Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 11

Health risks
Can we mention the health risks as shown here or is this source not considered reputable?--88.104.136.143 (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Cousin Couples.com", lol. Is it even safe to click on that site? Randy Kryn 19:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a reliable medical source per WP:MEDRS (a secondary review published in a respected medical journal from the last 5 years would be a good, compliant source). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyden (talk • contribs) 19:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL. It is safe to click the link. So are the following reliable medical sources? I'm new to this.

--88.104.136.143 (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.aafp.org/afp/1999/1201/p2583.html
 * http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1996/5/96.05.06.x.html
 * http://www.clark.net/pub/nhp/med/pkrf/pkrf.html
 * My apologies, I didn't know you were new. Welcome. I have no experience in medical sourcing, so am interested in the answer too. Within the content themselves, I couldn't get the last one to load, on a quick search of the middle source I didn't see anything about cannabis listed - but I did a quick scan and not an in-depth read - and the first one might be slanted by not taking dehydration into account (my own analysis, not sourced). Most of the symptoms described in the physical section can be signs of dehydration, so I'm wondering if using marijuana dehydrates or just let's the body/brain connection finally realize that the body is dehydrated. Most everyone is quite dehydrated, and in need of water, so the average marijuana user would be dehydrated too. Again, that's not a medical opinion, I have no expertise, but just from personal experience in hydration and dehydration symptoms, and there's at least a fair chance that that's at least part of what they're reading out in the physical part of that study. As for the psychological results, that seems way off the average, so is it measuring outliers? Interesting results. Thanks. Randy Kryn 23:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is okayish http://www.aafp.org/afp/1999/1201/p2583.html but a little old. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email)

Safety chart is misleading and biased
One of the people that made this chart even lost their job as a governmental advisor for their pro-drug campaign. It's not scientific, it's very simplistic and it's obviously made in support of drug usage. I suggest that we remove it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt#Government_positions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.126.47.129 (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you find fault with the methodology of the study? I've read two other studies that were largely in agreement with the rankings. I think it is appropriate for "Society and culture" or a similar section but we should not make any medical claims from it. Also the diagram should be updated using more recent studies. Sizeofint (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is fine. It also fits real life / makes sense, not that that is a great form of evidence. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * According to the link you provided to his Wiki page, Nutt was fired for publicly disagreeing with the government's stance on drugs (something which he would be obliged to do, as a scientist, should he have felt they were wrong). Also according to that bio, several other members resigned in protest of his firing, and numerous officials criticized the firing publicly, calling it politically motivated. The government's science minister claimed the firing left him feeling "... pretty appalled". The article quotes the man who fired him claiming that a scientific statement (that incidents of harm resulting from riding horses are more common than incidents of harm from taking Ecstasy) made by Nutt was not a scientific statement at all, but a political one. This claim is blatantly untrue even to the most casual perusal.
 * Admittedly, I have not verified the article via the sources. However, assuming the sources are accurate and fairly represented in the article, your argument for removing the chart is fallacious (being based upon untrue and poorly represented claims) even if one looks past the obvious fallacy (being based upon an ad hominem attack on Nutt). MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess someone busted a Nutt.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2015
http://blog.sfgate.com/smellthetruth/2015/06/23/marijuana-is-medicine-journal-of-the-american-medical-association-concludes/

Roann99 (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2338251 might be a good source to add, but the news article itself is completely worthless. Even if it wasn't in contradiction to WP:MEDRS, the San Francisco Gate has a decidedly liberal bias, and would likely put spin on any story with a political element, such as this one. And this is coming from a liberal, pro-legalization guy, so I'm not biased against them, myself. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And a blog name like "Smell the Truth" raises flags too. Stickee (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. A pot-themed blog in a highly liberal publication is not a reliable source in any sense. That being said, the article did link to it's source, which is the link I provided. That might be useful. The article itself, even if it is neutral and un-biased, is worthless. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  12:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit request - Small grammar fix
Under "Uses - Medical" the first sentence starts "Cannabis has is used to...". Should probably be "Cannabis is used to...". Thomas.krantz (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Category Discussion for Cannabis
I'd be interested in what others think of the correct Wikipedia category for Cannabis. I'm satisfied with the current:
 * Cannabis
 * Cannabis smoking
 * Entheogens
 * Euphoriants
 * Herbalism
 * Medicinal plants
 * Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants

