over the inclusion of extensive cultural and sociological aspects of the use of this drug around the world and throughout history, and for this reason I second the inclusion of the facts surrounding the early American attitudes toward the drug among those who founded the institutions which would later be used to enforce other attitudes toward the drug. this is my two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.247.44 (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, but hemp is also used to make rope, an essential product. We would have to have a source to show that the hemp produced by Washington and Jefferson was used for smoking. Looie496 (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Irrelevant. It would belong in the Hemp article.--Louiedog (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

clumsy/incomplete sentence in the lede

"Cannabis use has been found to have occurred as long ago as the 3rd millennium BC...." ?? This needs to be fixed - as it stands, it doesn't make sense. Did the editor mean "occurred as long ago as the 3rd millennium B.C. in human settlements" ? The plant species has been around for probably at least a few hundred thousand years if not many more. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

I assume it means there's been evidence of its use by humans as far back as then. Obviously, the plant existed before people started figuring out the fun things to do with it. I've changed the sentence.--Louiedog (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Overall non-NPOV detected

For example: "Though the long-term effects of cannabis have been studied, there remains much to be concluded. Debated aspects include the possibility of cannabis dependence, the potential of cannabis as a "gateway drug", its effects on intelligence and memory, and the relationship, if any, of cannabis use to mental disorders such as schizophrenia and depression. On some topics, such as the drug's effects on the lungs, relatively little research has been conducted, leading to division as to the severity of its impact."

I want to learn more about the adverse affects of this drug. I am no expert on this subject (hence why I am here) but this whole article (and indeed others on the subject) seem to promote the positive aspects of the drug whilst downplaying the dangers and abstracting them away from the article with phrases like 'little research', 'hotly debated', 'much to be concluded'. Why is this drug illegal? More detail on the health problems (there has to be some concrete ones.

I have no allegiance to either side of the 'debate', I'm just here to learn, but there are clear bias at work here.

I'll say it, this article is clearly written by the stereotypical intelligent stoners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.200.248 (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I agree, if this article says things like, 'research has yet to conclude the negative effects of marijuana on THE LUNGS', then it is biased. IT IS SMOKE GOING INTO YOUR LUNGS. IT GIVES YOU CANCER AND SHIT.

It's also true though that there's relatively little research on marijuana because of it's status as an illegal drug. I know that there's a statistical link between schizophrenia and marijuana use, though, and that is gets your super stoned and lazy. makeswell (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I am all for including negative information supported by scientific evidence. But, for the record, I believe the studies are fairly clear that smoking marijuana does NOT cause lung cancer. Yes, this is counter-intuitive, but we cannot add information to a wiki article based on gut instincts.JoelWhy (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

i'm replacing a citation

Hi. I'm going to replace this citation,

"Why is Marijuana Illegal?". drugwarrant.com. Retrieved 12 May 2011.

with this one,

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_law.shtml "Cannabis: Legal Status" by Erowid

for the following sentence, which is currently the final sentence of the lede,

"The possession, use, or sale of cannabis preparations containing psychoactive cannabinoids became illegal in most parts of the world in the early 20th century,"

I'm going to do this because the former links to a page that discusses only the criminalization of marijuana in the United States whereas the latter links to a page that is (a), created by Erowid and therefore reliable, and (b), addresses the legal status of marijuana in multiple countries and is therefore a more appropriate source of information for the sentence which discusses. makeswell (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Here is a permanent link to my edit. makeswell (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

minus SoapboxingMjpresson (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 16 November 2011

I would request a reversion to remove the material added by PkScary.

  1. (cur | prev) 16:05, 11 November 2011‎ PkScary (talk | contribs)‎ (74,624 bytes) (→Long-term effects)
  2. (cur | prev) 14:31, 11 November 2011‎ PkScary (talk | contribs)‎ (72,794 bytes) (→Long-term effects)


Reason: The material appears to be biased, misleading, lacks adequate support for such a broad statement, and appears to be a scare tactic.

