Talk:Cannabis

Less than helpful illustration subtitle
The illustration in the section "recreational use" has a description reading: "Comparison of physical harm and dependence regarding various drugs". However, the graph there shows active/lethal dose ratio (i.e. how much you'd have to consume for fatal effects, vs how much will do to get you the desired effect) and potential addictive qualities of several "drugs". Meaning that physical harm as such isn't adressed but onyl potential lethality, which obviously can be pre-faced by a lot of physcial harm short of dying. This isn't necessarily the case for Cannabis but as the the section in general could benefit from some more research as to the psycho-social impacts of cannabis consumption, this comes quite close to intentionally confusing the reader. Even reducing the discussion of adverse effect to bodily harm proper is reductive to the point of being apologetic, but boiling it down even further to lethality is flat out denial. Hello people

Merge proposal
Based on the discussion above, I propose merging Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis into Cannabis. The most recent literature on the subject no longer supports splitting Cannabis sativa into separate subspecies or varieties and the genus is now accepted as monotypic by the primary database for flowering plants (Plants of the World). Loopy30 (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I disagree and think they should remain separate so there can be a dedicated article of focus for each. These species are clearly different and need to be separated as such. There has been hundreds of years of documentation that they are uniquely separate. They are physically distinct (size, shape, leaf, physical appearance) from each other and the grow differently from each other. The instructions for growing a Cannabis Sativa is not the same as growing a Cannabis ruderalis because they're different. Not to mention how much longer of a book Cannabis would need to be to further explain all these differences unless your saying we should pretend they're all the same thing, but they're not the same thing. Gettinglit (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree 2601:C7:4203:8AB0:D5A2:6494:ADC6:116C (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. These are completely different subjects, and should NOT be merged. The article Cannabis is about the plant, itself. The three "species" articles, Sativa, Indica, Ruderalis, are about three major, broad varieties, and they warrant separate articles, themselves, whether or not agreement exists about the three (actually four, let's not forget Feral cannabis) actually belonging to the same species classification, scientifically. - The Hammer of Thor (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support merging the three, or otherwise renaming the pages for C. sativa, C. indica and C. ruderalis to indicate that they are varieties of one species. 2604:3D08:7582:300:A113:552F:B7D8:71AB (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep them separate! Redefining the level of a taxon doesn't alter or remove relative distinctions between their constituents. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The difficulty with these counter-proposals that seek to retain three distinct articles at either the species, subspecies, or variety level, is that none of these concepts of a divided Cannabis species is still supported by modern science. To continue to retain separate articles on a plant demands at the least that reliable sources be provided that could describe the botanical differences between these formerly separate species. @Gettinglit, @The Hammer of Thor, and @UpdateNerd, what sources could you suggest that would support this three-way separation? Loopy30 (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Classifications by...
 * Lamarck 1785
 * Paxton and Lindley 1868
 * Delile 2849
 * Hooker and Thompson 1855
 * Johnson 1868
 * All describe them as separate species with a distinctly different look and cultivation and claims they are separate species. Ruderalis doesn't grow on the same schedule, doesn't look like sativa or indica, it's not the same species and needs to be classified separately so we can all tell them apart and learn their individual history.
 * Granted, you can also find influence as far back as the 1800s for disputing if they should all be lumped into Sativa although i've seen articles that have it debated as an arguably racist culture issue from some early British colonists refusing to accept anything but Sativa and incorrectly lumping Indicia and Ruderalis in with Sativa, not to mention modern influence with laws that bans Sativa specifically meaning if Indica and Ruderalis is its own species lots of peoples rights have been violated.
 * The choice to lump them all together as if they are the same species when they have so many distinct differences from physical to cultivation is bizarre, this is like lumping in Leonotis leonurus and Leonotis nepetifolia together or Mentha aquatica and Spearmint together, but we have a way of lumping them in together, it's called the family of Lamiaceae and for Cannabis, the family of Cannabaceae. Gettinglit (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems to me that there are two different issues. (1) Is there botanically a single species? Reliable sources are overwhelmingly clear that there is, and that the scientific names Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis are synonyms of Cannabis sativa, so my answer to this question is "yes". (2) Should there be separate articles on the cultivated forms that have been described in the past as Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis? I think this can be justified, but the issue is what the article titles should be.
 * (This is an example of a more general problem that comes up repeatedly with cultigens that have in the past been described as separate species, but turn out to be just selections of a single species.) Peter coxhead (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Cannabis ruderalis is maybe covered by Feral cannabis and Autoflowering cannabis (I don't think feral cannabis occurring outside of Asia is ruderalis, but the article for C. ruderalis has (non-scientific) sources that treat feral cannabis from other regions as ruderalis). Given that current popular usage (as detailed in Cannabis) has "Indica" and "Sativa" essentially reversed from botanical usage (e.g. in terms of THC/CBD ratios discussed in scientific publications vs. cannabis industry publications) it is very to difficult to maintain independent articles on the putative species. There are a bunch of competing alternative classifications that aren't based on species/subspecies names. Wide-leaf/narrow-leaf, Hemp-type/drug-type (sometimes with multiple drug-types recognized). It's easier to address the different recent classifications in a single article Cannabis article where they can be compared (or perhaps in a Taxonomy of Cannabis article), rather than spinning them off into separate articles where comparisons will have to be contextualized in each article. Plantdrew (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * When were the supposed subspecies described, and when was their status as synonyms accepted? We might have enough material for a taxonomy article. Dimadick (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Illegal Plant
My edit was rolled back by a bot, which was incorrect. It included valuable and highly relevant information, possibly the most notable in the article. It's quite extraordinary that a living organism is prohibited almost globally. There is no country where it is entirely legal, with only 3-5 countries where it is somewhat tolerated (semi-legal). In all other countries, this organism is destroyed wherever it is found. This is indeed something very special and more then noteworthy (central). Helpi679 (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Cannabis has been entirely legal for adults (much like alcohol) in Canada since October, 2018. Thoric (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I understand, but in 99% of all countries, it's NOT legal. Even in Canada, I don't believe cannabis plants are allowed to grow wild in local parks. So, the plant is illegal there as well. That's the point. The plant itself is banned across the entire planet, and even if there are 2-3-5 places in the world where it's legal or tolerated, it makes no difference.