The category Category:Drugs, though, is used for pharmacologically active compounds, which Cannabis isn't - it's a mixture of such drugs. To be clear, Cannabis isn't a drug because it isn't a "chemical substance that has known biological effects on humans or other animals"; each of the active compounds in Cannabis, like THC, are drugs. Category:Combination drugs isn't being used for such active plant products, so I don't think that that works either. So, I contend that the Category:Drugs should be removed from Cannabis (drug). Thoughts?Klbrain (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently Category:Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants is a subcategory of Category:Psychoactive drugs which is a subcategory of Category:Drugs. This makes Category:Drugs redundant on this page. I'll remove it. Sizeofint (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2015
email me email redacted if you are interested in having a slang section in this article i can define a lot slang from all over the united states

Campbellgriffin (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: That is not how this works. If you want to introduce new material into this article you can do so but you have to write it up yourself and post it here.  Another editor will evaluate it and put it in for you if it is appropriate.  Asking people to email you is not going to work. --Stabila711 (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

THC presence in body
how long dose cannabis stay in your system — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.70.34.178 (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Anywhere from a few days to a month depending on how often it is used I have heard. Odd that we don't seem to discuss this in the article. Probably we need to improve the Botantical Products infobox. --improperly signed by Sizeofint (talk), 17:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

outdated
It's outdated under the part about legality, it talks about something in 2014 as if it's coming up — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcanineGod (talk • contribs) 21:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this needs to be updated. Sizeofint (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Cannabis (drug). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090206143008/http://1911encyclopedia.org:80/Hemp to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Hemp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081202130012/http://www.rnw.nl:80/internationaljustice/news/international/6061587/43-Amsterdam-coffee-shops-to-close-doors to http://www.rnw.nl/internationaljustice/news/international/6061587/43-Amsterdam-coffee-shops-to-close-doors
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091231104447/http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4414 to http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4414

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Comparison to other drugs (alcohol and tobacco)
I suggest a removal of the graph comparing the harmfulness of different drugs, where cannabis is ranked lowest. The study this graph references takes into consideration that tobacco and alcohol is much more common in Scotland compared to cannabis and therefore ranks them higher as they are more likely to be accessed and used by a Scottish person when compared to cannabis. Hence this graph could easily be interpreted by a reader that cannabis is much "safer" than tobacco or alcohol.

In fact there are many study's showing that smoke from cannabis is very similar to that of tobacco or even other burning substances such as wood. Hence if a person would smoke the same amount of cannabis as another smokes tobacco then one would expect them to cause similar harm (if not more for cannabis due to the additional cognitive and neurological effects). Also there is still a large gap in the research literature concerning occasional or second hand usage of cannabis. Therefore it is easy for an uneducated reader to incorrectly interpret this lack of data as it is safe to smoke cannabis.

Due to the uncertainties in the current data and the popularity of Wikipedia by the younger demographic (also the largest group of cannabis users) I believe that this article should be more sceptical to the usage of cannabis. The article could draw parallels to the tobacco usage some 50 years ago before proper research on the adverse effects had been done (which much later revealed that even small quantities of tobacco has bad effects on the body). It might be true that cannabis is less harmful than tobacco, but it might also be that it is more toxic than tobacco. We still do not have enough data and until then I think we should be more skeptical of its usage especially on a public and objective forum like Wikipedia. (see list of references below)


