Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 10

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2014
Please add this in the existing Neurological effects section. The news of this study just came out today and there are 100's of news links on the web about his study. It is a valid source and complies with WP:RS:

A study published in The Journal of Neuroscience says even casual marijuana smokers showed significant abnormalities in two vital brain regions important in motivation and emotion. According to co-author Hans Breiter, "Some of these people only used marijuana to get high once or twice a week." This is the first study to analyze the effects of light marijuana use.

The reference is: (#2 here)

Richf52 (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. Good suggestion.  I saw that report also.  Msnicki (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response and action. --Richf52 (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It got reverted by Jmh649, who objected to the Washington Post citation. So I've revised it slightly to cite the journal article and Northwestern's Feinberg School of Medicine.  We'll see if that passes muster.  Msnicki (talk)


 * Apparently I cannot make it stick. I think they're wrong but I'm not willing to edit war.  Sorry.  I did my best.  Msnicki (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

We need to use secondary sources like review articles and major textbooks. The popular press is not reliable and we do not typically use primary sources. This means no significant difference " Trend-level effects were observed for a volume increase in the left nucleus accumbens only" It is a small primary study. It is not notable on its own without a review putting it into context.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Msnicki, you have done your part. I knew that removal was a matter of time. The information will eventually end up in the article and in more detail in spite of other people's intense efforts to keep it out.


 * Doc James, the study was published in the The Journal of Neuroscience. It is notable like all studies published in that journal, especially if 100's of news sources have mentioned it. You don't have the authority to say that the study is small or insignificant because it is not. It is the first study to look at casual marijuana use. Considering that 19 million Americans use marijuana it is expected that a lot of people would be opposed to mentioning the study in the article however that doesn't matter. The references being used are a reliable source.
 * "We need to use secondary sources like review articles and major textbooks": There is no such requirement. You're implying that nothing from a Journal can be cited which would mean the Cite journal template is basically useless.
 * "It is not notable on its own without a review putting it into context.": Once again there is no such requirement. Cite journal does not require all studies in a journal to have been reviewed.
 * "This means no significant difference": Please refrain from interpreting the study according to your own personal opinions. You will need other reliable sources to respond to the study. Until those sources appear, the study needs to be mentioned in the way it was here.
 * If you are mentioning WP:MEDRS, you will have to be more specific and point out specific issues with regards to that policy. --Richf52 (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We should wait for the secondary sources. By your logic Wikipedia would have been including Andrew Wakefield's stuff at the time it was getting press coverage. We should follow the guidance at WP:MEDRS. (Add: BTW, Long-term effects of cannabis exists, and is well-sourced!)Alexbrn talk 13:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you're wrong. I conceded that WP:MEDRS does ask that we not cite the popular press on medical issues.  But WP:MEDRS does not require secondary sources.  It says they're preferred and then explains what must be done to use a primary medical source, especially the need to avoid WP:OR.  I believe I did that and I think you were wrong to revert me claiming I hadn't exercised sufficient care.  What was the care you think I didn't exercise?  I suspect your revert had basically nothing to do with my level of care and that there's nothing you can point to that I didn't do but should have done or did but should have done differently according to the guidelines.  I suspect your revert reflects more a blanket view that we shouldn't ever use primary sources for medical information.  You'd certainly be entitled to that opinion but it's not what the guidelines ask.  Msnicki (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there may be some exceptional circumstances where a primary is justified: this isn't one ... it's an active field of research with a steady stream of secondaries Wikipedia can draw on in due course. It would have been a sign of care to take that (and MEDRS more widely) into account. Alexbrn talk 21:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again, you've offered no objectively testable way for anyone to know what you think WP:MEDRS requires that you think I didn't do except just that this wasn't it. Pretty nearly any new medical study is in active field of research else they wouldn't have done it, so this is not exactly a useful sieve.  You've argued the level of care wasn't met but so far as I can tell, there is no level of care you would accept, no matter what the guidelines might allow.  Again, you're absolutely entitled to that personal opinion but it's not in the guidelines.  Since you concede that primary sources might be justified in exceptional circumstances, can you identify a case where you were satisfied that we might look to for comparison?  Or have you never been satisfied?  Msnicki (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See for example Circumcision and HIV where some famous primary sources are used as an adjunct to secondary ones. Alexbrn talk 21:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That you would accept primary sources as an adjunct to secondary sources is meaningless. So far as I can tell, you'd have accepted the secondary by itself.  The guidelines appear to allow primary sources alone when used with the prescribed care.  I'm asking if you can identify a single case where you were satisfied the required conditions were met.  I think the answer is no.  Msnicki (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Emily Rosa's study springs to mind. But honestly, there's little point in your series of shifting questions. The issue at hand here is the content you've been attempting to edit-war into the article, against the grain of WP:MEDRS. If you're still in any doubt this would be a bad edit, maybe raise a query at WT:MED. Alexbrn talk 22:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the above arguments that we need secondary sources for all journal references, the following reference also needs to be deleted, like many others in this article:
 * Cannabis has been used to reduce nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy and people with AIDS, and to treat pain and muscle spasticity.[22] . The reference is:
 * Borgelt LM, Franson KL, Nussbaum AM, Wang GS (February 2013). "The pharmacologic and clinical effects of medical cannabis". Pharmacotherapy 33 (2): 195–209. doi:10.1002/phar.1187..
 * See that? Its a journal. So if we're going to take out primary sources for all statements, lets start taking out the 50 or so (whatever that number is) that already exist.
 * People are suddenly against this single journal reference because they dont like what its saying. Prove that you're fair in your views of journals being used as primary sources and remove ALL such references which are not supported by secondary sources. This is not about WP:POINT, its about WP:RS. --Richf52 (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @, the problem is not using "journals", it's using primary sources (i.e. material that generates research data that has not been validated by review in a publication of higher evidence quality (see WP:MEDASSESS) such as a review article, a systematic review or a meta-analysis). The Borgelt source is a review article, and so a secondary source, and so exactly the kind of source Wikipedia prefers - especially for biomedical content. Alexbrn talk 05:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * My questions haven't been shifting, Alexbrn. I'm merely trying to find out why you said in your edit remark reverting me, "rm content sourced to primaries, used with insufficient care".  So far as I can tell, there is no such thing as "sufficient care" that you would accept.  I certainly haven't been able to get you to tell me what it would be.


 * I find it curious that when pressed for an example of an acceptable use of a primary source, your example is a paper by a teenager. But why?  In the case at hand, we have a refereed paper reporting on a collaboration between Northwestern, MassGeneral and Harvard and published in The Journal of Neuroscience.  If you'd accept a teenager's paper, I can't imagine you'd be concerned about the reliability of this paper.


 * But also, you still haven't shown how her paper was cited with the "sufficient care" that I failed to take. From WP:MEDRS, "edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely the interpretation of the data given by the authors, or by other reliable secondary sources. Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors or by reliable secondary sources".  I think I did that, copying from their abstract almost word-for-word, retaining their exact technical language, specifically to avoid the possibility of complaints that I had provided my own interpretation.  By contrast, I don't see that same care used in citing Emily Rosa's paper and yet you've represented that that one would be okay, even if cited without a secondary source.  (That is what I asked so I'm assuming that's what you answered.)


 * Can you see why I still have no idea what you would accept as "sufficient care"? Is it possible your complaint wasn't about my care at all but about the fact you simply won't accept a primary source here, no matter what the care?  If so, you are entitled to your opinion but not to insist that it's supported by the guidelines.


 * Finally, I really think you're a bit out of line tossing out charges of edit warring, which requires a 4th revert per WP:3RR. At best, I did only three, 1, 2, 3 and I'm not sure two of them even count.  The first was when I rewrote Richf52's requested edit because Jmh649 wrote on my talk page that I should not cite the popular press.  He didn't say no primary sources and I don't think WP:MEDRS says that either so my take isn't that I was reverting so much as doing just what he asked.  And the last one I reverted myself (in a hurry, before I'd counted more carefully to see that I was still definitely okay).


 * So can we dial back the language, please, and can you explain what you mean by "sufficient care"? Those were your words.  I'm just trying to find out what they meant and what additional care in my citation would be required to satisfy you.  There either is sufficient care that would do it or there isn't.  If there is some level of sufficient care that you would accept and would make you happy, I would be delighted to do it.  You only need to tell me how my care in the citation fell short and what improvement is needed and I will do whatever you ask.  Does that sound fair?  Msnicki (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Sufficient care" would have been shown by taking account of the context: the amount of active research in this area, the existence (or not) of corroborating sources, etc. It would, incidentally, also have been shown by not re-reverting seriously disputed content within minutes without discussion. It is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule. Alexbrn talk 05:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is getting us nowhere so I've posted a request for guidance at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). I will accept and follow whatever consensus advice they give me.  I trust that should be acceptable to you as well.  Msnicki (talk) 07:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Bad effects
See the London edition of the "Metro" newspaper, of 24/4/2014, on page 11. Cannabis caused nine deaths, apparently from heart attcks, in France, from 2006 to 2010. This was said by Dr. Emilie Jouanjus. See the Journal of the American Heart Association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.52.201 (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for New Article
Would it be possible for us to have a page both on "Marijuana" and on the "drug" Cannabis? The reason I think that "Marijuana" falls as "slang" is because of the fact that it's etymology is slang-related. It literally is Spanish for "Mary Jane"...that's just two names put together and it's from late 19thC Spanish. I am an avid user of the substance and have seldom heard it referred to by common people as "Cannabis"--however at the same time, I live in America. On top of this, I have heard it called "Green", "Weed", "Dope" (though now "dope" seems to refer more to methamphetamines), "Grass", and several other names...this does not necessarily warrant a request to move this article to any of those names though. If "Marijuana" is indeed referring only to the smoked, dried variant of the plant, then a new article devoted to this aspect of the plant could be made, right? Cannabis seems to be a more scientific term, but is a bit harsher on the vocal-chords than "marijuana" (note how the latter just rolls off the tongue)...people that are under the influence of this and other substances will not have a strong desire to pronounce difficult words and will resort to the simplest terms possible--yet another reason why the slang terms from above, as well as the literal English use of "Mary Jane", are used. As another point of information, whenever I am around any of my friends who smoke, they quite literally never say "marijuana" when a) inquiring if someone has any of said substance to smoke b) attempting to sell said substance or c) asking others if they would like to smoke said substance. In fact, the only time "marijuana" is used is if we are talking directly about laws regarding the subject matter when we are not under its influence. "Green" seems to be the most common name for the literal smoking, drug-use term (I watched the movie "Road Trip" last night and there was a scene where one of the main characters asks someone if they "have any marijuana that I might be able to buy from you...."--from a user's perspective, this was a very strange and geeky way to phrase the question, in real life the man would have asked if he "had any green for sale"); however, I will not request a move for that. Online the results are skewed, why? Because when people search the Internet, they do not search for slang, normally, for whatever reason, they try to be more "proper" in searches (though not in chatting); therefore, these slang terms which are used in real and present life as the most common name, are probably very seldom searched for online in regards to the subject matter (id est people searching for "green" or "weed" on Google are most likely trying to find home decor, or a treatment for their garden, respectively). Anyway, not to go off on a rabbit trail, would there be any merit in creating a new page called "Marijuana", adding a broader section called "Marijuana" to the article that covers the smoking of the plant in great detail, or even adding a section about the slang terms used for the plant globally and what they generally refer to. Let me know what's up! Best.  მაLiphradicus    Epicusთე   19:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the article you are looking for would be Cannabis culture, which unfortunately at the moment is a redirect to a small section of the Drug culture article. Cannabis culture is a significant entity, and a category does exist (see Category:Cannabis_culture).  Therefore it would make sense to have an article to properly summarize it.  --Thoric (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You can make any article you want, but if it seems to be an unnecessary fork, expect it to get merged or deleted, so be sure it fits the criteria. Personally, I don't care for the word "marijuana".  It was an invention of Harry Anslinger, designed to make cannabis sound "mexican-like": a racist attempt to discredit cannabis, which was at the time an accepted medicinal herb and extract.  To me, it would be like having an article on "hooch", a slang word from the 1920s for bootleg alcohol. If the only reason you want a separate article is that you like the word "marijuana" over "cannabis", that would be for the wrong reason. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  23:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, "marijuana" is a narrower term than "cannabis"; "cannabis" includes kief, hashish, etc., while "marijuana" does not. Kief, hashish, and marijuana are all preparations of cannabis, hence having a separate article on each makes sense to me. Neelix (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you tell wrong. Among people (okay, principally Americans) who use the term, I'm convinced and offered sources (above) indicating that marijuana includes all of the above.  Among those who insist it means something different, it appears to me that most if not all are people who don't use the term but remain convinced they know better than the people who do use it just what it means.  Msnicki (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I thank you all for your responses! I might try to, in the near future, expand on Cannabis culture; especially since, in my opinion, cannabis should not be degraded to the level of filth that other drugs are. Nicki, the problem I have, is that the common name for the plant in everyday culture is, in fact, "Green", "Weed", or "Good"; sure medically speaking it is "Cannabis" and if you go into a smoke-shop, it will probably go by "Marijuana" and "Cannabis"--but I want to know how we can show this here on Wikipedia. Would a redirect on "Good", "Green", and "Weed" to a disambig. page, with links to the literal topics, and to Cannabis work? Also Nicki, I tend to agree with you in that I've noticed in my everyday life that "Cannabis" is never used and "Marijuana" (though seldom spoken) can be used for every aspect of the plant. My friends and I only smoke the substance (through blunts and bongs and at times joints) and occasionally will talk about "weed brownies". Since I do not have personal experience with the other forms of consumption, I cannot definitively say whether or not "Cannabis" or "Marijuana" (or something else) is used for them. Anyway back to the topic at hand--why could we not merge Cannabis culture with Cannabis (drug) or just expand it to be its own article? That would make much more sense, as it is common knowledge that this plant is on an entirely different realm of science than other illicit drugs. If we're going to keep c|m/j culture in Drug culture then how about also putting Penicillin and vaccinations there as well? Please...note my sarcasm.
 * Another two questions: why is the point-of-view tag on this page? and can it easily be fixed?  მაLiphradicus    Epicusთე   20:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not make sense to merge Cannabis culture into the Cannabis (drug) article, as it merits its own article. The Cannabis (drug) article could certainly have a section mentioning Cannabis culture with a link to that article.  Cannabis culture is a large topic, and certainly warrants its own article.  Drug culture refers to psychoactive drugs only, of which cannabis is only one part of.  --Thoric (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that in spoken American English, slang terms like "weed" are undoubtedly more common than "marijuana", but probably mostly just because weed is one syllable and marijuana is four. Spoken Engish favors short words because they're easier to say.  They don't make us work as hard to express ourselves.  But our WP:COMMONNAME guidelines ask that we consider the usage in reliable sources, i.e., those with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control, not all sources.  In reliable sources, by the very nature of their being more serious and more formal than ordinary conversation, I'm convinced that "marijuana" dominates.  Msnicki (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * An article on Marijuana would be a good idea. We can educate people on the term as this seem to be a real problem. In the article we can explain why there is this sub division of the term - that is for labs to study potency of the different form of the drug - for the police to keep stats on what they confiscate from the public -  on general studies on the effects of Marijuana (pot, weed) vs hash, oils and other extracts - and finally the fact the Marijuana (pot, weed) is legal in some places where hash, oils and other extracts are not legal. This is clearly a topic that can stand on its own like Hash, Hash oil etc... We have thousands of sources out there even American ones for all this.  -- Moxy (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would also note that "Cannabis culture" is VERY different than the medicinal culture. Even their tradeshows are completely different events, and the culture itself is starkly different.  Many in the medicinal community do facepalms when they see some of the antics of the recreational culture, because it makes convincing politicians more difficult.  And some people are pro-medicinal and anti-recreational.  If you talk to anyone in the medicinal community, the word cannabis is ubiquitous now, where that wasn't the case 10 or 20 years ago. While "marijuana" gets lots of hits (mainly due to old material and uninformed journalists) and will still linger for years, its use is dropping dramatically, particularly with the professional growers who are becoming more educated about the plant, thus more formal in their labeling.  If anything, Medicinal cannabis culture may soon warrant its own article.  If you worked with those groups, you would see how radically different those two really are.  A separate article on "Marijuana", however, makes no sense. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  21:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not how we look at things at all from a statistical point of view. So lets look at some sources - First we have stats for possession  like  -  Then we have different laws that show a clear distinction  How to Apply to Use Medicinal Cannabis Legally - page 3 - It allows you to possess, store and carry dried cannabis for a medical purpose. It does not apply to any derivatives of cannabis such as hashish or hash oil. -  We also do this separation for labs to test potency and for studies on the effects of the different forms of the drug  -- Moxy (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk to a dispensary if you want to find out how off those percentages are. Hashish and hash oil are different things, they are concentrations from the flowers that can be produced in a number of ways. Technically, isomerized cannabis is a type of hash, although we don't have an article on that either. But the majority of use of "Marijuana" is still slang, as is its root. Most sources use it as slang for the entire cannabis plant. "Marijuana plants", etc. You can start an RFC on it if you like, but my gut is that it would be an unnecessary fork. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  01:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I volunteer at a seed dispensary -   - I am a retired geneticist that has MS and now I  help others educate themselves on this.  Hashish and hash oil are made in may different ways ...not always from the flower - infact  most sell the bud because its has more TCH - any plant parts can be used -  particularly useful for extracting oil-soluble is the  dried roots and steams. There is alot of guess work out there and I dont see how having more info would hurt people. But you are right most will see this as the same - need to make it more clear here in this article that "Marijuana" is still slang but is used to identify a specific portion of the plant when it come to statistics.  -- Moxy (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering the sources provided above, it sounds like there is a specific portion of the plant that is known as "Marijuana" and that use of this term to refer to the entire plant is simply synecdoche. As a result, shouldn't we have a separate article about that specific portion of the plant? We can debate whether "Marijuana" is the right title for that article, but surely that article should exist, just as the Hashish and Kief articles do. Neelix (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There are many many many sources for this info -- Moxy (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Books


