Talk:Effects of cannabis/Archive 1

Observation
I get the impression that Health issues and the effects of cannabis, Medical Marijuana and Cannabis (drug) all represent competing perceptions of cannabis related health issues. Laurel Bush 11:53, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Dependence
This article is supposed to talk about medical effects which are not disputed. So, I think a section on dependence is appropriate. I'm working on finding a published study or survey of rehab programs to find out how frequently people enter rehab when their drug of choice is marijuana. It definitely happens. I just want to be able to find a Wiki-worthy source to back that statement up. The fact that a 12-step program about marijuana exists is probably not sufficient, since such an organization isn't medical in nature even though it helps people with a condition that is (dependence). Stay tuned Beanluc 20:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

A few issues arise from your idea, and need to be born in mind: one is the obvious matter of cannabis AND other substances where the issue should be cannabis alone. More difficult, however, is the extent to which data might reflect those individuals who are compelled against their will, either by parents or the courts, to undergo substance-abuse treatment for cannabis, particularly where zero distinction is made between use and abuse. This latter occurs in the context of a drug treatment industry much inflated by the hysteria of cannabis prohibition. SM 21:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Under Physiological effects, it says (without references), "Animal research has shown that the potential for cannabinoid psychological dependence does exist, and includes mild withdrawal symptoms." There is a  widely-cited, NIDA-funded study, where HU-210 was used to establish dependence and withdrawal symptoms, the flaw being that the withdrawal symptoms were artificially induced using SR-141716A. The page commenting on this, by Ian Williams Goddard, is well worth an excerpt (footnotes in original). According to the design of the study, SRI researchers injected rats for two weeks with the synthetic drug HU-210 -- which like THC is released from the body very slowly -- and then suddenly replaced HU-210 with SR-141716A, which blocks the uptake of HU-210 by brain cells. This sudden blocking of HU-120 by the antagonist SR-141716A forced brain cells to experience a sudden withdrawal of HU-210. As a result, brain cells did begin to release the addictive-stress-inducing agent CRF in the very same fashion observed during heroin, cocaine, and alcohol withdrawal. Because the sudden withdrawal of HU-210 forced by the intervention of SR-141716A caused withdrawal symptoms in the rat brain, the SRI researchers and the press extrapolate that for humans, without being blocked by SR-141716A,  THC in cannabis,  which was not even used in the study,  "may be a far more insidious drug than generally thought," [2] and even worse, that cannabis could promote addiction  to hard drugs. These tortured and outrageous extrapolations stretch reason beyond breaking. Not only did the SRI study fail to use THC in a study being used to demonize THC, but the SRI researchers deliberately sabotaged the natural anti-addiction mechanisms associated with THC, and then once sabotaged, proceeded  to suggest that cannabis is more addictive than previously  assumed. That is clearly false and misleading. To dismantle the natural anti-addiction mechanism of a chemical like THC and to then propose that THC is more addictive than we thought is exactly like testing the safety of Ford cars by testing a group of Hondas, which are like Fords,  that have had their brakes dismantled, and then after the  predictable results declaring: "Fords are more dangerous than we thought." It's simply outrageous.

The danger is that the NIDA study is often cited anecdotally by prohibitionists, in a form much like here. It would be good to know that statements on dependence in this and related Wiki articles do not rely on such dubious science, perhaps by citing specific studies, which if necessary can be debunked. SM 21:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you should change the article to reflect your insights, SqueakBox 21:46, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Statements made about dependence in the article are mainly from the Institute of Medicine report located here. I would not advise using anything from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, since they clearly have an agenda of using junk science to validate positions of the ONDCP. --Howrealisreal 19:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

There was a very interesting press conference on cspan that was talking about how the only legal source of marijuana available is being monopolized by federal agencies. The truth seems to me that everything about marijuana is disputed. Until we can unbiased tests done by doctors who don't care either way we may never really know. I am inclined to beleive the general populace and over a thousand years of documented use which seem to me to state that it is not all that bad. Does every rastafari in kinston and every yogi in india have lung cancer? Anyone who has smoked marijuana and does not need a scape goat for one immature reason or another can tell you that it IS NOT Heroine or even similar for that matter. Freedom is about choice. Choice only meens something when there are good and bad alternatives. Aside from all of that it is not even that bad of a choice to begin with and certainly not the governments! [unsigned comment]