 * Tashkin DP. Effects of marijuana smoking on the lung. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2013;10(3):239-247.
 * Moir D, Rickert WS, Levasseur G, et al. A comparison of mainstream and sidestream marijuana and tobacco cigarette smoke produced under two machine smoking conditions. Chem Res Toxicol. 2008;21(2):494-502. doi:10.1021/tx700275p.
 * Novotny M, Merli F, Wiesler D, Fencl M, Saeed T. Fractionation and capillary gas chromatographic—mass spectrometric characterization of the neutral components in marijuana and tobacco smoke condensates. J Chromatogr A. 1982;238:141-150. doi: 10.1016/S0021-9673(00)82720-X
 * Hoffmann D, Brunnemann KD, Gori GB, Wynder EL. On the Carcinogenicity of Marijuana Smoke. In: Runeckles VC, ed. Recent Advances in Phytochemistry. Springer US; 1975:63-81.
 * Wu T-C, Tashkin DP, Djahed B, Rose JE. Pulmonary hazards of smoking marijuana as compared with tobacco. N Engl J Med. 1988;318(6):347-351.
 * Howden ML, Naughton MT. Pulmonary effects of marijuana inhalation. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2011;5(1):87-92.
 * Polen MR, Sidney S, Tekawa IS, Sadler M, Friedman GD. Health Care Use by Frequent Marijuana Smokers Who Do Not Smoke Tobacco. West J Med. 1993;158(6):596-601.

EV1TE (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I might suggest making a new graph with a more recent study rather than simply removing the graph. Sizeofint (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

New place to put info -> marijuana dispensary article
I was SHOCKED and horified to see there was no article about marijuana dispensaries, so I wrote one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marijuana_dispensary. Please feel free to use it and move relevant info to it from this page. --Potguru (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"Drug" -- seriously?
The extant article considers cannabis to be a "drug." Seriously? This is the year 2015, my fellow editors, I wouldn't expect to see dope being considered to be a "drug" by anyone educated and informed these days. The extant article is linked to from the "Save The East Fork" web site, and when I clicked on it, it was something of a mild surprise to see the extant article's actual title suppose that the plant is a "drug." By that criteria, so is sugar.