 * Web sites
 * Web sites
 * Web sites
 * Web sites
 * Web sites
 * Web sites
 * Web sites

Comment Thanks for the good talk, I agree that we should have an article on that aspect of the plant, like you said Neelix. Would there be any objections to starting up a page with the (working) title "Marijuana" to talk about this variant? If not, I'll start the page later on today.  მაLiphradicus    Epicusთე   09:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Quebec Centre for Addiction Prevention - "Cannabis is a plant. It is used in three forms: marijuana, hashish, and oil "
 * Health Canada [ "Marijuana, hash, hash oil, and hemp are different products coming from the (cannabis) plant"
 * Center for Substance Abuse Research) - "Marijuana, the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States, is taken from the leaves and flowering tops of the Cannabis sativa plant. It also comes in a more concentrated, resinous form, called hashish, and as a sticky black liquid called hash oil."
 * State Library of New South Wales - "Cannabis comes in three different forms: - marijuana - hashish (or hash) - hashish oil (or hash oil)
 * Yes oppose. This article already covers it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Doc, we have the separate pages for Hashish and Kief and they are both listed on this page; based on this logic, should I put in a deletion request for them (I think not)? I'm talking about expanding on this aspect of the plant in the same way to the point that it can make its own article. You see what I mean?  მაLiphradicus    Epicusთე   20:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S.: The section in question to be expounded upon is the Whole flower and leaf section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiphradicusEpicus (talk • contribs)
 * A valid section of an article can always be expanded into its own article if there is enough information in reliable, secondary sources to support a full article. There seems to be plenty of coverage in this case to justify a full article. Neelix (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted Marijuana fork back to a redirect. There is plenty of opposition, including my own. If you want to fork this off, you need to start an RFC, we've had enough bold without a consensus for this week. I would also add that saying you are going to do something if there is no opposition, when you damn well there is opposition by just reading above your comment, that is not a good faith act. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  00:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There does not need to be an RFC for this. This is not a request to move Cannabis (drug) to Marijuana. There is absolutely nothing wrong with expanding a stub into an article, per our policy. Who are you to say what is "enough" bold editing of Wikipedia? I'm sorry the last time I checked, this was a democracy, not an aristocracy. I am undoing your revert as you are sorely mistaking mine intentions. "Plenty of opposition"...to expanding a stub into an article? That is ludicrous! Naming it Marijuana will be because of WP:CN—wouldn't it be a bit silly if there was an article named "Whole leaf and buds"? I do not care what you call the newly-made page; "Marijuana" was chosen to distinguish it from the broader term Cannabis. What I can suggest that you do, is put in your own RfC on the new article's page requesting whatever name you would like, where we can wait for consensus. Marijuana is simply a working title. As previously stated, if we can have entire pages for Kief and Hashish, then we can have another for the smoked variant. This is Wikipedia policy. I suggest you request review of the page if you doubt it yourself, Dennis. Also, I might point out that swearing shows a lack of intelligence and often leads to ad hominem arguments.  მაLiphradicus    Epicusთე   08:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Addition to the methods of consumption!
A huge no of people from Indo-pak sub continent including adjoining areas use Cannabis as a beverage especially during summer in order to wear off intense heat and hindu religious feasts. The method involves grinding of cannabis (dried leaves and seeds) in large bowl (baked pottery) with short club, usually people include almonds, black pepper, cardamoms,and other healthy ingredients to make it tastier. It is well filtered in the end before serving.It has different effects depending on the type of plant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.33.76 (talk) 08:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2014
I would like to edit the Marijuana page. I notice some errors and the page is also very controversial. Please allow me to edit this page.

Allieconsitt (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What changes do you want to make? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. - Arjayay (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Deaths atributable to cannabis
Some reports have been made abouth deaths attributable to cannabis in the media and in scientific journals.. It seems like those are very rare, but possible, I Believe this should be changed.--Tpianca (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting topic. My recently deceased aunt, Dr. Eleanor Lyon Duke, published a paper in 1973 relating to some army guys who injected water extract of Cannabis; I don't recall whether some of them died.  See the paper, whose abstract says, "The human toxicity level of cannabinoids is discussed with respect to reported severe pathological reactions after i.v. injection of the plant decoctions. It is suggested that secondary plant products other than the cannabinoids may be responsible for the severe physiological reactions.  * The opinions or assertions contained herein are the private viwes of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting the views of the Department or the Army or the Department of Defense."  This work led to a related good story, too, which I was recounting at her funeral ... but that's for another time. Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

So... any other ideas on this? Should I request an edit then?--Tpianca (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure the Telegraph is the best source for this. There have been some disputed claims, but I haven't seen any that weren't disputed.  Part of the problem is that lack of study due to it being labeled "as dangerous as heroin".  Unless there is some better substantiated claims, I would consider these dubious.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  21:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't even bother if it was just the Telegraph, actually it is the other report, in a scientific journal, that made me question that. With the telegraph case, that would make three cases already...--Tpianca (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The bulk of that summary: " We describe the cases of two young, putative healthy men who died unexpectedly under the acute influence of cannabinoids. To our knowledge, these are the first cases of suspected fatal cannabis intoxications where full postmortem investigations, including autopsy, toxicological, histological, immunohistochemical and genetical examinations, were carried out. The results of these examinations are presented. After exclusion of other causes of death we assume that the young men experienced fatal cardiovascular complications evoked by smoking cannabis." keep in mind it says they ASSUME it was caused by, ie: they didn't find another source. The question is, does this speak to the lethal nature of cannabis, something that has never been found to be true, or does it speak to our inability to find the cause of heart attacks, something that is common enough.  I haven't see the full text of the report, but if the conclusions are an assumption, I'm thinking this would be undue to add.  It is an extraordinary claim, one that the sources aren't backing in an extraordinary way.  It looks more like a bias and irresponsible claim against cannabis by these doctors, as they are assuming a link that has never before been seen, with a drug they are unfamiliar with, made because they weren't able to find a better cause.  I would be against it unless the full report provided something much more substantial than a conclusion that is a self-admitted assumption. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  17:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Dried Cannabis
the dried form of Cannabis that is smoked most frequently should form its own article. This article would initially cover how the dried form is prepared, the legal penalties of various locales, the use of this dried variant, and how it is smoked, as well as any notable scientific information regarding the dried form. I would appreciate help getting this done. I'm making this discussion the start of the article, and in time it will evolve into a page of its own, at which point we can decide on a better title, if there is one. In fact, does anyone have any better suggestions than "Dried Cannabis"? Some have suggested "Marijuana", but that would be too ambiguous with Cannabis (drug). I personally think that a title that is sourced would be best.  მაLiphradicus    Epicusთე   09:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I support this motion. It would help improve this article by allowing it to focus more on the scientific and pharmaceutical aspect of cannabis and cannabinoids. Also there simply too much legal/social controversy about the smoked flowers that don't necessarily have anything to do with the plant, as a source of drugs, it self. As for a title I see little issue with calling it Marijuana (given that words social and legal history regarding smoked cannabis flowers specifically). ACanadianToker (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As I've said before, you start here, develop a section, and when appropriate, fork it to the right article (obviously not one that has been shot down a dozen times...) That is the normal and expected way to branch stuff off. It is easier to get people to agree with you once you have the material in place, demonstrating the ability for the topic to carry its own weight as a stand alone topic. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  17:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

New section on medical effects
Yo potheads. Your article is a potbellied sad sack who hasn't shaven in three weeks. Only stoners edit this sort of article anyway, which is why it's falling apart. Anyway, it really needs a section on medical marijuana, in my opinion. What say you? LesVegas (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, see Medical cannabis -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 20:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

NEJM review
Sounds like this might be worth incorporating: 10.1056/NEJMra1402309 JFW &#124; T@lk  14:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Constraints on Open Research Section
I have added the globalize template to this section. While it is true that cannabis is generally illegal worldwide (vis a vis the UN) the hardships of US researchers do not reflect global cannabis research. This section could be improved by focusing less on the US and more on others. For example Israel.

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/medical-marijuana-industry-sprouts-israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/state-begins-extensive-medical-marijuana-study/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/101607540

ACanadianToker (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to fix. The fact that it is illegal in many areas makes it difficult to study in many countries not just the USA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The claims are mostly an U.S. issue. Studies have been made in several counties in the European Union, I have never seen any complains that it blocked studies in the EU.Dala11a (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Cannabis use affects sperm quality
I suggest a reference to this report is added. I am not a confirmed user yet to edit. http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20140606-25631.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odysnes (talk • contribs) 14:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Should the section about the dried whole-flower-and-leaf preparation have its own article?
Should the section of this article about the dried whole-flower-and-leaf preparation of Cannabis have its own article? Neelix (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Proposal amendment (clarification) by User:Moxy -
 * Should we have a separate article called "marijuana" that states "marijuana"  is just one of the forms of the drugs produced from the cannabis plant. Specifically an article on the dried leafs and bud (flower) of the plant? Sources below:


 * Quebec Centre for Addiction Prevention - "Cannabis is a plant. It is used in three forms: marijuana, hashish, and oil "
 * Health Canada "Marijuana, hash, hash oil, and hemp are different products coming from the (cannabis) plant"
 * Center for Substance Abuse Research) - "Marijuana, the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States, is taken from the leaves and flowering tops of the Cannabis sativa plant. It also comes in a more concentrated, resinous form, called hashish, and as a sticky black liquid called hash oil."
 * State Library of New South Wales - "Cannabis comes in three different forms: - marijuana - hashish (or hash) - hashish oil (or hash oil)

