Talk:Cannabis use disorder

These are a few links that I hope to add later to the article so that it can be more reliable
Links: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-adolescent-substance-use-disorder-treatment-research-based-guide/frequently-asked-questions/it-possible-teens-to-become-addicted-to-marijuana

http://www.timberlineknolls.com/drug-addiction/marijuana/signs-effects/

http://www.villagebh.com/addiction/marijuana/symptoms-signs-effects#content

https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/factsheets/teens.htm

Article photo is biased
I stumbled upon this article and came to add a caption to the image being used in the infobox. Then I looked at the source of the image and had a second thought.

The current photo used in the inbox to illustrate this topic is an odd choice. It shows a collection of drugs of which cannabis is only one, haphazardly placed on the hood of a car. This photo was taken by because the car had windows tinted beyond the legal limit.

I feel like it's making implications of drug use that are not congruent with the medical nature of this article. Is the reader to assume that people with cannabis use disorder carry multiple drugs of multiple quantities? That this is how someone with this disorder stores their drugs? That this is what this disorder looks like? I'm not sure. I think it would be more prudent and useful if the image was removed or replaced with something that was more illustrative of the disorder, or at minimum more neutral.

I looked at WP:MEDMOS and think the image might be running afoul of POV pushing (I'm not assuming intentionality, could just be coincidence or unconscious). Since I'm not very familiar with this corner of the wiki I thought I'd drop a note here for guidance from other editors. Ckoerner (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I just looked through the version history, and good lord was that a poor choice for a picture! No offense to the original editor if it was unintentional, but it was definitely incendiary. Thanks to you for pointing it out, and to whoever made the change. 2603:7081:1603:A300:B0C3:95EC:16:690E (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Medication chapter
Hello. I found the medication chapter to be way to detailed. Most of this chapter is found in a single article (reference 51). The detailed manner in which those drugs are presented could lead to dangerous self medication. Moreover most of the medication there is not available outside US. And the nail in the coffin: The study says all those meds are not sufficient (or do not work at all). And all have serios side effects.

And the conclusion of this article is as follows: '' "Finally, it appears that treating withdrawal is not sufficient as a monotherapy to reduce use and initiate abstinence, at least in severe cannabis users. Future work should make use of medications with different proposed mechanisms...." ''

'''So I propose shortening this chapter and adding the aforementioned conclusion. '''

Cheers. Rarespa (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Medication section is over-long, but the source is strong. I think Wikipedia's should be closer to that article's summary, touring the various medications mentioned. The proposed conclusion is too short. Bon courage (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello.
 * Yes, the source is strong, but misrepresented. My quoted conclusion is from the medical article. Being a whole sentence quote it is not appropriate for wiki.
 * I am proposing erasing most of the mentioned medication for the following reasons:
 * 1. Way to detailed for non medical professionals.
 * Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles - Wikipedia
 * 2. Wikipedia is not a DIY manual for medication.
 * 3. The medication presented in the medical article, after testing, has none to marginal effect. There are two tables that summarize all the substances.
 * 4. The medication presented is dangerous. Very dangerous.
 * So this is why i think it should be authored.
 * I can try to rephrase the whole chapter (at least the detailed part) and see if we all agree.
 * Also: i am not a native speaker and will go wrong on grammar. That's the reason i m not keen on making edits by myself.
 * Also no.2: i have shown this wiki article to a psychiatrist and after half hour study he was adamant on "shaving" critical data.
 * Thanks for replay.
 * Cheers. Rarespa (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)