I thank you both, Howrealisreal and SqueakBox, for your feedback, and am much relived to hear Howrealisreal's opinion on NIDA. I've had a quick read of the IoM paper, which generally seemed well-intentioned, but I note the (anticipated) high reliance on data from studies involving forced abstinence from cannabis (youth in treatment, with involvement of other issues). They also mention the induced withdrawal (SR-141716A?) mechanism in a slightly more neutral light. I was disappointed to see nothing on "reverse tolerance", nor on the mechanisms described above, which may explain some of the results in Haney [1999]. Will look to read Haney [1999] next. Thanks again. SM 04:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * SM, I was just wondering if you had any suggested reading I should look at. I've been finding it nearly impossible to find truly objective scientific research about cannabis because of its taboo nature, and the fact that all studies are conducted under the auspices of the federal government. And Don, I am very aware of MAPS attempts to grow better research grade marijuana and study its administration by vaporizers, I'm just not sure where/how to add it to this article. Any ideas? I'm seriously looking forward to more comments from both of you, with Squeak keeping us all in check and looking on, to get this article up to a pinnacle level of validity that makes it the most comprehensive and object resource out there on this topic. --Howrealisreal 14:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Added a few points under relevant headings of this page, more later, SM 18:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Possible benefits of smoking
The smoking section of the article seems to be based mostly on the assumption that smoking cannabis will have effects similar to those of smoking tobacco. Eg the references to bronchitis and bronchial asthma seem based on this assumption. I have been led to believe myself that whereas the effect of tobacco on lung function tends to be generally constrictive that of cannabis tends to be much more [dilative]. Therefore cannabis may in fact relieve symptoms of asthma and bronchitis. I believe also that in cases of tobacco addiction smoked (or inhaled) cannabis will tend to dislodge accumulations of tobacco tar. (Possible benefits may depend however on THC content, with low-THC cannabis being useless or worse.) Laurel Bush 16:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC).

I've been tracing through the cited studies for ONDCP's Marijuana Prevention Initiative. Among the highlights,

Lung damage. Regular marijuana users often develop breathing problems including chronic coughing and wheezing. Marijuana contains the same cancer-causing chemicals as tobacco. The amount of tar inhaled by marijuana smokers and the level of carbon monoxide absorbed by those who smoke marijuana, regardless of THC content, are three to five times greater than among tobacco smokers.[14] "..." [14] Wu, TC et al. Pulmonary hazards of smoking marijuana as compared with tobacco. New England Journal of Medicine. 318(6):347–351, 1988.

The first sentence is unsupported. The empowering take-away I would like to leave everyone is the frequency with which the abuse of a study citation may be seen prima facie in the abstract....

To compare the pulmonary hazards of smoking marijuana and tobacco, we quantified the relative burden to the lung of insoluble particulates (tar) and carbon monoxide from the smoke of similar quantities of marijuana and tobacco. The 15 subjects, all men, had smoked both marijuana and tobacco habitually for at least five years. We measured each subject's blood carboxyhemoglobin level before and after smoking and the amount of tar inhaled and deposited in the respiratory tract from the smoke of single filter-tipped tobacco cigarettes (900 to 1200 mg) and marijuana cigarettes (741 to 985 mg) containing 0.004 percent or 1.24 percent delta 9-tetrahydrocanabinol[sic passim]. As compared with smoking tobacco, smoking marijuana was associated with a nearly fivefold greater increment in the blood carboxyhemoglobin level, an approximately threefold increase in the amount of tar inhaled, and retention in the respiratory tract of one third more inhaled tar (P less than 0.001). Significant differences were also noted in the dynamics of smoking marijuana and tobacco, among them an approximately two-thirds larger puff volume, a one-third greater depth of inhalation, and a fourfold longer breath-holding time with marijuana than with tobacco (P less than 0.01). Smoking dynamics and the delivery of tar during marijuana smoking were only slightly influenced by the percentage of tetrahydrocanabinol. We conclude that smoking marijuana, regardless of tetrahydrocannabinol content, results in a substantially greater respiratory burden of carbon monoxide and tar than smoking a similar quantity of tobacco.