Their insertion: However, cannabis has been consistently shown to induce depersonalization disorder.[27] There are case reports in the literature where chronic depersonalization is induced by only short-term cannabis ingestion.[28][29] In a series of 117 individuals with depersonalization disorder, about 13% reported the short-term triggering of chronic depersonalization by marijuana smoking.[30] There are cases where individuals have gotten depersonalization disorder when trying cannabis for the first time. Chronic depersonalization disorder can last an entire lifetime, and to date there are no specific medical treatments (just medications which ameliorate the negative symptoms of depersonalization disorder, which are mainly depression and anxiety), although some research has been promising.[31]


The first sentence in their insertion references footnote 27, however the source material in footnote 27 does not support their conclusion that cannabis has been "consistently shown to induce depersonalization disorder." Additionally, the study referenced suggested that there may have been causes other than cannabis.

One study involving only 117 people is too limited to assume that this applies to the entire population, especially when only 13% "reported the short-term triggering of chronic depersonalization by marijuana smoking." Additionally, short term, by definition is not a "Long Term Effect" that the section heading addresses.

Removal of the entire material appears appropriate, or at a minimum, change the wording from "cannabis has been consistently shown" to "cannabis, in one study, was shown."

Thank you for your consideration.


Viridis Veritas (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The source material in footnote 27 does indeed support the conclusion that cannabis has been consistently shown to induce depersonalization. In fact, this is explicitly stated in the article, but not the abstract. Thank you for your concern; my additions are indeed dramatic, but they are well cited and truthful. PkScary (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Edit requests are for uncontroversial edits that already have the support of consensus. Please discuss on the talk page prior to using {{edit semi-protected}}. Thanks! — Bility (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned links

This article is protected, so I could not effect any changes. However, there are other articles referencing the "Cannabis (drug)#Shunk" subtitle which no longer exists. In this very article, there is also a self-reference to "Skunk (cannabis)" which now simply redirects to "Cannabis (drug)". 66.11.179.30 (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia if full of disinformation

Coming here for info is like asking the government or media for the truth. You only get what they want you to know. That means leaving information out or just straight up lies. I went to a few articles to see what info Wikipedia will give and I was disappointed to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.148.5 (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an open editing project. If info is weak or biased, it is because we the public haven't put in the work to improve it. That includes yourself;) The Interior (Talk) 01:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 January 2012

The link for reference 26 is broken. Here is an updated link: http://www.bmj.com/content/325/7374/1195.1 Chrismgowen (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! --KDesk (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Schizophrenia link

I think the article should mention and elaborate on the recent studies which indicate a strong link between Marijuana and Schizophrenia

Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 13:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This is covered in some detail here, Effects of cannabis and here, Long-term effects of cannabis , I would suggest that this article (Cannabis) covers this topic in sufficient detail, however the citations and information from recent studies you mention should definatly be included on those articles regarding effects of cannabis. JamesGrimshaw (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this forum should be opened completely to all, including & especially the regular-users of cannabis (any form). M. Ali — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.255.27.234 (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

a gateway drug?

everyone is different with drugs its not a gateway drug nobody goes and try's new drugs because of weed its because they wanted to try it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.237.11 (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Marijuana is not a gateway drug because there has been no evidence that people who did marijuana were lead to harsher or stronger drugs — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJIT HUMpuneet (talk • contribs) 07:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If you look into the actual statistics you'll notice that more people who have started with tobacco or alcohol end up using harder drugs than those who started with cannabis. Cannabis as a NMDA antagonist painkiller facilitates the withdrawal from opiates. I personally know several people who have used cannabis as GATEOUT drug, to stop drinking alcohol/taking heroin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.82.248 (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

additional info for "Medical use" section

At the end of the "Medical use" section there is a reference to two US Supreme Court cases which seems to indicate the medical use of marijuana is illegal. However, there is another US Supreme Court case not mentioned which i think would bring more balance to this section, City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court of Orange County. Well, that's not an actual SCOTUS case, but the case was appealed to SCOTUS and SCOTUS declined to consider it, letting stand the lower court's ruling which found that its medical marijuana law was not preempted by federal law, and providing a precedence of state medical marijuana law over federal law.

Here is a little about the case on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Senate_Bill_420#City_of_Garden_Grove_v._Superior_Court and some further info: http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/07/scotus-declines-to-review-appeals-court — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.133.113 (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What's in a name?