Looking at the Tobacco page, that article does not likewise suppose tobacco is a drug. Seems to me to be something of a mild-and-irrelevant inconsistency. Any way it just looked wrong and out-dated. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The difference between this page and Tobacco is that Cannabis is already taken by the genus so we can't simply name it cannabis. Per Drug, "a drug is, in the broadest of terms, a chemical substance that has known biological effects on humans or other animals. Foods are generally excluded from this definition, in spite of their physiological effects on animal species." This pretty clearly excludes sugar. I would say technically cannabis contains drugs (e.g. CBD, THC). I'm not sure if it right to say it is a drug itself though of course people colloquially refer to it as a drug. Do you have a better page name? Sizeofint (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose Cannabis (plant preparation) might be feasible. Sizeofint (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps Cannabis (botanical product). Anyone else have any thoughts? I imagine any name change would be controversial. Sizeofint (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Cannabis (and Tobacco) both contain "a chemical substance used in the treatment, cure, prevention, or diagnosis of disease or used to otherwise enhance physical or mental well-being.", making them as much a drug as any pill you might take (which is made mostly of filler, only containing a small amount of the drug). Besides, it is the pharmacological use of the plant which is the subject of this article. "Pharmacological substances" being another term for "drugs". MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But a chemical substance is a single chemical, which cannabis definitely is not. Cannabis is closer to a chemical mixture than a chemical substance. I think it is more accurate to say "Cannabis contains drugs" than "Cannabis is a drug". I would describe cannabis as botanical product that contains psychoactive drugs such as THC. Sizeofint (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hence my comparison to pills: the filler is made of multiple chemical substances. There are also preservatives and fixatives. Yet no-one would argue that the pill is not a drug, but rather contains a drug. It's the same thing with Cannabis. This article is about the use of the plant for pharmacological reasons. There are no sections on taxonomy, its use as hemp, or even its cultivation (despite the relationship between cultivation and its use as a drug). The entire article is about the use of the plant as a drug. To get caught up in an overly strict dictionary definition would be nothing but confusing.
 * Consider a high school student hopping on WP. He's not very bright, he's not very studious, but he's determined to do a good job on this report he has to write about recreational drugs. He needs to know about the psychopharmacological effects of Delta-9 Tetrahydracannibinol on the human brain, even though he's not thinking of it in those words. So he starts typing in the bar, C-A-N-N-A, then looks at what's popped up. Which is going to make sense to him as the obvious place to go? Cannabis (drug), or Cannabis (botanical product)? And before anyone says that we can't be held responsible for the confusion of poorly educated people, let me point out that Hemp is both a botanical product and a plant preparation. But it's certainly not a drug. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  12:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Postscript I just want to add that within the article, we should not be referring to the plant or it's flowers as a drug. WP policy is rather clear on that, we are to use the most accurate language possible, regardless of whether or not it's jargon or overly technical. But this is for the title, where we are supposed to use the most common name, per WP:COMMONNAME. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  12:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In the case of pills with multiple substances the technical term is combination drug though of course most people just call them drugs. Cannabis doesn't have a fixed dosage so the term doesn't apply in this case. I am fine with keeping the naming in line with colloquial usage "drug" until we can find a better name that clearly and unambiguously identifies the topic. (The point of this this discussion was to see if anyone had better naming ideas.)
 * In the case of pills with multiple substances the technical term is combination drug though of course most people just call them drugs. Cannabis doesn't have a fixed dosage so the term doesn't apply in this case. I am fine with keeping the naming in line with colloquial usage "drug" until we can find a better name that clearly and unambiguously identifies the topic. (The point of this this discussion was to see if anyone had better naming ideas.)