....in other words, they take subjects who smoke both cannabis and tobacco, with all the known damage from tobacco, and compare the resultant, "respiratory burden of carbon monoxide and tar". OK, fair enough, kinda, but this doesn't say anything about the consequences of actual usage, free of tobacco. If one is not smoking tobacco, then what (if anything) does this say about much healthier lungs which have time to recover from much more brief episodes of inhalation? What is the correlation (in good or bad lungs) of "carboxyhemoglobin level" to "respiratory burden"? Finally (re your point, Laurel), are the &Delta;9-THC concentrations 0.004% and 1.24% even significant [could not find actual potency rates here in Wikipedia- a separate problem- but a reference in this article to, "low potency (2.3%)" NIDA-weed tells me maybe no]? Smokers self-regulate dosage according to potency, just as anyone would turn a radio up until they hear it, so low-potency cannabis would cause a smoker to inhale more and longer to get any result at all. SM 13:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Deleted WHO report chapter
This chapter, comparing cannabis to legal drugs, was deleted from the World Health Organization report, but later obtained by the New Scientist. The WHO denies that it deleted it due to political pressure. This may shed some light on the issue of respiratory diseases:
 * The public health significance of respiratory diseases caused by cannabis smoking is probably greater than that for respiratory cancers. This is so for two reasons. First, respiratory cancers require a greater length of exposure to cigarette smoke (15 to 20 years) than is required to develop chronic bronchitis. Second, there are very few cannabis users who use the drug for more than 5 years. The exposure period for chronic bronchitis may be shorter still among those cannabis smokers who also smoke tobacco since there is good evidence that concurrent tobacco and cannabis smoking have additive adverse effects on the respiratory system. The contribution of cannabis to respiratory diseases is more a matter of morbidity than mortality.

SonicSynergy 03:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I note the above does not detail the nature or sources of the "good evidence" for "additive adverse effects". Laurel Bush 09:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC).

water pipes more damaging?
It is stated that water pipes reduce the amount of damaging substances in the smoke, but may also reduce the amount of THC, meaning one has to smoke more for the same effect, resulting in more damaging effects. That would only hold true if the concentration of THC was more reduced than that of those other substances, and that is anentirely different matter. Furthermore, a long tradition of smoking water pipes has to be based on something and the fact that THC is not very water soluble (read that in another article) also makes it sound unlikely. To illustrate this, I recently tried a water pipe for this very reason. I hardly noticed the smoke in my lungs, so I kept on trying, thinking I was doing something wrong. I thus smoked quite a bit without any irritation (let alone coughing), but 15 minutes later I was on another planet, so to say. Not a very scientific basis, but still a rather strong indication, I'd say.

So is there any experimental basis for this statement or is it just a reasoning gone wrong? DirkvdM 14:14, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Physiological effects
First, it should be pointed out that the effects of marihuana differ quite a lot from person to person. Secondly, the effects depend quite a lot on the quantity consumed (a very important aspect that is way too often forgotten with just about any non-medical use of drugs). For me (but I believe this is quite general) the increase of appetite (calling that hunger is a decadent western thing) and appreciation of food and especially a loss of concentration are always there. But the dryness of the mouth and the impaired motor skills only set in with very high dosages. And isn't the reddening of the eyes a myth? I've never noticed it in myself or anyone else.