Survey

 * Support - There is no reason to treat the dried whole-flower-and-leaf preparation any differently than the other preparations of Cannabis, such as Hashish and Kief, which all have their own individual articles. Neelix (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Sure.  Why not.  Msnicki (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose What I find most disturbing is that you have already moved this to Marijuana against a consensus (which I reverted), yet you have mysteriously left out that title in this discussion, seemingly as an end around attempt. I find it insulting to our intelligence.  Additionally, you have decided to not list this discussion in any medical area, even though the title of the article clearly states "drug".   You appear to be trying to be shaking the Magic 8 ball again, hoping for a new answer, in a method that I find both dishonest and cowardly.  I expect more from an admin and others should as well. My reasoning for not starting a separate marijuana article is that it is a slang Mexican word imported by Harry J. Anslinger and in common usage describes the plant as a whole, not just the stuff in a baggie, so it would be in violation of our naming policies.  Furthermore, as it is worded, the current RFC is so vague as to not be actionable so whatever name it did take would require an additional RFC, thus the RFC is fatally flawed for not proposing a specific action, nor being listed in the proper areas of interest. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  13:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment What I find most disturbing is that you are not assuming good-faith about me and have sloppily assumed that it was I who put in this RfC, instead of seeing that it was Neelix. If you want to refer to it as a drug, then by all means, let's call it Marijuana (drug)...though I am nigh positive that everyone who sees "Marijuana" thinks of the drug already (provided they know what it is to be begin with). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiphradicusEpicus (talk • contribs)
 * Please sign your posts, I had to dig to find out who this was. And of course it was Neelix that started the RFC.  That is who my comment was directed to, not you.  I assume everyone understood that except you, .  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  22:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. No worries! As for the signature...I was sure I had signed it...ugh. I'll be more careful on that next time.  მაLiphradicus    Epicusთე  
 * Note Moxy has fixed some of the deficiencies in the wording since my original post, but my rationale stands. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  16:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Yes marijuana and cannabis are the same thing. Yes marijuana should redirect to cannabis. No we should not begin creating multiple articles about the same thing using slightly different names. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. as per the sources Talk:Cannabis (drug) - I find it very odd people are not willing to follow the sources on this. -- Moxy (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sources need to be presented in this proposal for this RfC to pass. Thanks for sharing the link to some sources, but I do not find these persuasive. A succinct argument needs to be made and backed by some sources, which I do not feel has happened.   Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @User:Bluerasberry - I have to conclude that they do not teach this type of stuff in the USA education system? Here in Canada we do in grade 9 or 10 People use cannabis in three forms: as marijuana (the dried leaf of the plant), as hashish, and as hash oil (both from the plant resin). Yes the RfC is not done all that well.-- Moxy (talk)
 * They don't teach that in school as far as I know. It was an American that introduced the word "marijuana" into popular culture, and while some may use it to describe the stuff in a bag, just as many use it to describe the plant as a whole, even to describe hemp, "a type of marijuana/cannabis which has virtually no psychoactive ingredients and is grown for fiber".   It isn't that it is incorrect to say "the stuff in a bag is marijuana", it is just incorrect to say "only the stuff in a bag can be called marijuana". ie: while most will know what you mean, the slang word is still used to mean "cannabis" in the most general terms: as a drug plant, as a fiber plant and as a drug.  Sources bear this out. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  16:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with what your saying - as in the term is used for different things. So why don't we have a article that explains all this? We are here to inform people - not suppress the facts because of the terms origins. We should tell both sides...the fact it is used to describe the whole plant by the general population (mostly the USA)  and the fact  "marijuana" for statistical (labs, police, education) purposes is not the plant as whole but a specific part(s). -- Moxy (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the proper name is "Cannabis", then this article should be the place it is explained, as Marijuana is redirected here. I'm not against more information, I'm against misleading information, and saying "marijuana is only the stuff in the bag" would be misleading, even if unintentionally so.  It could be argued that "weed" or "pot" only means "the stuff in the bag" (when used in a drug context), but not the term "marijuana".  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  16:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see your POV very well now - and except its a great argument that will lead to just this article. After all this is done would love to work with you on adding content of this nature here. -- Moxy (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to see the topic expanded, including with more articles, but we have to be careful to be accurate. I can envision a cultural article on the history of the word "marijuana" itself, and its introduction into popular culture (a proper fork with more details).  And a section here on the uses of the term "marijuana" here. You and I aren't on different sides, we both more more info, we just have to find a way to do it within policy and consistent with sources. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  17:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment What content would the proposed new article contain? We shouldn't create new articles just for the sake of it - we're essentially debating WP:WHENSPLIT. Unlike hash and hash oil, the leaves and flowers don't require any processing, so I don't see what could be included that isn't already in this article. Frankly, this RFC just seems to me like a ridiculous continuation of the renaming debate, and this endless arguing impedes improvements being made to the content. SmartSE (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support & Comment As the editor who started this particular discussion, I will put in my two cents. First of all, to anyone wondering about this proposal...(forgive the caps please), THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION TO MOVE CANNABIS (DRUG) TO MARIJUANA...THAT WAS AN EARLIER RFC/RFM! This is ONLY about the creation of a new article, SPECIFICALLY about the dried flowers and leaves of the plant. I proposed the title, "Marijuana" because of the common name of the dried flowers and leaves; HOWEVER, I do not oppose calling it something else, provided that the "something else" is properly referenced, etcetera etcetera. As I was telling Dennis, if we wanted, we could call it, Dried flowers and leaves of the Cannabis plant...or something to that effect. The reason I put this is because from reading the comments in this section, it seems people are beginning to think that this is yet another RfM to move this page to a different title—and it is not. I personally think that after two [failed] RfM's, the current title for THIS page is just fine. This information is definitely for you, Doc—the marijuana article would not be the same as the Cannabis (drug) article; it would be much shorter, talking only about [ultimately]: how Cannabis is dried, how it is smoked, the penalties for having "marijuana" in the U.S. (and ultimately globally), what the etymology of the word is (thereby moving Marijuana (word)→Marijuana as a subsection), and the effects of smoking Cannabis (not to be confused with using, that's in a different article). That is more than enough information to make a full article, as leaving it all on this page would make for a very awkward, long, section...in which case we should also take away the separate identities of Kief, Hashish, Green dragon (tincture), and the other articles referring to Cannabis preparation. Hopefully now everyone understands this particular RfC.  მაLiphradicus    Epicusთე   20:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose at least until it can be demonstrated that the new article would not be a WP:POVFORK or have a WP:UCN problem. What I could see is if sufficient reliably sourced content were to be developed that shows that this one sub-aspect of the Cannabis (drug) topic has enough to support it as an independent stand alone article, then it could be spun off per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.  But, that hasn't been demonstrated yet.   12:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You're not sure there might be enough reliable sources out there on the topic of Marijuana to justify an article? You doubt it's WP:NOTABLE and think it would fail WP:GNG?  My goodness.  What should at least have become clear from the RM debate is that are literally millions of reliable sources for both terms, cannabis and marijuana, and that not everyone believes they mean the same thing.  Of course a separate article is justified.  Msnicki (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Nope, you're not responding to what I actually said.  18:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure I am. I don't see how WP:POVFORK, which refers to "another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view" applies.  What is this other POV you object to?  To make a WP:POVFORK argument here, I think you need to show that the new article would have basically the same content as this one except for that injection of POV.  I don't think you've done that.  More to the point, User:LiphradicusEpicus has offered examples of exactly the sort of easily sourced content that the new article might contain that probably would not be within the scope of this article.  Clearly, the articles would be different.


 * Basically, it's just not a WP:POVFORK if there are reliable sources for both terms and in good faith, not everyone believes they mean the same thing. That clearly justifies an article on each topic to explain what it is, with all the usual proportionate reporting (not deciding) in each article of any controversies.  Msnicki (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose The proposed fork should be a section of Cannabis cultivation and does not require its own article until or unless it becomes a significantly large section which requires expansion without overwhelming the cultivation article with detail. &mdash;Sharavanabhava (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose-- per someone's previously raised concern about POVFORK. This article (and many related articles) have been subject to POV-pushing in recent history, so better to keep such closely related content in as few places as possible where it can be more effectively maintained. 188.30.205.212 (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as POV fork♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I appreciate 's intentions in amending the proposal, although the amendment conflates two issues separate issues: 1) Should the section about the dried whole-flower-and-leaf preparation have its own article? and 2) Should that article be called "Marijuana"? I think it far more important that we have an article about the dried whole-flower-and-leaf preparation than that we have it called anything in particular. It seems to me that most of the users opposing this proposal are objecting to the title "Marijuana", but the essence of this discussion is the question of whether or not the most common preparation of Cannabis should have its own article just as all of the other preparations of Cannabis have their own articles. Neelix (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you aren't going to call it "marijuana", what would you call it? Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  19:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is what we are asking (specifically you, Dennis). What would you like us to call it?! Ha ha!  მაLiphradicus    Epicusთე  
 * My oppose above should make it clear that I don't see a need for a separate article to begin with. This article is already designed to cover cannabis that doesn't have the more sophisticated preparation as to render it a unique product. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  20:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But Dennis, there is a preparation required! You can't just whack off a branch and light it up! You have to dry it out—with care—then weight it out. You have to take out the seeds and stems, and package it. I can promise you that there is a ton of information about this that can easily make its own article. In fact, it would be a longer article than Kief!   მაLiphradicus    Epicusთე  


 * Wikipedia is not a how to guide, so we don't focus an article on how to cure cannabis. This is what I'm talking about, the reasons you keep giving for the article are de jure reasons to not have the article, according to policy.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  00:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not say a "how to guide"...I am referring to an encyclopedic, informative article with facts about the dried up variety of Cannabis. It could be implemented into this page, but if we did that, then it would only be logical to compress all the articles on the preparation of Cannabis into this one page. Have you seen how short those articles are? They are barely more than stubs as it is.  მაLiphradicus    Epicusთე  
 * That's already covered in Cannabis cultivation (cannabis production would probably be a better title for it, since it covers more than just growing it). SmartSE (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, as it is, our policy states that, "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept." This is a
 * LE (based on diffs), you are trying to find a way to "win", and as I said, that isn't how discussions work at Wikipedia. No consensus means that status quo is kept, but that doesn't matter.  The point isn't winning or losing, it is finding a path forward to provide the most info within policy, not to keep score and one-up someone. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  11:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Then let me phrase it this way: why delete a new article whenever it is the expansion of a small stub of knowledge in the main article? Are we not here to give out information?  მაLiphradicus    Epicusთე  
 * You're just being argumentative. The rationales are all posted clearly above.  There is more to policy than a topic passing WP:GNG and having a bunch of sources, A host of other policies come into play, many of which have already been explained and linked above.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  22:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Pot. Kettle.  Black.  This from the editor who argued, "You appear to be trying to be shaking the Magic 8 ball again, hoping for a new answer, in a method that I find both dishonest and cowardly. I expect more from an admin and others should as well."  This reads more like brazen personal attack than a "host of other policies."  Msnicki (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You might want to go back and see what the RFC looked like when I posted that. Moxy changed it.  And there has been several attempts, so yes, this does look like an end around attempt considering the attempts keep coming.  That isn't looking for an consensus or compromise answer, that looks like trying to have it your own way, keep shaking that 8 ball.  That isn't commenting on someone's character, it is commenting on their methods.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  22:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's also questioning their good faith and it's unnecessary. Anyway, we decide things based on guidelines and consensus.  Most of us are anonymous and anyone on the planet is free join the discussion and offer an opinion.  Better to deal with someone's arguments rather than speculate why they made them.  Their motives and suspected secret agendas don't make their arguments one bit better or worse.  Msnicki (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment I guess I'll just be dropping out of this discussion, as it turned into an argument...I guess we will not get a consensus; at least not enough of one to make a new article from the stub. Maybe this stuff is best covered elsewhere—but I never dreamed that expanding a stub into an article would meet such fierce resistance. If someone is so heart-set on keeping an article out of the encyclopedia, then so be it; I will simply leave, my interference is done. I shall be improving th other articles. Thank you. For those of you still interested and here, should you gain consensus for the new article, I will be more than happy to re-instate the information I had previously given.  მაLiphradicus    Epicusთე   20:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Analysis: So far, there is more support for this than opposition. Supporting users are:
 * Neelix
 * Ms. Nicki
 * Moxy
 * Liphradicus Epicus

Opposing users are:
 * Dennis
 * Doc
 * Blue Rasberry

Undecided/Hard to tell users are:
 * Smart


 * This isn't a vote, RFCs don't work that way. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  23:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

History section
Ljgua124 moved the history section to the beginning of the article in this edit. Jmh649 reverted with the edit summary, "Moved back per WP:MEDMOS.". I could find no indication in MEDMOS that any particular order is specified and asked on his talk page why he felt that guideline applied. I waited 3.5 hours for the first reply and another hour for additional followup in a second reply. So far as I can tell, he cannot cite any part of MEDMOS that specifies the ordering and pointed out that in those articles which include a History section, that section is usually near the top and advised him that I would be reverting him and taking it to the talk page.