A quick search of the archives did not turn up any past discussion on the matter, but if I missed it please forgive me. The word cannabis makes me think of the plant from which people derive marijuana, the dried flower parts, and hashish, the plant's concentrated resin. People also derive hemp fiber from the cannabis plant. In other words, distinctive names exist for each of the plant's products, so I doubt that this article's current title is the most appropriate. Since this article describes both marijuana and hashish, but excludes hemp fiber, perhaps we should rename the article to something like psychoactive products of the cannabis plant or psychoactive preparations of the cannabis plant. Thoughts? KLP (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The archives might not be the most straightforward thing to look through, but we'd have related discussions many times before. The cannabis article describes the plant, while this article describes the drug usage of that plant. The basic issue is that this article describes marijuana/pot/weed/trees and a probe through the scientific literature reveals that "cannabis" is the most broadly used technical term e.g. in studies. But that's the point: sources using the term "cannabis" (e.g. "cannabis use") aren't referring to the plant, but specifically to recreational/medicinal uses of it. I appreciate that this might sound like sloppy use of the term, but "cannabis", especially in the scientific literature, commonly refers to drugs made out of the plant.--Louiedog (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I see the logic there, although I am not sure that we should rely on the prose of scientific literature for the title of a Wikipedia article. I would think that it is very clear from the context whether a given piece of scientific literature refers to cannabis the plant or cannabis the psychoactive product. Wikipedia has articles on both. Having the word drug in parenthesis appended to the title of the latter just doesn't feel like the most elegant option, especially when you take the lead into consideration as well:
Cannabis (drug)
Cannabis, also known as marijuana (from the Mexican Spanish marihuana) and by other names, refers to preparations of the Cannabis plant intended for use as a psychoactive drug and as medicine.
This opening implies that the term cannabis primarily refers to psychoactive preparations of the plant when, in fact, the meaning of the term depends very much on context. Now, here is my suggestion:
Psychoactive preparations of the cannabis plant
Psychoactive preparations of the cannabis plant, often referred to as simply cannabis, marijuana, and other names, are products derived from the cannabis plant intended for recreational or medicinal use rather than products without psychoactive uses, such as hemp fiber.
I'm sure that my suggestion requires some improvement, but, more so than the the current opening, it clarifies the use of the term cannabis, delineates between the two categories of products that one might derive from the plant, and provides the context as to which category this article addresses. The remainder of the article can, and should, continue using the term cannabis, per scientific convention and for readability.
With respect to the other ways that we might improve this article, I realize that this issue probably isn't very important. But every little bit counts, right? KLP (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem here is one of metonymy: "cannabis" both refers to a substance used to get high and the plant it's derived from. Calling this article "Psychoactive use of cannabis" or "Psychoactive preparations of cannabis" has two problems:
1. It creates an interesting contradiction in that "cannabis" as used in this article refers to the psychoactive substance in its many forms so the name would then be at odds with the content, especially when the first sentence says, "Cannabis here refers to psychoactive preparations of the Cannabis plant".
2. It is curiously at odds with the dictionary definition, which states that "cannabis" refers to psychoactive preparations derived from "a tall widely cultivated Asian herb", not to the plant (for which it uses "Cannabis sativa" and "Cannabis indica").
So the most I could support in terms of a move would be to move this article to "Cannabis (psychoactive use)", which would mostly just be a less succinct version of our current article title, while WP naming criteria values conciseness in a title. Other things to take into consideration from WP naming criteria include: (1) consistency with similar articles (see Tobacco or Opium); (2) recognizability, "Psychoactive preparations of cannabis" is not common terminology among users or researchers; and (3) naturalness, which title are readers most likely to look for to find the article? Overwhelmingly, I would expect readers to type "marijuana" (which redirects here) or "cannabis" if they wanted to read about the history, effects, and legality of the psychoactive substance. Moving to "Psychoactive preparations of cannabis" might make things a little cleaner for the editors, but the emphasis is on readers over editors and laymen over experts.--Louiedog (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Depersonalization disorder?