Another point is that the effects per quantity change with experience. On the one hand inexperienced users may have hallucinations that never come back with regular use (even after months of abstinence, in my experience). But on the other hand inexperienced users need much larger quantities to notice anything at all. A sort of inverted habituation, which is one of the oddest things about marihuana (I don't know of any other drug that has that). DirkvdM 14:37, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

I've been told that cannabis is also an "amplifier", meaning that if you feel rotten you're more likely to feel more rotten, if you're having fun with your friends it's more likely you'll enjoy the experience. Can anyone tell me if this is true or not? DodgeK 19:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Pot's effects are very variable. They depend a lot on the people -- a tiny minority of people actually get physically intoxicated, so they look piss-drunk; these people invariably hate pot and don't do it more than once.  Even within the common effects, some people do, and others don't.  I rarely get hungry, most people do.  Some people get red eyes all the time (perhaps these are just people with sensitive eyes that react to the smoke).  Dryness of the mouth (cottonmouth) is pretty common, but depends on the pot -- not the quality of the pot, really, but... some pot does and some pot doesn't).  Regarding tolerance decrease, you are correct.  This is called reverse tolerance and is very rare.  I would also venture that the amplifier effect is true. Tuf-Kat

I do agree with the amplifier effect. I also feel that the place where the cannabis plants are grown makes a difference in the overall 'feel' of the cannabis effect. As do the seasons, with the monsoon harvest reported to give the most pleasurable 'high'. The reverse tolerance effect is said to be a consequence of the fact that cannabis is stored in the adipose tissue in the body. zingdoozer

Let's face it. Conservatives and others dont oppose Cannabis because it is bad for the user. If it were, it might be considered good. It is ultimately a source of pleasure, which is hedonism, which is not Christian. It also encourages laziness, floppiness and slacking, which is against the Protestant work ethic. These are moral objections, not medical. They should be covered. People are floppy enough anyway without cannabis. They should be out doing something useful like fucking their sisters.

People floppy on cannabis sounds like opinionated rubbish. I ahve removed the incitement to murder statement, SqueakBox 03:07, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

THC causes depresson?
The article on THC says:

" Other studies indicate a variety of negative effects associated with constant, long-term use, including memory loss, depression and loss of motivation. The long-term effects of THC on humans is highly disputed, [...]"

However this article says nothing about depression, and I can't find any references to studies on cannabis and depression.

It sounds like the THC article needs changing from what you say, as what you have quoted is opinionated rubbish, well not the highly disputed bit, SqueakBox 17:19, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

There are several citations on the efficacy of cannabis in treating bipolar disorder, of which depression is a phase. Here is one on bipolar and one on depression. A common issue is that depression sufferers are self-medicating, and so self-selecting, causing some observers of the correlation to confuse cause and effect. SM 13:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Merger template
Cannabis (drug) is already 30 KB long, long enough to give a warning when one attempts to edit it. This would not be helped by a merger of this article or medical marijuana (which is 32 KB long). It was also proposed almost two months ago, and there doesn't appear to have been much discussion. Unless some support for the merger is forthcoming, I'm going to go ahead and remove the template in couple of days. siafu 00:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine, SqueakBox 00:22, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. siafu 21:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Effect on mental health section
It's pretty clear that this section needs to be much improved... preferably by a medical professional rather than some pro-pot crusader. Prior to my removal of a paragraph, the section was claiming there haven't been many studies linking pot use to mental health issues. This is false. There are many many studies. As it stands, the section reads more like a list than an essay and the list items don't seem to be the most relavent. Memory and ambition loss are proven results of sustained use of cannibis as is increased apathy. These are perhaps the most serious side-effects of usage and little is said about them. Unfortunately, I do not have as large of a background in this area to have a general feel for the results of all studies. The results of these studies must be reported without bias. It seems to me that the pot pages on the wikipedia have been sanitised by people who justify their own usage with questionable standards of inquiry.