Based on that, I reverted with the edit summary, "WP:MEDMOS was incorrectly cited in Jmh649's revert. It does not offer guidance on where the history section should go. Please see talk page." I then came here to write this section. Before I could finish, Jmh649 reverted me, again incorrectly citing "Restored per WP:MEDMOS." I reverted him, he reverted me again (using his WP:3RR) and I have reverted him again (using up my WP:3RR). I think he could have waited for me to finish my comments here. Msnicki (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes per WP:MEDMOS the usual ordering of sections is with the history section near the bottom of the article and the health effects section coming first. One can look at FA to see this pattern. There is no consensus for this change. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Should not be first as per the norm here (effects/Usage always first in drug articles). We actually talked about removing the section all together or at the very lest trimming it down. Should be restored to stable version as per other drug articles like Lysergic acid diethylamide etc....-- Moxy (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The disambiguation notwithstanding, I don't believe this is like "other drug articles". If this were an article about a pharmaceutical product like Sativex or even just about a chemical compound used as a druge, I think you'd have a point. But it's not.  The topic at hand encompasses a lot more and should follow more traditional ordering, where history is near the top.  Msnicki (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any consensus. For now, it appears to be split.  This is a matter that should be settled by discussion, not by edit warring.  I gave you a chance to explain your reasons and you don't have any.  MEDMOS does not specify an ordering.  Period.  It just doesn't.  And I'm not sure it would apply even if it did specify an ordering given that the content in this article doesn't look at all like the sort of traditional medical article seemingly envisioned by the list of topics at WP:MEDMOS you cited on your talk page.  Msnicki (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah so cannabis (drug) is not a drug? And "The given order of sections is also encouraged" says nothing about ordering of sections? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You're selectively quoting. Here's the rest of it:  "... but may be varied, particularly if that helps your article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition. Do not discourage potential readers by placing a highly technical section near the start of your article."  Msnicki (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure and that does not really change anything. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Might I add that other drug articles, such as Psilocybin mushroom referring to the drug have the history section above the effects section. I think in relation to the active ingredients, the effects should be listed higher in the page but for drug articles outside of compounds, an historical overview prior to the effects makes sense. Don't forget, this is an encyclopaedia, and encyclopaedias tend to list the history prior to effects. Even look at the marijuana article on the Encyclopaedia Britannica . Ljgua124 (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In fact, main reason I performed this change was an easy way to combat the neutrality issue of this article. Providing the history of a drug's use prior to its effects gives a reader an overall conception of the drug's historical use, and follows thus to its medical effects. To make the history of the drug subordinate in the article detracts heavily from what the reader thinks when they read the article and there is no doubt that only one side of the medical facts are shown. Although I agree this is the real problem, the use of cannabis is so wide spread it must be acknowledged that it is not like other pharmaceutical drugs, and it has no need to follow the same template. The idea that people are interested in mainly the effects of the drug are simply not true. This article will be used, for example, by students doing projects on drugs and hence it is important to provide historical context to something so widespread yet illegal in most countries. Ljgua124 (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It is reasonable to think that readers coming to articles about medical interventions like drugs and procedures are most interested in their effects, which is why WP:MEDMOS prescribes the order that it does. Nobody is arguing that the History section be eliminated, and the reader interested in history first can click right to it from the TOC.  The argument provided at the start of this section for changing the order doesn't sound any different from "I just want the history section where I want it," which isn't an argument at all.   01:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Use medical ordering I came here from WikiProject Medicine so I have a bias to present the medical viewpoint, but I think I am justified here. The majority of this article is about the use of cannabis as a drug, and for that reason, I think that applying the medical manual of style is best to present that sort of content. It is true that this drug has a role in society separate from its use as a drug, but since that is not emphasized in the current article content, I think that it should not be emphasized in the current layout of that content.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2014
Hello,

I would like to request that the "drug" phrasing in the parenthesis after cannabis be taken out. While cannabis is a drug in the "a substance used as a medication or in the preparation of medication" definition, it is not a drug in the "something and often an illicit substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness" kind of definition. I think putting drug after cannabis gives it a negative connotation that is not necessary for a community that clearly knows what cannabis is.

Ciao, Thor Benson

Thorbenson (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

❌ world-wide, most legislatures define Cannabis as a drug - of whatever legal classification. - Arjayay (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform
The transcript of this hearing is now available. It deals with the government's response to medical marijuana, and includes testimony by Nora Volkow, director of NIDA, who also answered questions. The PDF also includes a copy of Volkow's review article in the NEJM, which is not otherwise available free. http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/mixed-signals-administrations-policy-marijuana-part-four-health-effects-science/ House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform Mixed Signals: the Administration’s Policy on Marijuana, Part Four – the Health Effects and Science June 20, 2014 | 9:00 a.m. in 2154 Rayburn House Office Building http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/6-20-14-TRANSCRIPT-Mixed-Signals-The-Administrations-Policy-on-Marijuana-Part-Four-The-Health-Effects-and-Science.pdf --Nbauman (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

its CE/BCE
please change it to ce/bce as it is the correct format for dates Thetruthhhh (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)thetruthhh
 * pls see WP:ERA -- Moxy (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2015
Please add the following link as a citation at the same place as [57] - http://medicdaily.co/cannabis-may-increase-the-risk-of-psychosis/

86.160.30.151 (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is already has two sources. The medical claim of the study you link to is not WP:MEDRS compliant. Psyden (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Per above Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 19:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That link refers to the same old 'survey' which is deeply flawed, no actual causative link is shown, but is instead assumed, hardly scientific. The coincidental links between 'skunk'use and schizophrenia is merely an observed use of cannabis by those who are schizophrenic - young males in a mental hospital - and submits no proof that cannabis caused their illness. In fact there is a schizophrenia gene, only 1% of world population have it and the 1% of schizophrenics has not risen with cannabis popularity. Please don't keep adding links to papers and books which refer back to flawed assumptions. The facts show there is no link, if cannabis caused or even worsened schizophrenia, we would see a rise as cannabis became popular in the 60s, and then when skunk [that the current disinformation claims is much worse and caues madness] took off ten years ago. No such peak in schizophrenia exists. It feels like going round in circles with people who can't take anything in, or who don't want to. Perhaps they need mind expanding.

Common name?
According to what search statistics, marijuana appears to be the most commonly used name for this drug. Cannabis, however, appears to be used mostly in context with the plant. I'm still trying to figure out, but worldwide, "marijuana" appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME.Qxukhgiels (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Pls see the sources at Cannabis (drug) ..there you will see that "Marijuana" is just one form of the drug as per statistic and internatinal terms. -- Moxy (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cannabis_%28drug%29/Archive_9 Psyden (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Marijuana refers to the dried plant, otherwise known as grass in the UK, Kif/Keef in Morocco etc. Since the US has largely only had this, the name naturally in American minds refers to the whole plant/drug. But the genus name is cannabis [sative/indica/ruderalis] and it is generally referred to in the UK and Europe as cannabis in most media to refer to all the various versions such as skunk, resin, marijuana et al. So the proper name is the common name everywhere other than the US? PetePassword (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Unpleasant psychoactive effects
This article doesn't cover what's colloquially known as a "bad high", a reaction to cannabis consumption involving intense anxiety, paranoia, derealization, and depersonalization. It was my most recent experience with the drug, prompting me to kick it for good, and my impression is that it isn't rare. Is there any reliable medical literature on the subject? Tezero (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There is this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2178712 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.21.53 (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

[] This is a self-induced paranoia and you are seeking attention, case dismissed. Next? 2601:8:9800:64C:129A:DDFF:FEAA:BDF6 (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This can be the result of an unbalanced THC/CBD ratio. See here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2cAFRAX3Gs FLY 05:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Are you serious? I just looked at that link, and it's a stupid BBC stunt where a woman who never used cannabis is injected with pure THC and THC/CBD mix without knowing which. If youtube is where you get your information from, you are in deep trouble. PetePassword (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This can be the result of an unbalance imagination, or deliberate misinformation. Having heard of the 'bad trip' from LSD, this numpty has conflated it with cannabis [don't they always] and invented a #bad high' - wouldn't that be a 'low'? Utter garbage, go back to studying and playing games. PetePassword (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources - are they trustworthy?
Spotting an error, I clicked to the linked source and found it was a book, Marijuana and Madness [shades of Reefer Madness!], published over ten years ago, anti-cannabis and with a number of errors [I am in communication with the author on several points]. Since this is a publication by scientists, I would have expected a more apt source for what hashsish is and how it's made would be a traditional manual or cannabis cultural source, which would have pointed out the many ways hashish is made. This may be unknown to most Americans, including cannabis users, as North Americans are familiar with only the marijuana variety, while Europe has long had hash and grass from Africa and India. If I were able to edit, I would have added the methods of making hash, and quoted a source book that is not only reliable, but is a pictorial essay on the subject showing both Moroccan and Nepali ways of making hash. The current summary is incomplete. Other parts, for instance talking about possible psychosis links needs updating. There is a schizophrenia gene which is essential for schizophrenia to manifest, cannabis never causes it, but it may be implicated in initiating or worsening schizophrenia. Much research is currently ongoing, especially into medicinal cannabis, CBD and the role of the nearly 100 cannabinoids so far identified. There is also a lack in current information on seed breeding and the variants produced for medical and other purposes. There's a lot needs doing, but I can't while locked. PetePassword (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that WP:NPOV and WP:V make it clear that verifiability is the primary concern. Your own information may directly contradict what one given source says, but this does not necessarily mean that the source is wrong. A fairly complex subject (such as the health effects or history of cannabis consumption) is virtually guaranteed to have experts on the subject disagreeing vehemently on a number of issues surrounding it.
 * It may be that your information is correct, and it may be that your information is incorrect. Either way, that does not negate the original source's information. Indeed, given that this is a biological issue, it's quite possible that both sources might be correct, and there is some hidden factor which is responsible for the variance in opinions.
 * The same holds true for the historical aspects you mentioned. It may be, for example, that the original source says that the X people made hash using the Y method, while your information says the X people made hash using the Z method, while the truth is that some of the X people (in a certain region, or during a certain time period, or belonging to a certain social or ethnic group, or even some combination thereof) used the Y method while others used the Z method. Or it could be that the X people used the N method, which can appear to be the Y or Z method, depending on what evidence is uncovered.
 * All in all, the best thing to do is ensure that the article mentions both views. This is why we have the policies listed above, as well as WP:OR. If you have reliable sources that say something which contradicts the original sources, by all means, provide them here. Someone such as myself will be happy to edit the article to ensure that it reflects both views. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

My objection is that much of the article relies on published material purely because it is published, no clue as to accuracy or truthfullness. It is also the case that much published material is published to spread misinformation, this moire than any other subject suffers from it. When I see a 'study of literature' by psychiatrists [a group who seem to think they have much to lose by cannabis being legalised] used as source for a description of what hashish is, I just KNOW the writer is either utterly ignorant of the facts [so why involved with this subject] or deliberately continuing the spread of misinformation. There are ample sources of information on how hashish is made. It is NOT as described here. Americans lack all personally knowledge of this, it seems, so rely on 'studies' by others who similarly know nothing. Merely by being published does not make them a reliable source. If this is the level of scholarship at Wikipedia, perhaps I've been wrong to defend it against criticvs all these years, or to trust anything it says. This article is riddled with inacurracies, and I don't say that as a pro cannabis activist but as a believer in truth. To suggest I send any souces to you to include is not enough, it needs some real editing by someone who at least knows what they are talking about from over fifty years' experience and knowledge. I see an attempt to pretend to be fair minded but to include as much of the muckspreading as possible. For isntance, the so-called 'link' with schizophrenia is no such thing, there is a schizophrenia gene, there has been no rise in this disease since cannabis was popularised in the 1960s, and the current lie about skunk [fallen back on as the arguments were overwhelming] is nonsense too, since there's been no rise in schizophrenia since skunk appeared. Is every reader supposed to check back through all these refs to find out if they are reliable or not? I suggest many are not, especially since you seem to think the FDA a reliable source on this matter! Suggest you watch The Culture High on Vimeo and get back to me. PetePassword (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My objection is that much of the article relies on published material purely because it is published, no clue as to accuracy or truthfullness.
 * This is intentional. Please read WP:TRUTH and WP:V before continuing this argument.
 * ...It is also the case that much published material is published to spread misinformation...
 * ...a group who seem to think they have much to lose by cannabis being legalised...
 * ... I just KNOW...
 * Without reading further, I can tell you that your use of these phrases and your approach of the subject with this mentality means you will never win any argument over what should or should not be included in this article. Whether you are right or wrong (on this matter, I actually agree with your conclusions, if not your reasoning), you are clearly and unarguably biased, and thus your reasoning cannot be trusted. I am saying this not to discourage you, but to try and help. Please read the links I provided above. Please read WP:5P and WP:NPOV as well. Your approach thus far has not been in keeping with the spirit of this project. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  12:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