 * I wonder if what we really have is a structural problem with our cannabis articles. Currently we have Medical cannabis and Entheogenic use of cannabis which target specific uses. Then there is this article which is some sort of pharmacological overview. I wonder if it might be better to have a Recreational use of cannabis article, move the pharmacological summary into Cannabis, and from Cannabis use some main to direct people to the appropriate articles. Essentially, we call this article Cannabis (drug) because we have to disambiguate but is there a way to structure our articles so we don't have to disambiguate? Sizeofint (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not understanding what I was saying about the pills, but it's not important. What matters is that any alternate names would be either less precise, or less applicable. That the most common name happens to be the best one either of us can think of reinforces rules that already exist in WP:COMMONNAME.
 * My understanding is that you're saying pills often have multiple substances and are called drugs. Therefore the argument that drugs consist of a single substance is invalid. I am arguing that pills with multiple substances and fixed dosages are technically called combination drugs but this distinction is not generally noted in everyday language. Cannabis can only be called a drug in a looser sense than our drug article introduces the term; a material (rather than a substance) that has an effect on the human body and is not consumed for nourishment. Anyway the point is moot since we're not going to change anything in the near future. We may wish to refine the definition in the drug article if we're going to use the term consistently though. Sizeofint (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder if what we really have is a structural problem with our cannabis articles. Now you might be on to something. There is a definitive relationship between ethnogenic uses, recreational uses and medical uses. That being said, I don't think they're the same thing. But collapsing generalized information about each type of use into a master article that then has main links would be a good idea. However, it seems to be pretty obvious that the main article should be this one. Neither medical nor religious (a subset of ethnogenic) use is at all recreational. To make a main article and call it "Recreational use of Cannabis" that is a master category including religious and medical use would very POV. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  12:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't think it would be a good idea to make Recreational use of Cannabis the main article. I suggested we make Cannabis (the plant article) the hub instead. Sizeofint (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Conveniently the plant article is already structured as a hub in this way. This article is the target for recreational use. Sizeofint (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I find this quote funny: "I wouldn't expect to see dope being considered to be a "drug" by anyone educated and informed these days". First off it is of course a drug by any reasonable definition of the word. However I would not expect to see cannabis being considered "dope" by anyone educated and informed these days. HighInBC 15:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ...added to the article for naming of the drug and consumption statement .  But also has classification info related to the above conversation . -- Moxy (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. It first says "Natural drugs are active ingredients and/or secondary metabolic products of plants and other living systems...." (emphasis mine) which indicates single substances. It then says "cannabis is the most consumed illicit drug in the world...." They are not using their terms consistently. Sizeofint (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's actually pretty common for terms with differing common meanings and specific, scientific (or jargon) meanings. I've seen the same thing with the word "viking" and the term "natural number" when researching sources for the naming of other WP articles. This is why (I believe) WP:COMMONNAME exists, and why I think "Cannabis (drug)" is the best term for an article about the plants psychopharmacological uses. Both a psychopharmacological researcher with a PhD doing very specialized research, and that hypothetical not-so-bright high school student I mentioned earlier would immediately look to "Cannabis (drug)" as the main article. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * However I would not expect to see cannabis being considered "dope" by anyone educated and informed these days. "Dope" is nothing but a no-longer-common slang term for several different drugs, including cannabis. A person's educational level or degree of knowledge about the subject would have nothing at all to do with whether or not they used that term. Only their age, and where they grew up. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess that is why I said "these days". HighInBC 15:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * We should rename the page "Marijuana", it means the same thing its the drug that comes from the Cannabis plant. Mangokeylime (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There have been several huge debates about this in the archive. If I remember correctly, the argument was that marijuana is a specific preparation of Cannabis and consequently can't be used as a generally term. Sizeofint (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The subject should be cannabis, which is a plant. "Marijuana" is a pejorative term.  I just created a new article, feel free modify it marijuana dispensary.  Also, please consider translating and reviewing this useful article https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kannabis.  --Potguru (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Price
Price for marijuana near Vermont, Quebec, New York etc. east coast in general is 10 $ per g(grams). 20$ for 3.5g, 40$ for 7g, 80$ for 14g and 140$ for an ounce. price for a pound is 1500-2000$ max. The price given in the price section is inaccurate and recorded by people who don't know its real worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streetfacts4u (talk • contribs) 21:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have a reliable source we can update this. Sizeofint (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The price varies significantly based on a number of factors, including location, strain and supply and demand. Specific prices can be very difficult to verify as it remains illegal in much of the world. As such, the only pricing information which can be given in the article is that which is taken directly from reliable sources. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

New stub
High everyone. Please help expand Cannabis shop to include info on shops in different countries, etc. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Cannabis (drug). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090425061253/http://www.medicalmarihuana.ca:80/toxic.html to http://www.medicalmarihuana.ca/toxic.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130713184209/http://www.hempfood.com:80/IHA/iha01213.html to http://www.hempfood.com/iha/iha01213.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121221071148/http://www.hempfood.com:80/iha/iha01214.html to http://www.hempfood.com/iha/iha01214.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131102202631/http://www.marinij.com/digitalfirstmedia/ci_23184556/ to http://www.marinij.com/digitalfirstmedia/ci_23184556/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091226011927/http://www.norml.org//index.cfm?Group_ID=4444 to http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4444

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Harry Anslinger - Department of Prohibition 1929
Interesting, but can not verify the facts as to just how much influence Harry and his promotion of the story of Victor Licata had.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-influence/real-reasons-marijuana-is-banned_b_9210248.html?pbx=25&te=Upworthy