 * Please sign your statements. Regarding studies of the related effects of mental health and cannabis, there actually have not been so many.  Those that have been conducted have had mixed results, though many strong claims have been made by the NIDA, including the recently popular claim that marijuana use causes schizophrenia.  Certainly, there have been studies, however there is not much substantive data either way. siafu 21:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict with siafu):I think you are misunderstanding our task as encyclopedia writers. We cannot just have an anti pot article, we must reflect opinion from all sides of the debate. Please bring the sources to back up what you are saying here, especially about cannabis and apathy, which sounds contrived to me, and certainly must not be put in the article as fact, even if studies claim that it is so. What you are saying is controversial, so the other side needs to be put as well. This article must not be dominated by either pro or anti pot crusaders, and certainly not just by health care professionals. A spread of people contributing will most likely bring an NPOV article. Please sign your comments with ~, SqueakBox 21:51, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

It is the tension between the pro and the anti camps that creates neutral articles on cannabis, whereas the great majority of webpages on this subject are either very pro or very anti. No attempt should be made to upset that balance; indeed, given the way wikipedia works as long as people from both camps edit these articles that neutrality will remain, SqueakBox 22:12, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you are misunderstanding me. I have not made any edits to the article section in question. siafu 22:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Pardon, misunderstood; thought you were addressing me. siafu 22:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've just added some notes on the follow up research to the dunedin study., and some other minor edits - I've removed the line that states psychotic events clear up after cessation of cannabis use - I don't know of any evidence to support this, but since the majority of the evidence seems to point to the events being acute, the word "acute" should cover it. Here's a related link - it's from Rosie Boycott (pro-legalisation campaigner turned Daily Mail columnist) and gives some anecdotal background to cannabis psychosis--Dilaudid 29 June 2005 22:38 (UTC)

Quote from http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/cannabis/low.shtml: "Taking cannabis for a long time may have lasting effects on the memory. According to new research, the memory and attention span of users seems to get worse the longer they take the drug. Long-term users also show an impaired ability to learn, and it is not clear whether giving up cannabis enables them to recover." FYI, I am not a pot user and know very little about the drug, but I'm hardly in the pro or anti camps, either. I came to this page to look up information about long-term effects of cannabis on memory and learning, since I've heard of such links before and wanted to see if there was any scientific consensus as of yet. No info about those claims on this page, though. I assume this is because all studies to that effect are disputed? Still, wouldn't it make sense to have a section of this page list the effects that cannabis use is claimed, suspected or (among the general population) thought to have? If only to clearly state that no definite connection is actually proven. Ommiting it entirely seemed almost suspicious to me, who is otherwise more or less neutral on the subject. -MMad 213.112.22.115 12:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Look everybody it seems to me that things like apathy and paranoia are examples of abstract emotional concepts rather medicaly justifiable effects OF 'toxins' on the body. people who are paranoid on cannibis may be paranoid because there is a man in a white coat looking at them and writing down what they see or maybe because THEY COULD GO TO JAIL IF SOMEONE FINDS OUT. Hunger as an effect is one thing, but what does it really meen to be lazy or a jerk? Not quantifiable. One more thing if I may. This is not real science or anything but it might inspire a bit clearer thought on the subject. I have a friend who smokes. I am not sure how long he has or of the frequency, but it seems to be regularly. He has picture perfect memory. He remembers things that have fallen completely out of my mind. Maybe we should consider other factors like how hard one really wants to remember or something like that? Just pointing it out. DonPengin "think good, spell bad"

According to a psychology teacher, he worked with a 13 year old boy who suffered from "canabis psychosis" after smoking only once while working in a hospital. His anecdote was that the boy's friends had been trying for several months to get him to smoke. They all smoked the same joint, and after a while the one kid hid in a corner and started yelling at everybody to stay away from him. They got his parents who took him to the hospital and he remained scizophrenic for 6 months after smoking pot only once, while none of the other kids who smoked the same joint were effected. It seems like as some people are more prone to mental disorders based on genetics, there is also a small percentage of the population which has adverse effects to pot based on genetics?