So, I am not allowed to mention misinformation even when it is used as the basis for this page? If you are unaware, or deny, that there is much disinformation on this subject by vested interests, you may need to widen your horizons. Does this naive belief also apply to global warming, are there no vested interests which fund disinformation on that subject? If all anyone is allowed to do is quote from published sources, knowledge is restricted largely to what Western science has published, ignoring the millenia of cultural inclusion of this plant elsewhere in the world, which all happened long before America existed, yet there seems to be an assumption that history begins with the first colonists to North America. No mention is made either of the many other uses of this plant, like fibre, or as you say fiber. It's the same plant, so information on the fibres, and their uses should be included, though there may be no learned papers on the subject to quote from so we may have a problem there, since you only acknowledge published items as valid. My remark to you about psychiatrists relates to the plethora of articles and papers all lacking scientific validity which constantly make claims they fail to substantiate. Since they claim it causes psycosis/schizophrenia, you can see why I might think they feel threatened and feel the need to attack it. I am in communication with the leadauthor of the most recent of these, and so far he has failed to answer one of my points. As for the third singled out phrase, I just know, is there absolutely no room for personal knowledge here? Is it ALL restricted to copy, paste, research [google?] and repeat without a clue as to whether sources are reliable? I do know what I'm talking about, MY knowledge is clearly superior to much of what has been quoted, since they are looking through a window to a world they are not part of, and drawing inferences, conclusions and associations as observers. That does not lead to knowledge, especially when imbued with bias. So it seems your sources can be as biased as they like, but my bias isn't allowed, nor am I allowed to point up bias when I see it? Thank you for taking it onboard how hash is made, I noted also your inclusion of Thai sticks and my point about strengths. Good to see some of my points get across. I am, as I said, only interested in accuracy, and I am not opposed to critical points if substantiated. I personally think young people should not be taking any psychoactive substances, but the illegality is at fault here in making illicit drugs exciting and 'dangerous' to the young at the age when they embrace danger! If it were typified as an old person's drug, they'd leave it alone. But for that it would need to be prescribed by doctors, ie. legal. PetePassword (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC) The obvious thing for me to do is write a book on the subject [as I have intended for some time]; 'Cannabis: The Facts', [I own a publishing company] publish it, put it on Amazon and then quote from it as a published source. You can quote from it also. Might take a while depending on how much time I can spare. 'My objection is that much of the article relies on published material purely because it is published, no clue as to accuracy or truthfullness.}}  :This is intentional. Please read WP:TRUTH and WP:V before continuing this argument. I see no attempt in these to justify using incorrect sources merely because they are published. How exactly is it intentional? And how does that guarantee an accurate encyclopaedia? BTW, the information on medical cannabis is out of date as much more has been discovered, which a google would find. And I see no point in the Prices section since it's irrelevent, and can't possibly be accurate since not only do prices vary hugely, but they go up or down, and then there is inflation. Of course, if Wikipedia is just a little American reference, and the rest of the world don't matter, keep on updating US street prices, but they still won't be accurate. Illustration of price changes: in the 60s, an ounce cost around £20, now it is £150 or more depending on source. When legalisation finally comes to the rest of the world, prices will fall dramatically due to competition and the fact anyone could grow their own. But until then, organised crime and pharmaceutical companies [pretty much the same] will dictate price. PetePassword (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * What changes are you proposing and what sources are there for said changes? -- Moxy (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Too numerous to list without going through it carefully, which will take time I don't have at present. Finding sources would take more time, since I'm not allowed to know facts myself but must quote 'published' sources which may or may not know what they're talking about. One change might be that cannabis is known to cause extreme hair growth, not sure where that comes from though. ;-) PetePassword (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , please read WP:CALM and WP:NPA. I'm not fighting against you, I'm trying to help you. As I mentioned before, I agree with you about much of the misinformation out there, but WP has a way of doing things, and this is for a very good reason. Now,
 * If you are unaware, or deny, that there is much disinformation on this subject by vested interests I have -in fact- already told you quite the opposite of that.
 * No mention is made either of the many other uses of this plant, like fibre, or as you say fiber. I know from experience that there are numerous sources out there on the internet which discuss the use of hemp. It should be very little trouble for you to find a few reliable sources and add the info. If you can't edit the article, just leave me a list of the sources here or on my talk page and I'll add it in.
 * As for the third singled out phrase, I just know, is there absolutely no room for personal knowledge here? None whatsoever. Read WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a place to include personal knowledge or original research.
 * I do know what I'm talking about, MY knowledge is clearly superior to much of what has been quoted, since they are looking through a window to a world they are not part of, and drawing inferences, conclusions and associations as observers. That is both a subjective opinion and irrelevant. I'm fairly certain it's demonstrably wrong, as well, but that doesn't really matter. You may well know the subject better than anyone else, but WP is still not the place to put your original research.
 * nor am I allowed to point up bias when I see it? What exactly do you think you're doing here, if not pointing out what you perceive as bias in the article?
 * The obvious thing for me to do is write a book on the subject [as I have intended for some time]; 'Cannabis: The Facts', [I own a publishing company] publish it, put it on Amazon and then quote from it as a published source. That would still be original research and not allowed. You would need to 1) Establish your book as a reliable source and 2) find someone else to include the information contained therein. Even then, the material could be removed if it was discovered you put someone up to including it. It'd be an argument if your book was indeed established as being reliable, but nonetheless.
 * Illustration of price changes: in the 60s, an ounce cost around £20, now it is £150 or more depending on source. To be perfectly honest (if not so politic), you're completely wrong. I know someone who would happily sell you an ounce for $50 tomorrow (no, I'm not making introductions, merely illustrating a point), and I know someone who bought $200 ounces in the 60's. Actually, it's the same guy. He's kind of a fanatic about it. The reason is that the street price of marijuana is not a simple subject. It depends on where you live, whom you purchase from, what kind you get, what sort of negotiation skills you have, what kind of mood both parties are in, etc, etc.


 * How am I completely wrong when you illustrate perfectly my point that the inclusion of prices is irrelevent, relative to location and changes over time? My prices, you may not have noticed were using a pound sterling sign, £, not a dollar sign $, and I can assure you are accurate for the UK. If someone bought $200 ounces in the sixties, he was either a fool or his memory is shot. I was a dealer 67-69 inclusive, if you want I'll quote you weight prices, that's pounds, kilos, hundreds of kilos. Not boasting, just believe me, and you'll have to take my word for it. What Americans get up to I have no idea, I knew a few, they seemed to fly in from LA or Canada and fly out the next day. Never quibbled prices, so maybe our proximity to Europe and North Africa meant something.
 * I'm not allowed to know facts myself but must quote 'published' sources which may or may not know what they're talking about That is not entirely correct. In fact, you must quote sources whom we have very good reason to believe know what they're talking about. Whether they actually do is somewhat immaterial (poor info can be quoted as an example of poor info, but not as an example of good info). Please read the policies and guidelines I've linked you to. They are quite important to how things work here at WP. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the nub of it, how do you decide which sources are kosher? I'd really like to know as they appear selected at random from a google of key words, some of the 'papers' are more than ten years old, and science has moved a long way in the last ten years. 'Whether they actually do is immaterial'? Huh? I've read the guidelines already, sheesh, stop quoting guidelines. This is about what is taken as acceptable, and you're saying veracity is irelevent, just being published and YOU accepting the source as OK is all that matters. I say maybe the reason this page was 'vandalised' was because you're getting up too many people's noses with incorrect [therefore in their eyes slanted, biased, same old war on drugs crap] information, repeating discredited 'research' which was nothing more than manipulation of stats doesn't pass muster. You may be satisfied with a report by a team of psychiatrists, but I'm not. They interpret the behaviour of someone high/stoned as psychotic, thus, it induces psychosis! Nice and neat and simplistic innit? The truth is the person is happy for no apparent reason except for ingesting phytocannabinoids, so to a psychiatrist they must be mental.

Papers from psychiatrists should be avoided, they are opinions, nothing more. The page on cannabinoids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid seems much more scientific in comparison. PetePassword (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How am I completely wrong when you illustrate perfectly my point that the inclusion of prices is irreleventWhat I meant was that you were wrong in the somewhat simplistic explanation of the prices. If what you meant was that the information doesn't belong here, then I can certainly understand that.
 * This is the nub of it, how do you decide which sources are kosher? Read Identifying reliable sources.
 * Papers from psychiatrists should be avoided, they are opinions, nothing more. That is an over generalization. Even when it is true, they are expert opinions.
 * Finally. Please be courteous of other people's posts. You have edited in the middle of my comments, which is considered quite rude. Always post your entire response at the end of the previous comment, and use one additional level of indentation (so if mine is at two levels, place yours at three levels  ).  MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of being rude, but I do have problems following these posts, and not being familiar with conventions. Do you actually type in all this WP formatting? Like <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;?
 * But on this: I do know what I'm talking about, MY knowledge is clearly superior to much of what has been quoted, since they are looking through a window to a world they are not part of, and drawing inferences, conclusions and associations as observers. That is both a subjective opinion and irrelevant. I'm fairly certain it's demonstrably wrong, as well, but that doesn't really matter. You may well know the subject better than anyone else, but WP is still not the place to put your original research.
 * It's not 'original research' but knowledge assimilated over a lifetime. Yes, all opinion is subjective, I was opining that mine, with much information, study, observation and communication over many decades is superior to a team of psychiatrists who see psychosis in any aberrant behaviour [as they judge aberrant behaviour]. Unless they can point to actual science which shows an effect on the brain, their assumptions that a link with schizophrenia is proved are subjective, and spurious. WP may not be the place for original research, but has to be the place where facts are not ignored and prejudices confirmed. I know you aren't fighting me, I'd be much more vicious if you were LOL;-) 'ave a cookie! I don't knbow the significance of them, but they seem to be popular, if a little juvenile, but then I'm a miserable old git. PetePassword (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've fixed your comment above to conform to commenting conventions. If you read WP:TPG, you can view the guidelines for how to format talk pages. As a note: You must indent each new paragraph. So if you hit enter to start on a new line, add a new set of colons to indent it.
 * But on this: I do know what I'm talking about, MY knowledge is clearly superior to much of what has been quoted, since they are looking through a window to a world they are not part of, and drawing inferences, conclusions and associations as observers. Consider this: I am actually from the planet Krypton. I was an astronaut exploring a nearby star system when my home planet exploded, and I came to this one because I encountered broadcasts suggesting another survivor may be living here. Therefore, any edits I make to the article Krypton don't need to be sourced.
 * Do you see the problems there? The most obvious one is that you have no reason to believe me. We're just two people typing to each other on the internet. I can say anything I want, and nothing I say will ever prove that my claims are true. On the other hand, even if I'm right, do you think I'm going to write about the strict caste system on my planet that stifled scientific attempts to avert it's demise? Or am I going to wax poetic about what a wonderful planet it was? Or (conversely), will I write scathingly about how stupid our leadership was? Even if I'm telling the truth (which you would have no way of proving), there's no telling what ways my own biases will influence what I write. In fact, the mere assumption of my truthfulness virtually guarantees that my information will be biased, as I was quite obviously strongly influenced by the subject.
 * That's the problem with writing content here as an experiential expert. Not only might your claims of expertise be wrong, but even if they are correct, your contributions could not possibly be unbiased.
 * It's not 'original research' but knowledge assimilated over a lifetime. Please read WP:OR. That is most certainly part of what original research is.
 * I was opining that mine, with much information, study, observation and communication over many decades is superior to a team of psychiatrists who see psychosis in any aberrant behaviour [as they judge aberrant behaviour]. Quite frankly, I think your opinion on the normalcy or abnormality of a person's behavior carries quite a bit less weight than those of any psychiatrist. I know for a fact that psychiatrists study human behavior. The only thing I know about you is that you edit WP.
 * WP may not be the place for original research, but has to be the place where facts are not ignored and prejudices confirmed. That's fine, but what if you are wrong about these biases? With the claims in the article, one can evince them quite strongly with links to respected, peer-reviewed scientific papers. With yours, we have to trust some random guy on the internet.
 * I know you aren't fighting me, I'd be much more vicious if you were LOL;-) 'ave a cookie! I would advise you never to be vicious here, as it is blatantly against the rules. Read WP:CIVIL for more, but the short version is: incivility is never permissible, even when you're right. Perhaps especially when you're right.
 * Unless they can point to actual science which shows an effect on the brain, their assumptions that a link with schizophrenia is proved are subjective, and spurious. For the purposes of WP (and indeed, the lay population in general), that article is itself scientific evidence. It was written by a group of people, all with a proven expertise in the field and reviewed by a team of their peers (also experts) and found to be acceptable. Finally, you may be unaware of this, but it was empirical research (itself done by experts and reviewed by more experts) which led to the claim in this article with which you so vehemently disagree, as the article is a review of existing research. Finally, if you insist upon seeing the original research for yourself, a Google search will give you plenty of results. Here's one, which describes a historical cohort study which found a strong correlation between schizophrenia and use of marijuana. Self reported cannabis use as a risk factor for schizophrenia in Swedish conscripts of 1969: historical cohort study. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * [lost track of how many indents I'm expected to do!].

I'm aware of the 1969 'study', '69 was a heady year and seems most of the Swedish army were stoned. But the important word is 'correlation', which is not a proof of a causative link. I am in correspondence with the author of Marijuana and Madness, as he is also the 'lead author' of the most recent 'story' to hit the tabloids in the UK [south London study], which is strange since it was originally published in 2009. He has still to answer why, if marijuana has causative correlation to schizophrenia has there been zero rise in schizophrenia in the West in the sixty years since marijuana became popular, nor in the ten years since 'skunk' appeared on the scene [ie. what is commonly believed to be a stronger version by lay people and seemingly others who should know better if they are fit to have an opinion].
 * You say empirical, I say observational, you say experts, I say in what? The author of the book you say is one of the sources is a psychiatrist, as are the team behind the study and others, all coming to the same conclusion from tiny samples and with assumptions rife over many years. Ask a south London drug using young male what he's taken, how much and how often and expect to be told the truth and I say you're naive, especially as these few young males were in a mental institution, and many of them didn't use cannabis. The control sample was selected [so not random] for having had no previous psychotic problems. They were both small groups, and nothing more was proved than some young men who are mental also use cannabis [skunk] and some don't. Some who are not mental do and some don't. Percentages were not particularly different. This is evidence? A questionnaire? Have you read the summary of this paper even?
 * [Excuse my non PC use of words like mental, but in Sahf Lundn that's wot they say innit?]