It's very unusual and abnormal to say "organism xy is banned on the planet," regardless of its use. Think about it: it's a living organism, and this organism has essentially been denied the right to exist. Naturally, it would grow wild and live everywhere. But we don't allow it and instead, we pursue and destroy it. If that's not a significant, major, and unusual point, then I don't know what is. Helpi679 (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly agree that no plants should be illegal or criminalized. It is a crime against nature, and a cruel and unusual oppression the constitutional rights and freedom of people. This is not limited to cannabis, but certainly cannabis is one of the main controlled substances around the world, thanks to the UN Convention on Narcotics (despite cannabis not being a "narcotic"), which is thanks to the American "War on (some) Drugs". These plants are not criminalized and destroyed because they are deadly or toxic -- there are plenty of highly deadly plants which are perfectly legal to grow and possess, but they are illegal because they are perceived to be a threat to the core industries of Government, Church, and Patent Medicine. These industries are also associated with those relating to policing, national security, law and order, and the industries built around chemistry and petro-chemicals, thus also having a strong connection to the oil industry. It's all connected, and much of the natural world is threatened by extractive and exploitive capitalist consumerist industries and practices. Our entire economy, ethos, culture, and even our state religion is built around this. Any substance which has the potential to encourage free thought is considered to be highly dangerous to the State, and hence why those most likely to encourage free thought (cannabis, MDMA, psilocybin, LSD, DMT, mescaline, Ayahuasca, Iboga, etc) are under the America Controlled Substances Act in Schedule I -- untouchable, forbidden and unprescribable. All the "dangerous street drugs" (such as cocaine, methamphetamine, and opioids like fentanyl) are in Schedule II -- dangerous, addictive, but have a prescribable medical purpose. Please note that most of the substances in Schedule I are the visionary sacred plant medicines of all the indigenous peoples from around the world. Thoric (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Its not about its right or wrong. Its about its a VERY special point! There are not much orgaism what are banned on the entire planet. So this point should be made in the article - central. Helpi679 (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, what this article (and ones abut other controlled substances) should have is a summary paragraph stating that Cannabis is a controlled substance, and a link into the Controlled substance article. Thoric (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Etymology
Here is the etymology given from Wiktionary, with credible sources given. The etymology given here is from a non-scholarly book. "A Kulturwort or Wanderwort of unknown ultimate origin, perhaps Scythian or Thracian (according to a remark made by Herodotus, that Scythians and Thracians knew the plant) or possibly “belonging to the pre-Indo-European agricultural layer”. A proposal going back to Schrader derives the word from Proto-Finno-Ugric *kana-pis: compare Eastern Mari кыне́ (kyńé), Western Mari кӹне (kÿńe, “hemp”) and Komi-Permyak пыш (pyš), Udmurt пыш (pyš, “hemp”), but Finno-Ugricists deny the existence of such a compound. Compare (wihtin the Indo-European language family) Albanian kërp, Old Armenian կանեփ (kanepʻ), կանափ (kanapʻ), Proto-Slavic *konopь, Lithuanian kanãpė, Latvian kaņepe, Old Prussian knapios, Proto-Germanic *hanapiz (> English hemp), Middle Persian [script needed] (kʾnb /⁠kā̆naβ⁠/), Persian کنب (kanab), کنو (kanav), کنف (kanaf, “kenaf”), Northern Kurdish kinif, Sogdian [script needed] (kynpʾ /⁠kēnapā⁠/), Khwarezmian [script needed] (knb-ynk), Ossetian гӕн (gæn), гӕнӕ (gænæ), Khotanese 𐨐𐨎𐨱 (kaṃha), 𐨐𐨂𐨎𐨦𐨌 (kuṃbā), Wakhi kəm, perhaps also to Sanskrit शण (śaṇá), Middle Persian [script needed] (šn' /⁠šan⁠/), the satem variants of the same etymon, and to Sanskrit भाङ्ग (bhāṅga), Persian بنگ (bang), the reverse forms of it (due to a taboo). Compare further Sumerian [script needed] (kunibu), Neo-Assyrian Akkadian 𒋆𒄣𒌦𒈾𒁍 (qunnabu, qunappu, qun(u)bu), Classical Syriac ܩܢܦܐ (qnpʾ), Arabic قِنَّب (qinnab), Georgian კანაფი (ḳanapi), Svan ქან (kan), Mingrelian კიფი (ḳipi), Laz კერფი (ǩerpi), Adyghe кӏэп (kʼɛp), Kabardian щӏэп (śʼɛp), Abkhaz ақәны (akʷnə), Eastern Mari кыне (kyńe), Karakalpak [script needed] (kenep), Turkish kendir. The interrelationship of all these forms is disputed."