Comparison to alcohol
The article favorably compares cannabis to alcohol, when iirc moderate alcohol use has positive health benefits, and drivers under moderate influence of alcohol are careful drivers. DDerby 19:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * drivers under moderate influence of alcohol are careful drivers


 * Because we all drive better after a couple of beers, right? I would invite you, if you actually believe that statement, to find a source that backs it up. No research that I know of has ever indicated that alcohol increases attentiveness in any amount. siafu 19:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you just react because you don't want it to be true. Why shouldn't it be? DDerby doesn't say "a couple of beers". What about a quarter glass? (We're talking about medical effects here, not social use.) I wouldn't be surprised if that would have a positive effect. After all, most strains of humanity have evolved with alcohol. DirkvdM 09:11, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
 * Source your controversial claims, which most people think extreme. Don't pre judge the motives of others:Sounds like you just react because you don't want it to be true'' is extreme; why should anyone react to it? SqueakBox 14:43, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I was in doubt about putting it that way too, but notice that you also put words in my mouth; I don't make any claims, I just have an open mind towards 'controversial' claims. I was merely reacting to something that sounded to me like an overreaction to a claim that to some might sound controversial because there's a lot of indoctrination (especially in the USA) about dinking and driving, to the extent that people think that the dirinking is the problem in the combination, when obviously the driving is (the cars, I mean). DirkvdM 15:39, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Can we cut the just say no crap. Driving is not a privelage it is a right! Life is a privelage! Maybe if we weren't ass first about what we teach to children we wouldn't need drunk driving laws. DonPengin

Wmd sites
None of the Wmd sites load properly, so I am unable to verify their somewhat dubious looking claims, SqueakBox 02:38, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

The WedMD links load perfectly fine -- I'm bringing the links back. If you disagree with the information, which is fine, then you provide links to studies supporting your position. Jason Quinn 16:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you are POV pushing, and in a badly organised way. Tobacco is dealt with elsewhere in the article and we don't need it brought in twice. You haven't tried to merge your edits, just stuck them elsewhere in a clump that reads like POV. The physical addiction is unporven, as has been discussed at hashish and cannabis (drug). We don't want anti cannabis POV pushers swamping this article with their partisan reports (if I could but read it). As individuals we are responsible for keeping balance when we contribute. We cannot just put one side of the case and claim it is for others to put the other side. This article does not need swamping with partisan Wmd articles, SqueakBox 16:45, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not helped bymyinability to read the articles, SqueakBox 16:49, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

This is utter boloney! The links load fine. I've tested them several times on several browsers. They work. Plus they are not "partisan" WedMD articles: they are the results of medical studies. You keep resorting to saying things are "unproven". What the hell would it take to prove things to you? God himself coming down and knocking on your front door? The best evidence to support claims of this nature is going to be statistical inference from medical studies. Since you deny these claims then *you* find studies that refute them and put them in the article -- but don't remove valid information just because you don't want it to be true. Studies are and always will be the best thing to a proof that is available. Studies may exist to support your claims -- I don't know -- but if so, a good article would say "Study A contradicts study B", etc., instead of not mentioning the results of either. Oh, and just because somebody posts information that shows negative health benefits about pot doesn't mean they are an anti-cannabis. I really don't care one way or another about this topic. But I do care about the Wikipedia and recognise that this article is a POS and that you've highjacked it and refuse to allow it to be edited if the edits disagree with your own views. Jason Quinn 17:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If I were to hijack this article it would be in a very different state to the one it is in. I am trying to keep it NPOV, not pro cannabis, which it clearly isn't. From google search I concluded it was you being partisan in terms of what you include or exclude, rather than the site itself. I will try the articles on other browsers, SqueakBox 17:26, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have added the tobacco link in external links now that I have seen the article. Tobacco had been discussed, and there was no reason to bring the subject up in another part of the article. The auto immune article gave a very different impression from the description you gave of it. I still cannot get the "physical addiction" article downloaded on Opera, Mozilla or IE, and given your controversial statement I would rather see the article before including it. SqueakBox 17:42, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Rather than have a fun little flame war because of some apparent issues with the Webmd site, here is the text of the relevant articles:

Now at least we can discuss them directly. siafu 18:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding tobacco being "as bad" as marijuana on the lungs, I'm somewhat surprised that this is being treated here as controversial. From an empirical perspective, this seems obvious as lungs aren't well-equipped to deal with an infusion of burned plant matter particulates, be it tobacco or cannabis.  From a naturalistic perspective, the study refers to "3 joints" versus "20 cigarettes", which is a somewhat difficult and unlikely comparison.  Smoking twenty cigarettes (one pack) is very common, even the norm amongst habitual smokers; I myself smoked about that amount before I quit, and chain smokers can smoke up to 3 packs (60 cigarettes) daily.  Three joints, however, is rather unlikely, never mind that how much marijuana constitutes one joint in terms of the study is not clear (unlike cigarettes, these aren't made at a factory); it only take one joint to get stoned (AFAIK), there's not much of an increase in the "high" from smoking more when one is already stoned, and it would be unusual for someone who is, say, employed to smoke that much in a day.