Emperor's new clothes come to mind, not the Herrer book, but people quoting people quoting people so they conclude there must be some truth in it. I really have searched for this elusive evidence you talk of, and it still escapes me. Which, when you think how much effort is being put into delaying widespread legalisation while the pharmaceutical companies gear up and patent, is strange, you'd think it would be there set in large type across every tabloid. The scientific proof. Putting a celeb through an MRI while overcome by far too much skunk smoke is about as sincere a ddesire to explore truth as Reefer Madness. In case you missed that, it was UK's Channel 4 with Jon Snow and 2 others, probably available online, everything is. Wading through crap, tryin to find the right words to say, slowly driftin... PetePassword (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 'We're just two people typing to each other on the internet.'
 * I write what I know, I know what I think, I tell the truth as I see it, an honest broker. How about you? I assume [assumptions are sometimes good] that all others are also honest brokers, even when they disagree with me, until they reveal they are not. I think this is a better way to travel than with suspicious minds. . PetePassword (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of the 1969 'study', '69 was a heady year and seems most of the Swedish army were stoned. But the important word is 'correlation', which is not a proof of a causative link. The link I provided was to a second study of the same group, done 12 years later specifically to address that critique. The results are consistent with a causal relationship, and pretty much every external factor cited by critics of the original study as a possible causal factor for both were eliminated. Besides which, if you have specific complaints about a scientific paper, you should be taking that up with the journal which published it, not here on Wikipedia. Your complaints about it are themselves, original research and don't belong in the article, (or indeed, on this talk page, as this is for discussing ways to improve the article, not the validity of a scientific study cited in the article).
 * I am in correspondence with the author of Marijuana and Madness, as he is also the 'lead author' of the most recent 'story' to hit the tabloids in the UK [south London study], which is strange since it was originally published in 2009. He has still to answer why, if marijuana has causative correlation to schizophrenia has there been zero rise in schizophrenia in the West in the sixty years since marijuana became popular, nor in the ten years since 'skunk' appeared on the scene [ie. what is commonly believed to be a stronger version by lay people and seemingly others who should know better if they are fit to have an opinion]. That is fine. It is also original research and has no place in this article.
 * You say empirical, I say observational, There is no meaningful distinction there. The word empirical means "based on observation".
 * you say experts, I say in what? Psychology and pharmacology, the two subjects one must be an expert in to conduct such research. You are implying that their expertise is irrelevant, which could not be further from the truth.
 * The control sample was selected [so not random] for having had no previous psychotic problems. That improves the reliability of the study, as it controls for the possibility of the schizophrenia being a causative factor for the marijuana use.
 * They were both small groups, and nothing more was proved than some young men who are mental also use cannabis [skunk] and some don't.They were groups of over 50,000 individuals. That is quite a bit more than is necessary for their findings. 2-3 times more, at least.
 * Have you read the summary of this paper even?I've read and understood the entire paper, not just the summary. You, on the other hand, seem to have a number of powerful misconceptions about not only the paper, but best practices in such research and even the basic principles of science. I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound insulting, but you really do seem to be arguing out of your depth.
 * I write what I know, I know what I think, I tell the truth as I see it, an honest broker. How about you? Are you implying that I'm being dishonest? MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  12:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I was assuming you to be honest, so my question was asking confirmation. It was in response to your statements that I could be making it up or mistaken etc. You may, however, be paranoid!
 * BTW, Reference 7 only contains links to WP, and not to a source. PetePassword (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, we seem to be at cross purposes here, you say 'They were groups of over 50,000 individuals.' not in the paper I had mentioned, and was talking about. So perhaps we should start again, as I have no idea now what you are referring to, and clearly you have no idea what I am referring to; namely the sample of young males in a South London mental institution. It used 410 patients with first-episode psychosis and 370 population controls. Here is the PDF of the Lancet article They are psychiatrists, not Psychology and pharmacology as you say.
 * The word empirical to me means derived from experiment, rather than theory. The report I'm talking abut relies on theory - that cannabis causes psychosis - and then go on to 'prove' it with stats. Anyone who knows how stats are manipulated to 'prove' just about anything, will not be impressed.
 * It would obviously help if we were talking about the same reference I originally disputed, it's the one in the Lancet PDF. Your study is? PetePassword (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Quite frankly, I think your opinion on the normalcy or abnormality of a person's behavior carries quite a bit less weight than those of any psychiatrist.' Really? I'm tempted to think you're a psychiatrist, which might explain your defence of them, and your inability or unwillingness to understand my POV, which you keep misunderstanding. This could be a result of confusion on which particular study is being discussed, since this has gone on a long time and seems only to get more confused. Psychiatrists are not scientists. Their craft is all based on observation and conclusion, but not backed up by any real science. Freud clearly wanted to have sex with his mother, so applied that to all males rather than acknowledge he was weird, perverted and possibly psychotic. He has a lot to answer for. My personal view is that anyone who has a desire to diagnose others' mental processing from theories is certainly egotistical, and possibly deranged. Certainly not a scientist. My opinion is worth any other opinion, I have lived in the world, I have experienced arguably a lot more than most psychiatrists and just because I didn't first learn the psychiatric litany doesn't mean my opinion is worthless. Many of them have led sheltered lives, have done little other than study and sit in an office listening to people with problems. Cannabis users rarely have problems a psychiatrist could help with any more than an agony aunt can. One I knew made a good living writing heroin prescriptions for visiting jazz musicians in the sixties, and screwed up his children's heads.
 * Further, a quote from WP:DSM 'It has also been alleged that the way the categories of the DSM are structured, as well as the substantial expansion of the number of categories, are representative of an increasing medicalization of human nature, which may be attributed to disease mongering by psychiatrists and pharmaceutical companies, the power and influence of the latter having grown dramatically in recent decades.' What have I been saying?
 * The same article concludes that the connections between panel members and the drug companies were particularly strong in those diagnoses where drugs are the first line of treatment, such as schizophrenia and mood disorders, where 100% of the panel members had financial ties with the pharmaceutical industry. Again what I've been saying and why one must be cautious when quoting psychiatrists making claims about 'new findings on cannabis'. PetePassword (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * '"The Myth of Medical". Scholastic Inc. 2012. Retrieved 12 January 2015.' is referenced in this article. It is a 'drugs war' website dedicated to misinformation and just say no to students, we have similar in the UK with justaskFrank, all nonsense insinuations laced with known facts, and very simplistic. This kind of thing shouldn't ever be referenced as any kind of source for facts since it is clearly biased. But that's OK, only those supportive of cannabis as medical and recreational drug are to be bothered about providing unbiased refs. PetePassword (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Break
OK, we seem to be at cross purposes here, you say 'They were groups of over 50,000 individuals.' not in the paper I had mentioned, and was talking about. I see. You earlier said that you were aware of the 1969 Swedish study, which led me to believe you were referring to the 1969 Swedish study when you went on to talk about a study without mentioning that you were referring to a different study. Well, then we now have 3 (I linked to one and referred to another) studies which passed peer review in two different fields (Pharmacology and Psychology) to be published, all of which evince a link. Even if you have misgivings about one, there are two others, one of which specifically addresses your complaints. I would say that in this case at least, the science is pretty clear: There is a link (however mild) between use of high potency marijuana and schizophrenia; a link which is perfectly consistent with a causal relationship.

The report I'm talking abut relies on theory - that cannabis causes psychosis - and then go on to 'prove' it with stats. No, it does not. That is not how science works, nor is it how that paper is framed. What the paper you linked to does is ask the question "Is there evidence which would support a causal link between the use of potent marijuana and schizophrenia?" and the go on to gather evidence. The procedures outline by the paper are those designed to best yield a negative answer to that question. Despite this, the answer was still positive, if weak. That is how it managed to pass peer-review. Any paper which sets forth a hypothesis (not a theory, a hypothesis), then goes about gathering evidence to support it would never pass peer review for the Lancet.

It would obviously help if we were talking about the same reference I originally disputed, it's the one in the Lancet PDF. Your study is? The one I previously linked, which itself contains a link to the prior study it addresses. You know, the one you claimed to have been previously aware of.

'Quite frankly, I think your opinion on the normalcy or abnormality of a person's behavior carries quite a bit less weight than those of any psychiatrist.' Really? Yes. Do you really have difficulty comprehending why I would take the word of an acknowledged expert in a given field over that of some random guy on the internet? The answer should be quite obvious.

I'm tempted to think you're a psychiatrist, which might explain your defence of them, and your inability or unwillingness to understand my POV, which you keep misunderstanding. I'm not. I am, in fact, a strident supporter of marijuana legalization with a background in physical sciences and computers. As to your position, you seem to vary in how you describe it, but the consistency I've seen has been that you don't seem to believe that there is a causal link between using marijuana and schizophrenia, and you seem to think that wikipedia should reflect what you believe to be true. If that is incorrect, you should spell out your position more clearly.

Psychiatrists are not scientists. Their craft is all based on observation and conclusion, but not backed up by any real science. Are you a Scientologist by chance? I know that Scientology teaches this as an axiom, but honestly, it could not be further from the truth. While it's true that most psychiatrists are practitioners (Psychiatry being a medical discipline), it's completely and demonstrably false to claim that their practice is not based on science. In addition, all science is based on observation and conclusion. It is nonsensical to complain that being based on observation and conclusion makes something non-scientific. This is why I have previously questioned your competence to judge the merits of these studies: You don't seem to be very knowledgeable about how science works. If you want to change that, Wikipedia is a great place. You can start by reading the following articles:
 * Scientific method
 * Methodological naturalism
 * Observational study
 * Experiment
 * Causality

Freud clearly wanted to have sex with his mother, so applied that to all males rather than acknowledge he was weird, perverted and possibly psychotic. Freud's theories have long been discounted by the psychiatric community. Virtually nothing beyond a pop culture image of Freud has survived.

Further, a quote from WP:DSM There is no article called WP:DSM. But it doesn't matter. Corruption in the updating of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual does not invalidate psychiatry as a whole. Also, having financial ties to a company does not automatically mean you are in their pocket. Those financial ties could be having a lucrative consulting position which requires little work and pays a lot of money true, but they could also mean that the doctor in question once went to a medical conference sponsored by the company. The former implies bias, the latter does not. Finally, you seem to be forgetting that the hypothesis that potent marijuana use can be causally associated with schizophrenia is not unique to psychiatry, but has also been posed by Pharmacologists and Psychopharmacologists.

IMPORTANT It is very important that you read this paragraph. Our discussion about the validity of sources has mutated into a discussion about the merits of certain scientific papers and disciplines. This is not an appropriate line of discussion for this page. I have responded to the off-topic discussion until now, but cannot do so any longer. This page is reserved for discussing changes to this article, not for a debate about marijuana legalization. Therefore, I will not respond to any more off-topic discussion. Please try to limit your further responses so as to bring the discussion back to the proper topic, if you intend to keep it going. That is to say, please get back to what changes you wish to see to the article, and how those changes might be sourced and implemented. Thank you, MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2015
The article on Cannabis has a minor error. It states that Washington was the first to legalize recreational use with Colorado following close behind. In actuality, both states voted to legalize on the same day, effectually making neither (and both) first. They both voted to legalize on November 6th, 2012.

2601:1:8480:167B:18D0:FB91:7F0E:391 (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —  10:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably shouldn't be done. Washington and Colorado both voted to legalize at the same time, and Colorado finished rolling out the law earlier, but the first change in Washington law (decriminalizing possession of less than 1 ounce) went into effect December 6th of that year, whereas the first change in Colorado law was not required until ratification by the governor, which happened on December 10th. So they voted to legalize at the same time, but Washington implemented the first part of its legalization law 4 days earlier. I have no idea why that would merit pointing out that Washington was the first state (with the second state coming in 4 days later, they might as well have been simultaneous), but it's apparently true. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  12:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Marijuana delivery service
For the last year or so, marijuana delivery services have been in the news. Maybe a Marijuana delivery service article would be useful. For the lead section there are various reliable sources. and it could mention Nugg, Nestdrop, Meadow, Flow Kana, Canary, and Eaze. After that, the names of all those individual services could redirect to this new Marijuana delivery service article (Nugg, Nestdrop, Meadow (delivery service), Flow Kana, Canary (delivery service), Eaze). This should also help prevent editors from creating stubs about non-notable companies/apps. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is the right place to discuss that, though it's not a bad place to gather support for it. It would probably be better for you to write up a draft of that article and then bring it up at WP:AFC. If you do so, leave a note here. I'd be happy to help write such a draft, though I don't have time to do it alone. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Cannabis fatalities
The original material, sourced to the Huffington Post was removed here for not being WP:MEDRS, and rightly so. The Huffington Post is most decidedly not a reliable source for medical information. I then found MEDRS sources for two similar claims (the lethal dosage of cannabis and the lack of recorded fatalities) and added that information with the new sources here.

This new material, which has twice been reverted is NOT the material which was originally removed. The new material is significantly shorter, more succinct, and does not mention driving at all. The new sources are perfectly in keeping with MEDRS. Before reverting in the future, please discuss. If you disagree with the claims, find sources which refute the provided ones and they will be evaluated by all involved and a consensus achieved. Simply blindly reverting under the assumption that the new materials and sources are the same as the old is disruptive and unhelpful. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  17:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No they're not WP:MEDRS-compliant or don't support the content as proposed, please go through each part of the proposed content change.  17:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Two things:
 * Your assertion that they are not MEDRS is not good enough. Explain what makes them non MEDRS, and also please explain how they do not support the content added (content which was nothing more than a re-phrasing from the source).
 * If you intend to be recalcitrant regarding those sources, how about these?
 * Regarding lethal dosages there's this which is unassailable per MEDRS, the decided anti drug drugabuse.gov  regarding the possibility of overdosing resulting in death, and finally  which is also decidedly anti-drug for the complete lack of recorded deaths.
 * Blindly reverting edits you disagree with is nowhere near as helpful as opening up a new tab with google and actually making an effort to contribute. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing anything blindly here. First, at 18 years old, the Mathre source fails WP:MEDRS per WP:MEDDATE plus other factors:  Mathre isn't an M.D. and the publisher McFarland isn't a medical publishing house.  It's below the standard needed to make such a specific statement as "A fatal overdose of marijuana would require the consumption and total systemic absorption of 2112mg of THC, a level that would require 1000 to 2000 marijuana cigarettes."  Second, in general we shouldn't be using partisan sources, either pro or con, to source unattributed statements of fact, and so both Mathre and Nadelmann are problematic on that criterion. If you really believe this is "unassailable per MEDRS" I'm sorry but you really need to review that guideline, there's no way we're going to use something from 1946 for toxicity.  What is wrong with the article's existing coverage on toxicity?    18:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I now have this, a review article published in the NEJM last year, it looks very useful and isn't in the article yet. What's interesting is that it doesn't make a statement about the LD50 or other lethal effect of marijuana, except that "marijuana is the illicit drug most frequently reported in connection with impaired driving and accidents, including fatal accidents."  If an up-to-date review article in the NEJM (no less) doesn't attempt to cover fatal toxicity, probably the Wikipedia article shouldn't either.   18:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing anything blindly here... Very quickly, I would point out that your edit summary belies this. You said that my sources had already been identified as not reliable, which was demonstrably and obviously untrue.
 * That being said, thank you for replying. It's much easier to work with someone when they actually communicate. I see why you would say the source doesn't meet MEDRS with regards to the author (who is rather credited as the editor, according to the page I linked), however I'm still not seeing how the source doesn't support the claim, something which you've alleged above. Also, WP:MEDDATE doesn't actually exclude it. You might want to re-read that section, as it says to favor newer sources over older sources. It also specifically cautions against dismissing a source due to it's age.
 * Second, in general we shouldn't be using partisan sources, either pro or con, to source unattributed statements of fact, and so both Mathre and Nadelmann are problematic on that criterion If you check the sources, you will see that both statements are themselves sourced, so they're not "unattributed" any more than a sourced claim on WP is "unattributed". I didn't follow them back further than the citation because I didn't think it would be necessary, given the ease with which such claims can be sourced. Secondly, when a source which is biased against a position presents information which supports that position, it is almost certainly reliable. This is a principle that is held to be true in a large number of fields, including a number of scholarly subjects.
 * there's no way we're going to use something from 1946 for toxicity Does lab data have an expiration date? I wasn't aware that it did. This will be big news in scientific circles. Lots of new job security, lot of new(old) work to be (re)done... What is the shelf life of lab data, anyways? Do different types have different lifetimes?
 * Seriously, all (good humored, I assure you) sarcasm aside, the date of publication makes very little difference. Aside from what I said about MEDDATE above, for the purposes of this article the accuracy of lab results using equipment from the 1940's is more than sufficient. We're an encyclopedia, not a pharmacological research database. One may require modern data with it's greater accuracy for scientific work, but not for informing the general public.
 * What is wrong with the article's existing coverage on toxicity? I could ask you the same, since you simply removed the content instead of replacing the source with the source used elsewhere in the section.
 * However, to directly answer your question; as of right now, the safety section opens with an immediate single-sentence paragraph about suicide rates, which is disjointed and odd. Opening with information about the actual toxicity and rates of overdose deaths makes much more sense, and the existing information lacks specificity. Saying the toxic dose is "extremely high" is not very encyclopedic, compared to saying that the toxic dose is X milligrams per kilogram, then noting how high this is in comparison to other drugs.
 * If an up-to-date review article in the NEJM (no less) doesn't attempt to cover fatal toxicity, probably the Wikipedia article shouldn't either. I could not disagree more. Wikipedia is not a medical journal and their standards do not apply here. Simply because the LD50 of cannabis doesn't bear repeating in scholarly articles doesn't mean it's not worth including here. After all, the definitions of LD50 doesn't bear repeating in that article, either, yet that link is (rightly) blue. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The opening paragraph of Calabria et al. 2010, which is already cited in the article, states: "Other illicit drug use and associated mortality is more frequently investigated, especially opioid overdose deaths. Because cannabis use is not reported to cause fatal overdoses, its impact on mortality has rarely been explored." Psyden (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * All of those sources either cite a previously tested or estimated LD50, or establish one itself through testing. It might be a "rarely" explored subject for pharmacological research, but in the modern world, that word is highly relative. It's a gross misunderstanding of how scientists think to assume that because there's no pressing need for some tidbit of knowledge that no scientist will go out and discover it. It is an accurate assessment, however, to state that because there is little risk of it becoming an issue, that it does not bear repeating in every review of the subject. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My point is, Calabria et al. 2010 is a valid medical source (it is a recent enough systematic review) and it agrees that fatal cannabis overdose has not been reported. Psyden (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought you were implying that the source claimed there was no information available on the lethal dosage. I see I was mistaken. I should have seen that by the section you underlined, but I was regrettably caught up in defending my position. Please accept my apologies if my response seemed at all confrontational or condescending.