60.242.247.177 (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain there were a number of factors. There was industrial interest in suppressing hemp production, there was political pressure to prohibit drugs in general, there was an element of racism (it was seen as a Mexican drug at the time) and there was good old fashioned puritanicalism. I don't think any one factor was the definitive reason why it was prohibited. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Grammatical errors
Going through this article, I found many grammatical errors and instances of incorrect word usage, as well as uncited claims and nonobjective language. I feel like there are large portions of the page in need of rewriting, but am not confident in my toability do so. Just thought I'd share my thoughts in case anyone else wants to help fix this page up. I can go into more detail if needed. Mac2298 (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Under Toxicity, the text reads ", and possibly and increased risk of accidents "

Should be corrected to ", and possibly an increased risk of accidents " 2601:342:0:E3D0:CC6A:3CAB:85C2:D93B (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed; thanks for pointing it out. Looie496 (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

"Mild euphoria" is shortly thereafter followed by "euphoria" in the list of effects. Redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.27.84 (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Methods of Smoking
"Roach clips" are listed as an item out of which Cannabis can be smoked. I believe this is inaccurate. Roach clips are used for holding the last little bit (the "roach") of a joint or blunt to avoid burning the fingers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.27.84 (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed it. Sizeofint (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Drugbox?
Shouldn't this page have a Drugbox? Maybe even the current Infobox botanical product belongs on page Cannabis (the plant). -DePiep (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm more inclined to think of Cannabis as the delivery system and the drugs as the constituent chemicals. Perhaps Infobox botanical product could be expanded however. Sizeofint (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the article is titled: Cannabis (drug). And I don't see why the botanical infobox would need legal parameters at all. Necxt, that 'delivery system' is called "Drug product" in pharmacology, a finished dosage form and related to admin route (and it is central item of the main Clinical data section of Drugbox). There is also "Drug substance", the chemical stuff and handled in the Identifiers section. So the agent is part of the drug concept -- Drugbox would be OK here. -DePiep (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The drugbox argument persuades me, for other articles such as cannabis edibles equally. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 00:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose it could be seen as a combination drug. I would think any reasoning we use here would apply to Tobacco as well. Should we use a drug box for that article? Sizeofint (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue needs a wider look. There is Portal:Cannabis and its Template:Cannabis sidebar (but not in this article). And WikiProject Cannabis.
 * And Infobox botanical product links to only six articles, but most or all are high-profile recreational drugs(-related): Hashish Opium Tobacco Coca Lactucarium Cannabis (drug). Maybe we should incorporate the botanical data (plant info) into drugbox and then merge. I'll research this some more, and start a talk on this. -DePiep (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Sizeofint (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

it's a FACT ... THC causes apoptosis in cancer cells
Read untill you are convinced. Here are reliable sources stating THC causes apoptosis in cancer cells https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=da&as_sdt=0,5&q=thc+cancer+cells+apoptosis

now correct the article section about cancer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulfarf (talk • contribs) 12:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We need WP:MEDRS sources which is slightly more stringent than WP:RS.Sizeofint (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Fix misleading sentence in Adverse Effects
Presently reads (emphases added):

"Studies have shown that cannabis use during adolescence causes impairments in memory that persist beyond short-term intoxication."

The study cited for this sentence, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2014.11.009, makes no claim to have shown causation. Suggest rewording as follows:

"Some studies have found correlation between heavy regular cannabis use during adolescence and impairments in memory that persist beyond short-term intoxication."

I'd make the change myself, but WP isn't allowing me to edit the article.

Michael.f.ellis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I made [this] change. --Potguru (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not "one study" but a review of the literature.
 * Agree it is an association.
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence
"Cannabis, also known as marijuana among other names, is a preparation of the Cannabis plant intended for use as a psychoactive drug or medicine."


 * Removing the parenthetical element we have:

"Cannabis is a preparation of the Cannabis plant intended for use as a psychoactive drug or medicine."