 * As far as the effects on the immune system, I'm left a little confused with the article vis a vis the claim that was put on the article. The article takes a very strong slant in the direction of treatment of auto-immune disorders and the claim was that marijuana harmed the immune system of the user.  While these claims are not completely irreconcilable, I think it would need to be more than just the one sentence that was written previously if this article is going to be used as a reference.


 * Regarding the withdrawal effects, I am very skeptical about the claim that this study has found any actual physiological withdrawal for marijuana, aside from, perhaps, the loss of appetite. The symptoms listed are: "anxiety, irritability, physical tension, depression, and loss of appetite", all of which seem psychological in origin.  Anxiety, irritability, and depression would seem obvious given that the users in the study "reported smoking at least five times a week for an average of 11 years".  Now, that is a lot of weed, for a long time, and I may be slightly biased by the fact that I work in mental health, but I would expect any sort of change in such a deep-rooted and long-standing pattern of behavior to cause depression, irritability, anxiety, and tension, be it watching TV, listening to music, or whatever, and particularly in a case like this wherein the thing that being given up is "getting high", a clear stimulus for "feeling good", releasing endorphins, etc.  Additionally, there is a very clear documentation on marijuana being an appetite stimulant, so quitting would be clearly expected to result in a decrease of appetite, at least from the levels the subjects had been experiencing for the previous 11 years.


 * All in all, it would be good to get some access to the actually published papers given the problems we all know and love regarding media distortion, and also references to research conducted outside the US (which has some particular issues regarding researching this topic) would be preferred. A mention of lung damage versus tobacco is clearly warranted, as is something about the effects on the immune system, but the claim of withdrawal symptoms does not seem to be supported by the data, at least as presented by WebMD, so it might be wise to hold off on including it until it can be better vetted. siafu 18:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we should keep in line with the other cannabis articles in assuming marijuana is not physically addictive. Even crack isn't considered physically addictive; generally it is the depressants like heroin and alcohol that are physically addictive, with the exception being the extremely addictive tobacco. Most people believe these drugs are physically addictive, while cannabis has the effect of being mildly psychologically addictive, with loss of appetite possibly being a symptom. We must reflect reality, not try to recreate it on the strength of one or 2 media article, SqueakBox 20:37, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was invited by saifu back to the discussion here. I've been busy lastly and haven't had time to contribute. But I have learned unfortunately, that it's against WebMD's policy to hot link their articles without registration, so I shouldn't have linked them anyway. Also, it's probably not a good idea to reproduce the whole articles above. I have been researching this topic off and on and I have found at least one study contradicting the premise that pot is bad for the immune system, which supports Squeakbox's POV. I'm planning on helping out on this article more in the future but I want to read some more before I do. Jason Quinn 18:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the WebMD articles from here, and will do so from the articles. Do come back when you are ready. I am myself reading round the subject more as time permits, SqueakBox 19:12, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know how much three joints cost!?! This study is unbeleivable. The only good information about cannabis is historical. Completely left out of this article.

Revised
I had done a pretty extensive research paper and presentation about marijuana physiology for a Biology seminar class back in April 2004. The previous state of this article was seriously lacking objective peer-reviewed sourced information, so I did my best to increase the level of validity by integrating some of my work. There's still definitely room for improvement but I think we're now at a better jump-off. --Howrealisreal 17:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is an exceptionally good addition to this article. Perhaps now would be a good time to consider listing for peer review as a first step towards FAC, or is that still premature? siafu 17:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