Perhaps I should state my interest here: I want to see a well-written article. Right now, the safety subsection intros in a disjointed manner and I want to fix that. I also want to include what information there is on the LD50 of the drug. I don't particularly care what sources are used to support this, so long as they are reliable. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  03:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This review states that the "safety ratio" for cannabis use is over 1000x the normal dose. Unfortunately it is from 2004 and would not meet WP:MEDRS guidelines. There must be a more recent review available that cites this information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyden (talk • contribs) 13:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The WP:MEDDATE guidelines are not absolute rules. In the absence of newer information, older information can be used. If you check the section, it even includes caution against recentism. I think 1000x the normal dose is an accurate enough number to satisfy me. If there are no other objections, I'm going to add it to the opening paragraph in the safety subsection with the source, and add an extra in-line citation to Calabria et al. 2010 at the sentence you added about the lack of reported deaths. I think those three sentences should be enough to provide a comprehensible introduction to the sub-section. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we're not trying to use Mathre or a source from 1946, as both are entirely unacceptable per WP:MEDRS. Gable 2004 isn't ideal but it's much better.   can you provide the complete quote from the source?  Thanks...   14:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The "greater than 1000" figure comes from the column "Safety Ratio" in "Table 1 Estimated lethal and effective doses of abused psychoactive substances". They are using this term in place of the normal term, "Therapeutic Index" since this is in the context of recreational use. The relevant paragraph is: "The results of the present review disclosed substantial differences in the safety ratio of abused substances. The most toxic substances appear to have a lethal dose less than 10 times the effective dose. These substances include: GHB (oral), heroin (intravenous) and isobutyl nitrite (inhaled). Less acutely toxic substances, with safety ratios from 10 to 20, include: alcohol (oral), cocaine (intranasal), codeine (oral), dextromethorphan (oral), MDMA (oral), methadone (oral) and methamphetamine (oral). A diverse group of drugs have still wider ratios, ranging from above 20–80: DMT (oral), flunitrazepam (oral), ketamine (inhaled), mescaline (oral) and phenobarbital (oral). Five substances have ratios of 100 or above: fluoxetine (oral), LSD (oral), marijuana (oral), nitrous oxide (inhaled) and psilocybin (oral). These safety ratio estimates should be interpreted with caution. Because they are based on aggregated data, none of the ratios in Table 1 is applicable to any particular individual." Psyden (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Quick question: Does that paper define the effective dose of cannabis? MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In Table 1, for cannabis, the review lists "Usual lethal concentration (and range) in blood" as "(180–315 μg/L)". It lists "Usual lethal dose (and range) reportedly administered" as "> 15 g(extrapolated)". It also lists "Usual effective dose (and range) for non-medical purposes" as "15 mg (12–22)". So they must be using 15 mg as the effective dose. Psyden (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the method of delivery would also be important. Assuming that they are talking about the raw plant here, the TI would very much depend on the potency.  Smoking 250 joints at a sitting is likely to be fatal to a significant number of users simpy from the effects of smoke inhalation. Formerly 98 talk  19:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you're saying, but I think it's generally presumed that the method of ingestion for cannabis is inhalation, unless the author states otherwise. Published articles generally refer to dronabinol when they study oral ingestion, though it's worth pointing out that most articles I've seen seem to prefer to refer to it as Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol within the body of the article, leaving the common names for the title and abstract. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

"Usual lethal dose (and range) reportedly administered" as "> 15 g(extrapolated)". It also lists "Usual effective dose (and range) for non-medical purposes" as "15 mg (12–22)" I think that's enough for me, then. Does anyone object to the following paragraph? Cannabis has not been reported to cause fatal overdoses. A 2004 review categorized the lethal dose as being more than 15mg, or 1000 times a normal effective dose. Research into a possible link between cannabis use and suicide has not produced clear results.

I intend it to be the opening paragraph for the safety subsection, and I intend to use inline citations to both Calabria et al. 2010 and Gable 2004. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  21:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Psyden (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a little concerned that we would start this section out with a statement that the lethal dose of cannabis is 1000x the effective dose" based on what I have understood of this discussion. The data presented above ("Usual lethal dose (and range) reportedly administered" as "> 15 g(extrapolated)" and "Usual effective dose (and range) for non-medical purposes as "15 mg (12–22)" is for pure THC, isn't it?  If you get (sorry, I'm outside my expertise here) 50 mg of THC from a joint, you're gonna have to smoke 300 joints back to back to get to 15 grams of THC.  And I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a fair number of cases of mycardial infarction arise from such an endevour.  The statement seems inappropriate here but would be fine in an article about THC.  Or have I misunderstood? I dont' think you can extrapolate a TI for cannabis based on the TI of pure THC. Formerly 98 talk  22:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps to clarify maybe it should read:

Cannabis has not been reported to cause fatal overdoses. A 2004 review categorized the lethal dose of THC, the main psychoactive ingredient of cannabis, as being more than 15mg, or 1000 times a normal effective dose. Research into a possible link between cannabis use and suicide has not produced clear results.
 * ? Psyden (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me, except I made the mistake of saying the lethal dose was 15mg when it should be 15g according to the source, and you carried that over. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  05:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I know this POV will not be very popular here, but I am a little concerned that the safety section of this article is leaning a little too far in one direction. We plan to start out with the statement that no one has ever died from the drug, and that the therapeutic index (estimated therapeutic index, actually) based on the effective dose and the LD50 is 1000. In the next sentence we call nabiximols "well tolerated", a statement that contrasts sharply with the contents of its package insert, which warns of fainting episodes, changes in heart rate, anxiety, delusions, disorientation, hallucinations, and transient psychotic reactions. I am not aware of any prescription drug with similar side effects that is described simply as "well tolerated" in Wikipedia.

We then move on to a discussion of cardiovascular effects that are described in 48 pubmed listed reviews (limiting the search only to those papers with which cannabis and cardiovascular effects are discussed in the article abstract). Unfortunately, we have cherry picked those references that simply write these observations off as being due to other drugs without acknowledging other viewpoints. According to Thomas, " In 2 studies examining riskfactors for stroke in young subjects, marijuana use was found to be an important risk factor for ischemic stroke.".

According to Karila,


 * "Acute adverse effects include hyperemesis syndrome, impaired coordination and performance, anxiety, suicidal ideations/tendencies, and psychotic symptoms. Acute cannabis consumption is also associated with an increased risk of motor vehicle crashes, especially fatal collisions. Evidence indicates that frequent and prolonged use of cannabis can be detrimental to both mental and physical health. Chronic effects of cannabis use include mood disorders, exacerbation of psychotic disorders in vulnerable people, cannabis use disorders, withdrawal syndrome, neurocognitive impairments, cardiovascular and respiratory and other diseases."

According to a review in Lancet, "The most common acute adverse effects are anxiety, panic reactions, and psychotic symptoms, all of which are most often reported by naive users." and


 * "Regular users have a higher risk of chronic bronchitis and impaired respiratory function, and psychotic symptoms and disorders, most probably if they have a history of psychotic symptoms or a family history of these disorders. "

But we quickly dismiss all these concerns as being due to use of other drugs, though the secondary sources described above do not do so. Lastly, NIDA estimates that 455,000 ER visits each year result from cannabis use (145,000 of these were associated with cannabis use in isolation and not with other drugs) and that 84,000 were admitted

I don't want to go all "Reefer Madness" on you guys, but we have a responsibility to provide people with balanced information that allows them to make informed choices. I think the article is skewed way too far in one direction. Can you imagine what the tone of this article would be if this were a pharmaceutical product that led to nearly half a million ER visits each year?. Formerly 98 talk 22:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with the ER visit stats commonly mentioned is that most reports only list it as an illicit drug used in the past x days. It did not necessarily cause the visit. As the SAMHSA paper says: "The relationship between the ED visit and the drug use need not be causal. That is, an implicated drug may or may not have directly caused the condition generating the ED visit; the ED staff simply named it as being involve".
 * This safety section is already probably larger than it should be, there are many other pages on wiki for cannabis short-term effects, long-term effects, dependence, etc. The potential adverse issues are discussed there. I assumed we were just discussing mortality, specifically overdose, which is a major safety concern with any drug use and can be mentioned with very little text. Psyden (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the proof is not absolute. But that is not the way drug adverse events are reported. If we required absolute proof that any given side effect was the direct result of drug ingestion with the confirmed absence of any other risk factor, Vioxx would still be on the market. WP:NPOV requires that
 * "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."
 * NIDA clearly did not report 455,000 cannabis related ER visits because they believe they are only coincidently related to that use. And the Lancet paper did not write "Regular users have a higher risk of chronic bronchitis and impaired respiratory function, and psychotic symptoms and disorders, most probably if they have a history of psychotic symptoms or a family history of these disorders." because the authors believed that these effects were actually the result of use of other drugs.
 * Formerly 98 talk 23:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a couple of quick points.
 * I understand the concern, however the safety section is dominated by information about the possible adverse effects of the drug. Opening by mentioning the de facto impossibility of overdosing works to balance this.
 * "Well tolerated" is a term which (as I understand it) indicates a low occurrence rate and a low severity of adverse side effects. It's a general term used to indicate the overall low risk to the patient of the drug in question. It isn't intended to characterize the nature of those side effects, which could be severe to certain people. When I was younger, I once had to rush a friend to the hospital because his pre-existing heart condition conflated with the marijuana he'd smoked that day to give him a tachycardia that almost killed him. Despite this, the tachycardia produced by smoking marijuana was -in everyone else I've ever known to smoke it- entirely harmless. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  01:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Rehab data
I added the following and it was reverted


 * "That same year, 314,190 people in the United States entered substance abuse treatment programs who described their primary drug of abuse as marijuana or hashish (18.1% of total substance abuse treatment admissions). "