 * I propose it would read better, and more correctly, as:

"Marijuana is a preparation of the cannabis plant used as a psychoactive drug or medicine." --Potguru (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'll get much support for changing the Articles title.--Moxy (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not asking to change the article title, I am asking for a english version of the lead. Do you have a better way to improve the lead? --Potguru (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Has been extensively discussed in the past. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Surely concensus was not to leave this abomination of the English language... --Potguru (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your proposal is technically incorrect, Potguru, as marijuana isnt the name of the plant or the preparation. I for one support the current readng. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 00:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I can see nomerit in merging this long article with the biology article. You should have opened up a discussion here before taggng the article. Please explain your reasons for tagging. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 00:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Cannabis -- Moxy (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Marijuana redirect was changed and needs to be addressed
The marijuana redirect was recently changed to point to the Preparations-->Marijuana section way down the page, rather than at the top of the page as it has for the last two years. I have outlined why it should be changed back on the marijuana redirect talk page, and I invite anyone here to join the discussion.

In addition to redirecting back to the top of the page, I'm proposing to add the text below to the end of the first paragraph, in order to clarify the usage of the two terms.

When cannabis is prepared in the form of dried flowers and leaves of the female plant it is more specifically referred to as marijuana, although the terms cannabis and marijuana are also frequently used interchangeably.

The first sentence could also be revised to:

Cannabis, also known as marijuana, pot, and weed among other names, is a preparation of the Cannabis plant intended for use as a psychoactive drug or medicine.

Footnote (a) could then be eliminated as well as footnote (b) which is not called out anywhere in the article. The entire footnote section could be eliminated as those are the only two.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

edit: I'd also be fine with changing the redirect back and not messing around with the first paragraph. Just trying to find a possible middle ground for people opposed to changing the redirect back.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

edit #2: It has been pointed out on the marijuana redirect talk page that there exists an article marijuana (word) that details the usage of the words cannabis and marijuana, and that it is linked to in the very first sentence of Cannabis (drug), which I had failed to realize for some reason. Also, someone has already went ahead and changed the marijuana redirect back to the top of Cannabis (drug). So I think we're good now. --Jamesy0627144 (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Fix misleading information on number of people who have tried marijuana in the US
In multiple places, this article repeatedly cites various polls that claim "nearly half of Americans have used marijuana". Looking into these polls, they were carried out among rather small sample sizes, which can be misleading, especially since this article fails to mention the number of people who participated in the cited polls, instead just stating "almost half of the people in the United States had tried marijuana". Perhaps if the sample size of the polls was mentioned along with the statistics, then it would be less misleading. Argent machine (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2016
Change: Studies have found that cannabis use during adolescence is associated with impairments in memory that persist beyond short-term intoxication.[64]

To: Many studies have suggested that cannabis use during adolescence is associated with impairments in memory that persist beyond short-term intoxication.[64] However, an explicit causal link between any form of permanent cognitive impairment due to cannabis use during adolescence years has not been confirmed.

Work cited: Jackson, Nicholas, et al. "Impact of Adolescent Marijuana Use on Intelligence: Results from Two Longitudinal Twin Studies." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) 113.5 (2015): n. pag. PNAS. Web. 17 June 2016. http://www.pnas.org/content/113/5/E500.abstract

NOTE: Defiantly who ever makes this edit please feel very free to use whatever words and sentence structure you think is most clear and appropriate in regards to the awesome hyperlinked study. Thank you much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.203.31.90 (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

66.203.31.90 (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Content about health in WP is based on literature reviews. The new source you cite is not a review; content in WP is not driven by the latest research study. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

1. Good point. it's not a review so I found one. I have also thought critically and have edited my original suggestion in order to embrace the undeniable ambiguity surrounding this topic and reflect my works cited better.

