Talk:Charas/Archives/2020/February

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

differences between charas and pollen

source: http://www.idmu.co.uk/oldsite/charas.html
Charas is resin made in India, generally of higher quality than 'red seal Black', and can appear in soft, pliable or hard, almost brittle, form. It can appear in slabs, or moulded into various shapes. Typically 6-12% THC
Pollen is superior quality Moroccan hashish, normally in round 4oz blocks. Similar in appearance to Lebanese, but of higher potency, it represents earlier 'shakes' than used to produce soap-bars, and the resin is of softer texture. Typically 5-10% THC.

can somebody verify potency claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.225.93 (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Bloodshot Eyes

"A person can be recognised as a 'Charsi' (person who regularly uses Charas, referred to as a 'pot-head' in the West) by their glazed bloodshot eyes with heavy eyelids." In my own personal experience with those who regularly use potent THC products, only a minority of them experience blood shot eyes and heavy eyelids. Especially if they have been an avid user of THC for an extended period of time, as in the case of a 'Charsi' or 'Pot-Head' (Which, may I add, can be construed as a derogatory term by many THC users who remain frustrated with social inhibitions). Personally, I believe that this statement should be reviewed. I will remove it, if anybody can provide a credible source, then by all means, please revert my edit. Ph33rspace 04:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC) This is true but is acute, i.e. happens only when you are under the effect.Realsamsidhu (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Gardaa

Charas is not the same as Gardaa. Gardaa is manufactured in Kashmir by a unique method of making traditional hashish. That is employing heat, pressure and time to solidify hash powder. Charas is collected and made into a solid without heat or pressure but simply collected by rubbing the plants with the hands then removing the resins from the hands in "like a rolled stick" then pressed into bundles of sticks.

mr2pksMr2pks 03:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

How can the government import the charas when it is grown in India? Does it mean importing from the mountains to the city? Well;actually it meant that it imports from the Rest of The North East region.As it is legally banned to procure charas and provide it to others too.The Government of India only allows farmers who are issued license for farming cannabis.But a great amount finds its way to the local market and is sold discretaly.--asydwaters 14:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

They may be importing it from Nepal, Pakistan or Afghanistan.


10 Grams a day of something much purer than hashish? That does not sound right. Can we please find a source? 130.126.214.81 04:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole Gardah part needs to be removed. Gardah is more like Hashish, while Charras is always handrolled. The Gardah part is also badly written, and the cornleaf cork screw part of Lebanon, Morroco and Indian administered Kashmir is utter bullshit! 95.223.187.171 (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Proccessing of Charas by Professional and Local methods

Most common method used by localites to proccess Charas is by applying heavy quantity of oil/resins on their exposed body parts like hands, thighs, palms, even on the scalp by shaving off the hair on their heads.They continously keep rubbing the copious amount of the leaves ;which makes the resin from the leaves to stick to their skin by adherence with the oil.When sufficient amount is extracted ;they use a scalpel or a thin plate made of any substance to remove the "Charas"-resin from their skin and then store it.This same process is repeated several times till the required quantity is achieved.Then the whole collected resin is mixed and then rubbed again repeatedlt till it reaches the desired density.As its mostly rubbed on the palm ,its shaped like a rolled stick which is then cut into smaller pieces.--asydwaters 16:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Purity, Legally acceptable amount Discussion.