Could we have a discussion of the specific objections? The information is properly sourced. The edit summary stated that entry into rehab was simply the result of a forced choice between that and jail. If you have a reliable source for that statement, you are of course free to add it to the article. If you don't, please don't remove properly sourced and clearly relevant information based on surmise. Thanks Formerly 98 talk 15:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * From SAMSHA page 19: "Primary marijuana admissions were most likely to be referred by a criminal justice/DUI source". In the same section it also states that only 16% of the primary marijuana admissions were self or individually referred (by a friend, family member etc). Page 111 notes that "self referred" includes those due to a pending DWI/DUI. Psyden (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to be a pest here, but that strikes me as information that should be included in the article, not as a reason to remove information. How about the following:
 * "That same year, 314,190 people in the United States entered substance abuse treatment programs who described their primary drug of abuse as marijuana or hashish (18.1% of total substance abuse treatment admissions). However, only 16% of these admissions were self or individually referred (including cases where there was a pending DUI/DWI charge against the patient), with the remaining being court ordered. "
 * ? MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok except that not all of the remaining were court ordered. Other sources include: Employer/EAP, Alcohol/drug abuse care provider, Other community referral, Other health care provider and School (educational). So maybe just drop "with the remaining being court ordered". (PS I fixed the link to the source) Psyden (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll suggest: "That same year, 314,190 people in the United States entered substance abuse treatment programs who described their primary drug of abuse as marijuana or hashish (18.1% of total substance abuse treatment admissions). Most of these referrals were from the criminal justice system. 16% of these admissions were self or individually referred (self referred includes cases where there was a pending DUI/DWI charge against the patient)." Psyden (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we're still trying to spin this.
 * "Most" being from the criminal justice system is actually 52%. We could alternative say "52%" or "about half" either of which would be more informative than "most".
 * Closely associating the caveat about DUI charges with the 16% self-referral rate is something that the source does not do, and seems intended to give the impression that most of these self-referrals are under legal duress. We don't know that.
 * Even assuming that all of the self referrals are hoping to dodge jail sentences for driving while intoxicated (not a minor crime, and a drug related one), 32% of 314,000 (100,000) are coming from sources were the criminal justice system is no where in sight, including healthcare providers, substance abuse care providers, and other community agencies, mainly social welfare organizations.
 * So if we take NORML's estimate that 25 million Americans smoked pot at least once in the last year, about 1% of these users (not just regular users) ended up in some sort of substance abuse program last year with cannabis being the primary drug, 2% ended up in the ER with some sort of cannabis "implicated" health issue, and 0.5% or so ended up in the ER with a "cannabis implicated" health issue who had not been using other drugs. This is not refer madness, but it is not a completely innocuous habit either. A prescription drug that put people into rehab or the ER at these rates would get a lot of bad press, and deservedly so. We should not be spinning this as if we were employees of a company that manufacturers a prescription drug with similar adverse effects. I'm not on a campaign here, I just think we have a moral obligation to tell things as they are. People can decide for themselves what to do with the info. Formerly 98 talk 20:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Closely associating the caveat about DUI charges with the 16% self-referral rate is something that the source does not do, and seems intended to give the impression that most of these self-referrals are under legal duress. We don't know that." Our suggested text says not such thing. It simply says that 16% were self or individually referred, and that self-referrals include DUI related referrals. This is what the source says. We do not know what percentage was DUI related, it may very well be most of them. We do not know and we do not suggest either way, though it is an important piece of information.
 * So this may represent the source better: "That same year, 314,190 people in the United States entered substance abuse treatment programs who described their primary drug of abuse as marijuana or hashish (18.1% of total substance abuse treatment admissions). 52% of these referrals were from the criminal justice system. 16% of these admissions were self or individually referred (self referred includes cases where there was a pending DUI/DWI charge against the patient)." Psyden (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say that' fine, but why not add "17.6% were referred by community agencies and 9.2% by substance abuse counselors and other healthcare providers."? Right now it seems that we have placed a very heavy emphasis on the role of legal coercion that is not present in the source. Formerly 98 talk  23:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about making statements of fact. Unless you're challenging the reliability of the source, then any implications that come from those simple statements should absolutely be there. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  00:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not against adding them. If you do add those then it should be explained what that term includes: "Other community referral — Community or religious organization or any Federal, State, or local agency that provides aid in the areas of poverty relief, unemployment, shelter, or social welfare. Self-help groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous ( AA), Al Anon, and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) are also included in this category. Defense attorneys are included in this category." Psyden (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * yes, that would match the source. Since it is a US government publication, it is not protected by copyright and there is no need even to paraphrase. Formerly 98 talk  00:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

ER Visits
I'm not sure that this statement is accurate: "The statistics only include drugs that are determined to be involved and not simply those that are "on board" at the time of the visit." According to the source any cannabis use is considered abuse: "Use of illicit drugs is assumed to constitute drug abuse". It may very well simply have been "on board" at the time. This sentence should be removed. Psyden (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, because the source simply defines "determined to be involved" as "claimed to be involved by the medical personnel." That's really not a very good indicator. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The wording is that of the source. Please see Section 3.2.
 * "The patient ED chart has three key areas, and this evidence may come from any one of these areas: patient's chief complaint; physician's, nurse's, and/or other appropriate clinician's assessment; and/or diagnosis detail. The drug use must be implicated in the ED visit, but it does not need to be the direct cause. The reason a patient used a drug is not a factor in determining whether the ED visit is a DAWN case. Only drugs that are determined to be involved are recorded in the DAWN system. Unrelated drugs that are simply "on board" are not recorded."
 * No disrespect, but it really doesn't matter whether you or I think a reliable source's reasoning is satisfactory or not. If the source determined that these are drug-involved ER admissions, that's kind of how it is unless you have a reliable source that disputes it.  We don't do original research here. Formerly 98 talk  20:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We are questioning the reliability of the source. Attempting to derail the discussion by telling us we should be assuming the reliability of the source is about the most unhelpful thing to add. If you have an argument for the reliability of the source, then please let us know. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  00:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You have every right to question the reliability of the source if the basis of that questioning is a claim that it does not meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS. But I don't think the broader community is going to accept the hypothesis that the United States Department of Health and Human Services is not a MEDRS compliant source. As for questioning the reliability of the source based on "I disagree with the conclusions/reasoning of the source" arguments, that would be against widely accepted and well established Wikipedia policies. Formerly 98 talk  00:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Questioning the methods used in the compilation of statistical data is not in any way a violation of WP policy. There is nothing in WP:MEDRS which states that all information published by a governmental agency must be accepted as fact. Nor is it anywhere stated that simply meeting the criteria for MEDRS makes a source absolutely reliable. Finally, nowhere is it stated that all information from reliable sources must be included, even if we conclude that it is reliable.

We do not hold discussions about a source to the same standards as we hold article content. I think you should recuse yourself from this discussion, as you do not seem to understand it nor how WP policy relates to it. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  01:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My position is not so much the questioning of the reliability of the source, as it is the misinterpretation of that source. By their definition any use of cannabis is abuse. I would think that if someone walks into an ER for whatever reason and tells the personnel that they are currently "abusing" an illicit drug that this would likely be considered related and recorded. Given the vagueness of this I see not point in mentioning it in our text. Psyden (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Its a reliable source, and you cannot exclude based on your beliefs about the validity of their methods. As non-experts, we present the viewpoints found in reliable sources according to their prominence, and not according to our non-expert opinion on whether reliable sources "got it right" or not. Thats not how it works. We can go to RFC if you like. Formerly 98 talk  01:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning the validity, I am questioning our misinterpretation.Psyden (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no interpretation. The source says "Only drugs that are determined to be involved are recorded in the DAWN system. Unrelated drugs that are simply "on board" are not recorded." We have used this language almost verbatim in the article. Formerly 98 talk  10:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, there were 455,000 emergency room visits associated with cannabis use in 2011. These statistics include visits in which the patient was treated for a condition induced by or related to recent cannabis use. The drug use must be "implicated" in the emergency department visit, but does not need to be the direct cause of the visit. The statistics only include drugs that are determined to be involved and not simply those that are "on board" at the time of the visit. Most of the illicit drug emergency room visits involved multiple drugs. In 129,000 cases, cannabis was the only implicated drug. What exactly is being objected to? thx Jytdog (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * to be clear, MEDRS says in the section on accessing sources: ""Assessing evidence quality" means that editors should determine the quality of the type of study. Editors should not perform a detailed academic peer review. Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions." So a bunch of the discussion above is not valid.  (this is not a matter of policy, btw, but of guideline).  I assume the content/sourcing under discussion is the following:
 * The inclusion of the sentence: "The statistics only include drugs that are determined to be involved and not simply those that are "on board" at the time of the visit." If we don't remove this sentence, then it should be mentioned that for the purposes of this report, as the source states, any use of cannabis was considered "abuse". Psyden (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is unclear to me why you are importing content about legality/illegality of cannabis into this content, which is just about toxicity, regardless of whether it was prescribed or not. (is it because of "Most of the illicit drug emergency room visits involved multiple drugs")? Jytdog (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is DAWN's reporting policies that may be importing content about legality/illegality of cannabis into their statistics. Any use of an illicit drug is considered abuse, and therefore it is possible that their statistics do include episodes where cannabis was simply on board. Would they not often consider the current abuse of cannabis as being involved? Have they made this clear? I don't think that they have. They have already stated that a reported drug does not need to be the direct cause of the visit, yet it will be reported anyway. For example DAWN states "While DAWN seeks to report only the drugs that are related to the ED visit, some unrelated drugs may be included if ED records fail to indicate that they were obtained through a legitimate prescription, were taken as prescribed or indicated, and were unrelated to the ED visit". Does this policy not extend to cannabis? Psyden (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand where you are coming from. do you not want the article to report on ER visits due to cannabis use?  the content simply says " there were 455,000 emergency room visits associated with cannabis use in 2011. "  if there are more because DAWN is not counting ER visits due to illicit use, then i don't see why you would object.  if DAWN is counting all ER visits due to any cannabis use, an ER visit is an ER visit.  I really don't understand where you are coming from. Jytdog (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are not following this conversation. I simply questioned the inclusion of the one sentence (I quoted the sentence above in the beginning of this section). My concern is not that DAWN under-reported cannabis related statistics, it is that they over reported them. Psyden (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * why do you care why somebody is in the ER due to cannabis? (as an example - acetaminophen is one of the most common substance that poisons people worldwide) also, the source says  "For the purpose of DAWN, a drug is any substance that is (a) used as a medication or in the preparation of medication; (b) an illicit substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness; or (c) both."Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm having a hard time following this too. The source says
 * "The statistics only include drugs that are determined to be involved and not simply those that are "on board" at the time of the visit."
 * "DAWN seeks to report only the drugs that are related to the ED visit"
 * "Conversely, DAWN does not report medications or pharmaceuticals that the ED medical records mention as having been taken by the patient but that are unrelated to the ED visit."


 * The sentence you quoted about "drugs unrelated to the visit" is a standard caveat about the limitations of the precision of the data. This sort of thing is present in any high quality study. But attempting to present it as an invalidation of the presented statistics is clearly at variance with the intent of the source.  If the source thought the data was wildly inaccurate, they would not have reported it.


 * "They have already stated that a reported drug does not need to be the direct cause of the visit" Yes, and the example that they give is "For example, a tranquilizer may have caused the patient to fall asleep while driving and then to have an accident." It would be a "direct cause" if the patient had taken an overdose and gone into respiratory arrest.  The drug is "implicated" in both cases, and both are legitimate causes for concern.  This was not a contradiction of the source's statement that "The statistics only include drugs that are determined to be involved and not simply those that are "on board" at the time of the visit."


 * Again, we don't conduct peer review here, we simply assess the quality of the TYPE of study. The US Department of Health and Human Services is a reliable source.  Our role is to report what reliable sources have said, not to conduct peer review and decide the reliable source made errors.  Formerly 98 talk  15:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue is whether the methods described by the source reflect the statements transcribed here. The fact that the statement here was taken almost verbatim from the source is immaterial: There was no peer review of this source and it's very debatable whether it could be free from bias. Understand that I have no problem with including the numbers provided, because I don't doubt that those numbers are accurate. I also have no problem including the methods described, because I don't doubt that those methods were the ones used. I do have a problem with including a summary of the methods which provides a vague yet emphatic implication that the drug was definitively known to have caused the emergency room visit, when the methods do not support this.

From where I sit, this is a clear example of weasel words showing their face in an otherwise reliable source, and their origin being used as a rationale for their inclusion here. This is the difference between "doctors think it was involved" and "doctors proved it was involved." The latter is strongly implied by that sentence, when in fact, the former is what was described by the source. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  12:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * i usually find you so reasonable!  i don't know how much you edit on health-related stuff but this is how epidemiology is done.  government agencies are the most reliable sources for this sort of thing. there is nothing weasel-y going on here that i can see. Jytdog (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned before, I don't doubt that the numbers are accurate, nor do I doubt that the description of methods are accurate. I can cite a number of cases however, where government agencies have used hyperbole and -admittedly rarely- outright falsehoods in reports to boost their funding. That means I pay attention to the wording when I read such sources. In this case, I find that sentence, or more specifically the phrase "...determined to be involved..." hyperbolic. Even if one were to make the case that it is not, how does having it contribute to the article? The methods are already described, a second sentence rephrasing the description is not necessary, and is indeed harmful to the article if it implies something that the source does not support.
 * The preceding sentences describe the methods quite factually, by stating "The drug use must be "implicated" in the emergency department visit, but does not need to be the direct cause of the visit." My assertion here is that the use of the word "implicated" is a far more accurate word than "determined". While I understand that the two are often used interchangeably, you cannot deny the marked difference in implications (no pun intended). Using the words interchangeably might be fine for a government report, but I don't think it's good enough for wikipedia. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * i am not following you at all. But enough of this -  i copied the content from the article above. How would you concretely change it? Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would remove the sentence in question. Here:
 * According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, there were 455,000 emergency room visits associated with cannabis use in 2011. These statistics include visits in which the patient was treated for a condition induced by or related to recent cannabis use. The drug use must be "implicated" in the emergency department visit, but does not need to be the direct cause of the visit. Most of the illicit drug emergency room visits involved multiple drugs. In 129,000 cases, cannabis was the only implicated drug.


 * Doesn't that read just as well? I don't see how removing it changes anything except the implication that there was a concrete, repeatable test performed that proved that cannabis was the culprit to the exclusion of other possible causes. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * i am OK with that. everybody else? Jytdog (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is probably OK, though the reasoning that one can or should change the language used by reliable sources because a Wikipedia editor thinks the reliable source might be fibbing is very troubling. I hope we don't run into this type of reasoning too often, and I certainly don't think that it is compatible with the policies and guidelines here.  Formerly 98 talk  15:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , please read the second sentence of WP:NPA. We're trying to make a better article, here. If you're okay with the proposed change, please leave it at that without attempting to disparage me. Bear in mind that just because you don't understand my reasoning doesn't make it wrong or illogical, it just makes it reasoning that you don't understand. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not disparaging you, but I think the logic used here (which I understand just fine, thank you) flies in the face of the guidelines for sourcing. I also responded to your remarks at Jytdog's user page. Formerly 98 talk  15:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ...I think the logic used here (which I understand just fine, thank you)... Formerly, it's demonstrable false that you understood my logic, because you stated that I thought the source was "fibbing", something which I have not stated, and specifically excluded by referring to it as hyperbolic, and stating that the words "determined" and "implicated" might be okay to use interchangeably in the source, but not here. If you believe that I think the source is "fibbing", then you do not understand the logic I'm using. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * More comprehensive source world drug report 2006 - Need real comparable stats... having a number vs a percentage of the population  means noting to people  outside the USA....is ' 455,000 emergency room visits " alot or very little vs the total population? leaves the reader wondering as to the scope of the statement.  Need an upgrade in the writing.    -- Moxy (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if we have an estimate of the number of regular cannabis users in the US, we could add that. But it gets awfully close to WP:OR to do that. Formerly 98 talk  15:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * its in the source I just gave....anyone have a copy of the 2014 or 2013 versions?-- Moxy (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You can download the 2014 version here. This year's should be out next month. Sizeofint (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

New review
Full text available and I've added the Laysource parameter to show how one also links to press coverage of a secondary review. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)