2. Here is a litruature revew that is retiled with open critique of pased studes that have sugested cognitive imparment cused by canabis consuption in youth: http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/645/art%253A10.1007%252Fs11065-016-9316-2.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle%2F10.1007%2Fs11065-016-9316-2&token2=exp=1466184844~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F645%2Fart%25253A10.1007%25252Fs11065-016-9316-2.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Farticle%252F10.1007%252Fs11065-016-9316-2*~hmac=9085bfce68f19acec0c98c846b934f43354b85fb4188f0d97ce86a741c729255

3. This is not out rightly memory but acadimc function is indicative of many types of memory: "These results suggest that adolescents who engage in low to moderate marijuana use experience an increase in observable attention and academic problems, but these problems appear to be minimal and are eliminated following sustained abstinence." From: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10802-015-0012-0

4. The curint cite for the "impairments in memory that persist beyond short-term intoxication" is less than conclusive to such ends "have suggested [<- thats the kind of thing I'm talking about] that adolescent cannabis use could[<-and this] interfere with endocannabinoid-mediated control over glutamate transmission, leading to alterations in synaptic pruning and a disruption of prefrontal development... ...it is plausible[<-this too] that prolonged use during adolescence results in a disruption in the normative neuromaturational processes that occur during this period. ...it has been suggested[<-and this] that oligodendrocyte survival and function could be impacted during this period, leading to decreased myelination and an altered trajectory of white matter development (Solowij et al., 2011b).

5. "Certain cognitive changes have also been attributed to cannabis use, although their causality and longevity are fiercely debated." From: http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v17/n5/full/nrn.2016.28.html#references

6."In conclusion, it seems that CBD and extended abstinence from cannabis may, respectively, protect or restore hippocampal integrity. With ~200 million users worldwide, these findings inform the current debate regarding the legalisation, commercialisation and therapeutic application of cannabis." From: http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v6/n1/full/tp2015201a.html This is from a stude in wich toxicity is questiond out side of adolecints. But it serves to show questions about the lagitamicy of lasting cognitve imparment through consederation of

7. WP is a place for driven by the latest research; see 5th pillar: "bold but not reckless in updating articles." Also see second pillar: "We strive for articles that document and explain major points of view"
 * about 7 not with regard to health. Read WP:MEDRS and read WP:NOT which says we create content about accepted knowledge - and primary sources in the biomedical literature to do not communicate accepted knowledge, as the scientists who create it and use it in their work know well. If you don't understand that please read WP:Why MEDRS? which  explains that. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, so these are the reviews linked above
 * Ganzer F et al. Weighing the Evidence: A Systematic Review on Long-Term Neurocognitive Effects of Cannabis Use in Abstinent Adolescents and Adults. Neuropsychol Rev. 2016 Apr 28.
 * Curran HV et al. Keep off the grass? Cannabis, cognition and addiction. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2016 May;17(5):293-306.
 * Pardini D, et all Unfazed or Dazed and Confused: Does Early Adolescent Marijuana Use Cause Sustained Impairments in Attention and Academic Functioning? J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2015 Oct;43(7):1203-17.
 * Yücel M et al. Hippocampal harms, protection and recovery following regular cannabis use. Transl Psychiatry. 2016 Jan 12;6:e710.  Free full text
 * Those are great refs. I'll have a look at what they say and deploy them; thanks for finding them. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It is noted
There are two things wrong with the following which I removed here, as i already noted in my edit notes:

It is noted that cannabis or its extracts must be sufficiently heated or dehydrated to cause decarboxylation of its most abundant cannabinoid, tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA), into psychoactive THC.

1) We do not write things anywhere in WIkipedia, like "it is noted that"... 2) this is not a reliable source (it pre-existed the edit that added "it is noted...." )

-- Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Psychiatric section of adverse effects
1. The link between cannabis and psychosis is heavily debated. 2. The supporting evidence for the claim on Wikipedia redirects to an article explaining the potential of cannabis as an anti-psychotic. Gnavarre9 (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have any WP:MEDRS sources to add about psychosis feel free. The source supports the current statement. There isn't necessarily a conflict between cannabis use inducing psychosis in some usage patterns and reducing it in others. Sizeofint (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)