10 grams of charas or any other cannabis related drug is consitutes " 1 Tola " and is used both on the streets and the Narcotics Dept. However the purity of the chemicals contained in 1 tola is not measured by its weight but by chemical contents and their levels by scienitifical testings. Usually possession of charas below 10 gram is acceptable and does not constitute as the crime under Narcotics laws in india.HoweverI need to have more substantial proof to back this statement.--asydwaters 17:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

One tola is not 10 grams, but 11.67 grams.The term "tola" is an old measurement system that stems from the seeds (bean) of Lal (Ratti) plant. I think 100 Lal seed was one one tola, but according to Wikipedia it was 96 seeds. As for the legality of charras in India, it's handled different by the Union state territories. Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat, Kerala follow an almost zero tolerance policy, while other states are more or less relaxed (except for trafficing).However, these zero tolerance handling is usually restricted to foreigners (in order to extort money) while local villagers, sadhus, sufis and devotees are left alone (they have no money) except in the case of large scale drug trafficing.Kerala may be different, as they are a communist state, so they even may procecute locals incl. sadhus for consumption.However, these laws are inconsistent and double standard, it's like banning beer in Germany in order to please the Saudi Arab goverment.In other words, the people of India ignore & reject these silly laws by heart. 95.223.187.171 (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an article Tola (unit). I don't think any inline referencing should be given for the weight of a tola, but if there is some kind of chemically assayed tola equivalent measurement based on potency it should definitely be explained, as should any laws with that as the threshold. Wnt (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Charas is a Nepali term as well

Why isn't Nepal mentioned in this artcle?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.38.157 (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could mention Nepali Charras hair oil adulterion? It has long been a practice by Nepali charras makers, that when rubbing the flowers, they frequently go with their hands though their hair (which usually has some Amla hair oil in it, for this purpose).This gives the Nepali Charras it's dough like oily appearance.However, it's an adulteration with foreign oils, and a contaminant. As a result, the price of Nepali "cream" charras would only fetch a fraction of the price of "pure" Charras from Malana or Parvati Vally. 95.223.187.171 (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Government providing charas during kumbh

I think below statement is not true and should be removed. You guys agree?

"The government even provides its supply in huge quantity to meet the demand during the largest gathering of sadhus of all sects during the Kumbh mela." Gobade.abhay1 (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC). Yes this is certainly not true.Realsamsidhu (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Other plant material in charas?

In this trialogue[1], Terence McKenna says that Charas can often contain opium and nearly always contain datura. Is he mixing Gardaa to Charas here or is there any basis to this claim?--Custoo (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Political fallout

I wonder if this is worth a mention? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that we can 'self-censor' on this occasion, I believe the actual issue is the section 'Charas production in Kashmir' and 'Differences in hashish from the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia', I do not see any reason for the actual method of manufacture to be described in any detail and most importantly, the methods come without citations. However, I do wonder if this is actually more about the name 'Sputnik' ;-) Subsequently, I have removed the manufacturing methods and in the meantime I've notified admin of my edits in case they wish to respond. Twobellst@lk 10:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no policy of censoring articles for the taste of various Third World tin-pot dictators. Where would we stop? If Russia blocks the site, the text is free for other sites to reuse. They can tack on a dose of adware/malware and turn a profit, while giving Russians a measure of access. Wnt (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for helping with the article. With respect, no-one said we had a policy of self-censorship and it has nothing to do with political pressure, what it does have to do with is news media highlighted the fact that the article made claims with no sources and detailed the manufacturing techniques in the creation of illegal drugs. I have requested guidance on wiki policy regarding the detailing of the manufacture of drugs and cleaned up the article accordingly. Perhaps using the term 'self-censorship' went over your head, in retrospect maybe I should have made it clear I was being cutting, subsequently I have edited it with quotes so as to make my position clear. When you undid my edits you stated it can be hard to source Indian topics and the data seems believable, I am sorry but an editor believing the data is 'believable' is hardly best wiki policy. If the article does not support the evidence in the form of citations then for reasons of WP:OR it has to go, surely? Twobellst@lk 13:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you remember the early days of Wikipedia, but we didn't start out with all inline citations. People wrote up articles quickly based on what they knew in order to get the general point across, hoping one day people would revisit. Sometimes strange hoaxes added in those days still surface to haunt us, it's true; but much of the data remained accurate. For editors in the area of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the range of scanned-in electronically searchable material is probably more like it was for us in the 1990s, before Wikipedia ever even began. It's hard for them to source random facts about everyday life, even things everyone knows. And so I think we should allow people who seem to come from that area to write like it's 2005, like they just want to let people know the facts as they know them, until someone better comes along to improve the data. Wnt (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is the detailed methods of manufacturing charas relevant?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus for including the methods of manufacturing Charas. The majority cited WP:NOTCENSORED and commented that it is necessary information to understand the subject. The minority opinion has points that are also shared by the majority including WP:RS, WP:VER and WP:NOTHOWTO. There is support for improving the sourcing so that information can be verified. There is also support for correctly adding the material so as not to be a guide to manufacture. AlbinoFerret 15:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Is the detailed methods of manufacturing Charas and further, to all prohibited drugs relevant to the articles? Twobellst@lk 18:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that this talk page is not the place to discuss "all prohibited drugs"(whatever that means) we should stick to the article at hand. I have boldly changed the section titles to say charas instead. Chillum 22:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Seeing as how I approached you on the issue for guidance that is completely acceptable. Twobellst@lk 11:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Support (Yes, the method of manufacture of charas holds no undue weight or emphasis as long as the article is well-sourced)