It says there's 3 studies confirming this, but one of them is just a duplicate and the third one has nothing to do with cannabis whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.82.248 (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the studies says, and I QUOTE: "Each occurred in the setting of a stressful life event."

This is a psychological stressor and to assume a causal relationship so quickly is just ridiculous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.82.248 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC) 5

This is your opinion. Wikipedia is not about opinions. Read the articles in full (not just the abstracts), and you will see why they are cited.
No one is assuming a causal relationship. There are many scientific studies which provide evidence that cannabis use can precipitate depersonalization disorder, a permanent condition. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it hasn't happened to tens of thousands of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.77.211 (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
98.216.77.211, your conclusions are not supported by the full text of the studies cited or, frankly, anything else I can find in peer-reviewed literature. Depersonalization is certainly triggered by cannabis use - that WHY PEOPLE USE IT; it is the key psychological effect. Depersonalization disorder, on the other hand, is a long-term condition. The studies you cite, if anything, reflect that long term depersonalization through continuing, habitual use is likely a conscious choice to alleviate the symptoms of other disorders.
I think the conclusion abstract of your own citation says it best [emphases not in original]: "Depersonalization is a common experience during acute intoxication with marijuana, and these cases suggest that after the patients had experienced depersonalization, external stressors and intrapsychic factors may have contributed to [marijuana's] continued use as a defense mechanism." Also, Cohen[7], among dozens of others that you chose NOT to cite, concluded that "Medication-associated depersonalization symptoms typically resolve once the inducing drug has been withdrawn."
While I wholeheartedly disapprove of 80.109.82.248's tone, which is certainly not WP:NICE and maybe not even fit WP:GOODFAITH, I have to agree with his conclusion: At best, this is WP:UNDUE weight and the preceding paragraph covers it adequately with "the relationship, if any, of cannabis use to mental disorders..." Since your conclusions don't seem to be substantiated outside of one very limited, 25-year-old study and one of your own cites contradicts your conclusions, I'd say it probably falls under either WP:OR or WP:FRINGE.
Unless someone can come up with better citations and a REALLY good reason to keep this, I think it needs to go. PS: This is not currently mentioned AT ALL in Long-term effects of cannabis. Even if you do find a reasonable citation, that article will be the proper place for the info, IMHO, not here. Please discuss here and I'll delete after a goodly time for input. And PLEASE sign your posts... Kevin/Last1in (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Based on no response in a week, I think we can assume consensus and remove the section. I will wait another day, however, for any additional feedback or dissent. Kevin/Last1in (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Not an expert on medical issues, but a quick read of the source does indicate to me that the disorder and the effect are being conflated. I'd support removal unless a new source is provided. The Interior (Talk) 16:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The scientific literature demonstrates a correlation between the disorder and marijuana use. I see no valid reason that it should be removed. The article should not indicate that there's a causal link (at least, not based on the literature cited.) But, the correlation between the disorder and marijuana use is in notable, peer reviewed literature. I don't understand how keeping this in the article is even remotely controversial.JoelWhy (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Joel, 1) Can you please provide the links to the notable, peer reviewed literature you mention? Simeon (2003 and 2004) and Szymanski do not support the conclusion stated and, while Keshaven/Lishman does, it is small, lonely and ancient (1986). There are far more, and more notable, citations that draw the opposite conclusion.
2) This article is not the best place for the paragraph even it is substantiated. The section leads with links to Long-term effects of cannabis. That article includes NOT ONE WORD on Depersonalization Disorder. If you (or anyone) can really substantiate this, it belongs in the article specific to that kind of info. We already say mental disorders in the preceding paragraph.
3) Assuming it can be substantiated, this paragraph is clearly gives the theory WP:UNDUE weight. "Given the limitations of the research, scientists still debate ... its effects on intelligence and memory; the relationship, if any, of cannabis use to mental disorders such as schizophrenia and depression; and its effect on the lungs." The relationship (causal or not) between cannabis and depression is supported by dozens and dozens of wide-ranging studies and it gets one word in one sentence. Depersonalization Disorder, supported by (as far as I can find) a single outdated study of four people gets a paragraph? That is clearly unreasonable.