I suggest someone with the knowhow to utilize the Wiktionary page below to rewrite the etymology section on this. Please do not try to use a new age book on spirituality for the source, use credible sources, such as those cited on the page below.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%AC%CE%BD%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B2%CE%B9%CF%82#Ancient_Greek

Tommygunn7886 (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please stop edit warring and disparaging Sears 2016, which is a scholarly source. The academic consensus is that cannabis is a Scythian word, and this is reflected in multiple reliable sources. Wiktionary, etymonline, etc are not reliable sources. University of Pennsylvania Press, Bloomsbury, etc definitely are. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm disparaging a new age book titled "Seeking the Sacred with Psychoactive Substances: Chemical Paths to Spirituality and to God" being used as a source for an etymology, because it is quite frankly ridiculous. Actual scholars believe it may have come from Scythians or Thracians, but it is uncertain. Are you actually claiming that a book on new age drug use is more scholarly than ] Beekes, Robert S. P. (2010)? You are as academic as the YouTube quack survive the jive. That is why I asked earlier if you follow mencius moldbug, because his entire premise is about faking history in the way he wants it written. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If these sources are credible contained within the text, you are required to cite them "as cited in" Tommygunn7886 (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is also extremely dishonest to claim that I suggested citing Wiktionary, I suggested citing the source used on Wiktionary, Beekes, Robert S. P. (2010)  (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 10), volume I, with the assistance of Lucien van Beek, Leiden, Boston: Brill, which is far more scholarly, as it is actually written by a linguist, than some new age book on how doing drugs makes you able to communicate with gods Tommygunn7886 (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

AI evaluation
Out of curiosity and as an experiment, I used AI to evaluate the lead of this article. Overall it rated it as a very accurate and neutral summary of the topic. It did however suggest to following would make the lead more complete:


 * Cultural and Legal Aspects: A brief mention of the cultural significance and varying legal status of Cannabis in different regions could provide a more comprehensive overview.
 * Biological and Chemical Properties: Including some details on the plant's biological characteristics and the chemical properties of cannabinoids might enhance the scientific value of the summary.

This does in fact make sense in light of the rest of the article. Our leads are best thought of as a summary of the most salient aspects of the entire article. And in that sense too, the lead would be best if legal, cultural, and scientific elements were serviced since they do form a large portion of the article proper. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)