  1. It may be. In this case i don't see that the method of manufacture has undue weight or emphasis. Sourcing is apparently an issue, but if this content can be sourced or seems likely to be sourcable, I see no reason to exclude it per se. Nor is this a BLP where an unsourced statement must be removed at once, although if the text is challenged it must be sourced or be subject to removal. DES (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. We are not a how to guide. I think it is relevant how it is made, but no need for enough detail for someone to actually make it. Given the article text I would say we are going just a bit beyond the encyclopedic tone, while lacking in real verifiable information. Chillum 19:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Currently, the article has very little information on different methods of manufacturing the product, regional and cultural variations, etc. I agree with Chillum that because wiki is not a howto guide, the information on manufacturing should be limited but currently we are unfortunately very far from this limits, providing much less info than needed. What surprised me is that he article is poorly referenced, all unreferenced info should be either referenced or removed. Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. The policy about 'how-to' information is about the tone of the information, not the detail of the information. In other words, we don't write articles that say "1) Heat up the hashish, 2) Knead in the tobacco", but we most absolutely can and should explain that users do those things. Our articles are not written in the second person imperative, in other words, but in the third person descriptive. They absolutely should make it possible to help someone researching charas to figure out as much as the literature makes available about it - for example, what the expected dose of THC and nicotine might be. So our article really is not nearly informative enough about how it is made at the present time, because it doesn't really answer that question. Wnt (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Per Wnt, I agree that it is not undue weight to include the method of manufacture, in descriptive terms. This is of encyclopedic value to those interested in all aspects of the drug, and from a scientific stand point, just as we give a guide to the chemistry and manufacture of drugs like Crystal meth. As for questions over the possibility of people using Wikipedia's article to make the drug themselves, we should remember WP:NOTCENSORED. If the method of manufacture is well sourced (as implied by the question in this RfC), then we're clearly not the only place people could go to get that information, so it's unlikely WP would directly help someone harm themselves who otherwise would not have been able to. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. With due respect to the votes of the opposers, I have to place myself here per WP:NOTCENSORED. The consequences of this might indeed be terrible, but this is true for a lot of knowledge, and we cannot decline to collect it for that reason. Naturally, we should not provide a manual, but some description would not go amiss. Sourcing is (obviously) a must. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Typo wherein "not" was omitted corrected later, with thanks to Richard. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  7. I believe that the detailed methods of manufacturing charas are relevant, pretty much for the reasons stated by the other contributors above, especially WP:NOTCENSORED.  And I fully agree with Vanamonde93 that "Sourcing is (obviously) a must."
    Richard27182 (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose (No, the detailing of methods to manufacture charas has no place on Wikipedia)