I'm resetting my clock on this and will give another week to build consensus. I think it is fair to expect a 'keep' voter to be able to (1) provide new, notable source, AND (2) explain why it doesn't belong in the other article AND (3) explain why it deserves this prominent of a mention in this article. Kevin/Last1in (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Remove for lack of substantiation. KLP (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
From the Simeon article: "The interesting cases of an acute onset of depersonalization disorder with specific chemical intoxications, albeit sporadic compared with the overall incidence of substance use in the population, suggest that chemical triggers of a specific nature can initiate long-standing depersonalization disorder (in the absence of continued substance use.) Such drugs are marijuana...even at times in the absence of co-occuring traumatic stress...There are case reports in the literature of chronic depersonalization induced by short term cannabis ingestion."
So, the Simeon article fully supports the inclusion of the correlation between the two. (I haven't read through the other article, so no comment on that for the moment.) Whether it should be included in the other article or not is irrelevant. Whatever answer you give, it should still be included here. Finally, does it deserve an entire paragraph? No, I don't believe it does. There isn't evidence that this is a pandemic within marijuana users. I would say it deserves a simple sentence saying something along the lines of "Some studies suggest that marijuana use may cause depersonalization disorder in a small number of users." (Just throwing that sentence out off the top of my head, it needs to be reworked, but you get the idea.JoelWhy (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Joel, for the response. I agree with your reading of that Simeon article. IMHO, though, this is on the frayed edge of the fringe; I feel Simeon refutes her original conclusion in her later work; I just don't see any corroboration, and I see tonnes more research reaching an opposite conclusion. Since all of that falls under WP:OR, however, I just don't think it's worth the argument if we fix for Undue Weight, which I think you agree is appropriate.
  • Action: (1) I am placing relevant notes on the talk pages of the half-dozen articles that spring up like weeds (pun intended) when health and pot converge. (2) I will strike the paragraph in question. (3) I am changing the preceding paragraph as follows: Given the limitations of the research, scientists still debate the possibility of cannabis dependence; the potential of cannabis as a "gateway drug"; its effects on intelligence and memory; its effect on the lungs; and the relationship, if any, of cannabis use to mental disorders[4] such as schizophrenia,[5] psychosis,[6] Depersonalization disorder[7] and depression.[8]
I added Cites for each of the items, added psychosis (which has relatively good science) and linked in the causality question with the word, 'relationship'. I was unable to find anything substantive related to the lungs, memory or intelligence. Actually, all I found were negative studies showing that no link exists. I don't want to add a {{CITE}} to this after all the Depersonalization drama, but if anyone can find anything at all that supports those three terms (the lungs, memory and intelligence in case you're reading this under the influence - sorry, couldn't resist), please add it when you can. I am making the changes now because I consider them non-controversial in light of Joel's reply. Please discuss here before reverting in toto, but please also feel free to make corrections or additions. Kevin/Last1in (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.dopestats.com/dopestats/template.jsp?drug=230
  2. ^ http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123278062/HTMLSTART
  3. ^ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080124145015.htm
  4. ^ McLaren, Jennifer; Lemon, Jim; Robins, Lisa; Mattick, Richard P. (2008). Cannabis and Mental Health: Put into Context. National Drug Strategy Monograph Series. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Retrieved 17 October 2009. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  5. ^ Harding, Anne (3 November 2008). "Pot-induced psychosis may signal schizophrenia". Reuters. Retrieved 17 October 2009.
  6. ^ Henquet, C.; Krabbendam, L.; Spauwen, J.; Kaplan, C.; Lieb, R.; Wittchen, H. -U.; Van Os, J. (2005). "Prospective cohort study of cannabis use, predisposition for psychosis, and psychotic symptoms in young people". BMJ. 330 (7481): 11. doi:10.1136/bmj.38267.664086.63. PMC 539839. PMID 15574485.
  7. ^ Simeon, Daphne (2004). "Depersonalization Disorder: A Contemporary Overview". CNS Drugs. Retrieved 11/11/2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  8. ^ "The BEACH Project". Retrieved 17 October 2009.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cannabis_(drug)/Archive_6&oldid=1140237360"