  1. This is quite difficult for me, in that I have considerable experience with what narcotics can do to young lives. In regards to this particular drug, my observation is that the substance can cause serious mental health problems in the long term. However, having said that, I also have very strong feelings when it comes to the dissemination of knowledge so I'm in a very tough place. Subsequently, as long as the citations are from reputable sources I see no problem in the description and drug's history, however, is the in-depth detailing of the method of manufacture really necessary? Is Wikipedia, a drug users how-to guide, an encyclopaedia or both? Thinking of the countless lives drugs have destroyed and yes, I know that it's their lives to destroy but on principle I think I will have to oppose and further, perhaps we should debate whether describing the manufacture of narcotics in detail should be wiki policy considering the implications for other articles such as bomb-making and poisons etc. With this in mind I would like to take the opportunity to ask for guidance from experienced editors and administrators as to whether a rfc is the best tool for discussing this separate issue which pertains to policy. In closing, thanks to everyone for contributing to this rfc. Twobellst@lk 11:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. May go against Wikipedia policy, as mentioned at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_textbook.2C_or_scientific_journal 2604:6000:1519:C006:B14F:7F23:D9ED:580E (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. As per Twobells and the IP editor. I would also request other editors to see the WP article on John Aristotle Phillips in this connection (to appreciate the importance of self-censorship). Soham321 (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

@DES Would you like to move your stated position into either motion? Twobellst@lk 19:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I have done so, Twobells. I would point out that dividing comments into Support and Oppose subsections like this tends to (further) polarize the issue. A single threaded discussion might have been better. But this is not an uncommon format for an RfC, and you started the RfC, so I will fit the format. DES (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree the "prohibited drugs" is a bit of unnecessary verbiage. I live with a person who has legal right to use it. The word "charas" may be better as we are not trying to settle this issue for other drugs, just this one. Chillum 22:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Some background info. The Russian version of this article might be the reason for the Russian Government to block the whole Wikipedia. Some obscure court decided to put Taras article on ru-wiki to the list of illegal materials and the Government put an ultimatum to either delete the article or to have the entire Wikipedia banned, So far ruwiki moved the article to "Taras (narcotic substance)" title, not sure if the Russian Government would be satisfied but lets see. BTW this controversial article is better writen and better sourced than ours. Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • They have banned cheese and memes, I think were are in good company. Chillum 00:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Update, well, we can add Charas and the rest of Wikipedia to the list along with cheese and memes. [1]
  1. ^ http://www.euronews.com/2015/08/24/russia-blocks-wikipedia-over-banned-charas-cannabis-information/
Not for long though. It might have been inaccessible to some people for a few hours. [2] Wnt (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Now that the RfC is closed.....

@Twobells:  @HighInBC:  @Chillum:  @DESiegel:  @Alex Bakharev:  @Wnt:  @Amakuru:  @Vanamonde93:  @Soham321:  @Pigsonthewing:

Now that this RfC is closed (ie, the {{rfc}} template has been automatically removed after 30 days), shall we request that an uninvolved editor do a formal closure?
Richard27182 (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


Now that the RfC is closed.....

(reposting to correct for posting error which resulted in the pings not working)

@Twobells:  @HighInBC:  @Chillum:  @DESiegel:  @Alex Bakharev:  @Wnt:  @Amakuru:  @Vanamonde93:  @Soham321:  @Pigsonthewing:

Now that this RfC is closed (ie, the {{rfc}} template has been automatically removed after 30 days), shall we request that an uninvolved editor do a formal closure?
Richard27182 (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
this might be a good place to post. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I have no objection to a formal close. DES (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. HighInBC (was Chillum) 15:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

and me, regards.Twobells (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


Pinging:   @Amakuru:  @Vanamonde93:  @DESiegel:  @HighInBC:
We seem to have a pretty good consensus in favor of requesting a formal closure by an univolved editor.  I will post the request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure as suggested by Vanamonde93.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charas/Archives/2020/February&oldid=1085911214"