An expanded opening paragraph would be useful before an FAC entry, SqueakBox 17:34, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think this article is still too weak to be a FAC. Given the controversial nature of the topic, critics will tear this content apart where there is still not enough sourced material. I'd feel more confident if there was more references and related information. --Howrealisreal 17:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting making it FAC in its current form, I'm suggesting peer review. Is that appropriate right now? siafu 17:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

My pre peer review input is that the initial paragraph needs expanding, as it is neither good nor okay but lacking. I tend to agree with Laurel that we should integrate the medical marijuana article, and before an FAC, SqueakBox 18:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

After some thought: I think integrating medical marijuana here will come across as POV. The job of this article is to objectively discuss the health issues and the effects of cannabis in general, especially as a psychoactive. If on one hand we are trying to tell the truth about what the plant does to people, and the other we're holding up a medical marijuana poster, it's going to make the content seem less valid no matter how correct it is. --Howrealisreal 18:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Please watch this before considering all of the relevant studies. Maybe the sources of all studies used should up to intense screening. Should be the second from the bottom otherwise the links name is "ACLU on Medical Marijuana Research Efforts" http://www.cspan.org/VideoArchives.asp?CatCodePairs=Issue,DOS;&ArchiveDays=100&Page=2

Recent edits
1. "Effects on Mental Health" is a vastly better section heading than "Mental Effects". The former is very clear, Mental Health is very clearly defined, and effects on it can be demonstrated and explained; the latter is rather vague and at best misleading-- is it "effects on mental state"? "effects cause by mentation"? "Effects on Mental Health" is something concrete, and is what is clearly addressed by the information in that section.

2. Timothy Leary's theories on psychology are not widely accepted (or even narrowly accepted). We don't include statements about using marijuana to enter the spirit world in the article, and Leary and Wilson's theories have no more weight than those.

It would be best to not include this information in the article, and moreover, to not change the section heading on mental health. This article provides a clear, factual, and encyclopedic discussion of the health issues and effects of marijuana and should not diverge into the realm of crackpot theories and folk psychology. siafu 14:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, while I agree with the first point, that the previous header title is more appropriate, I must say that I'm kinda alarmed by your second contention. Your POV on Timothy Leary is of course valid in your own right, but to generalize and dismiss him and his ideas from this article doesn't seem to be fair. It is not our duty to figure out what material is subjectively valid or not. I have taken both a literature class and a criminal justice class on the undergraduate level that included a subtantial section about Leary, his reasearch and ideaology; He's defintely notable. Even though I might not susbscribe to all of what he believes, I still think that it would be incomplete to write him off as a crazy just because that's how his image is perpetuated today. To make wikipedia the best resource, we may want to include Leary's conclusions, but ensure that readers can get the complete picture about him, and his work, so they can make up their mind on their own. C'est vrai, non? --Howrealisreal 20:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree that the man is notable, just not relevant to this article in the same way that Alister Crowley doesn't need to mentioned in an article about goats. Timothy Leary's thoeries on the structure of the mind are not accepted in modern psychology, and very much unheard of in the field of mental health.  The part that I labelled as "crazy" (I actually said "crackpot") was the theory, not the man; there I'm not about to speculate.  In short, it's important that wikipedia include the information on Mr. Leary's theories, but in Timothy Leary, not in an article on the health issues of cannabis. siafu 21:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Heading
I'm against using the heading "Psychological effects", especially with "Mental Health" as a subcategory. IMHO, mental or behavioral health is a more accurate and less ambiguous way to describe both chunks, but it's long enough that it needs dividing somehow. So, suggestions/objections, before I get bold? siafu 00:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to alter anything you think. I just put that out there because I couldn't think of anything better. --Howrealisreal 01:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I've listed this article for peer review at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine. --Howrealisreal 22:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it seems that mental health is in something of a limbo state when it comes to wikiprojects, so that section isn't likely to be affected much. siafu 22:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Reproductive Damage
No trustworthy study has ever shown that marijuana use damages the reproductive system, or causes chromosome breakage. Studies of actual human populations have failed to demonstrate that marijuana adversely affects the reproductive system. Claims that marijuana use may impair hormone production, menstrual cycles, or fertility in females are both unproven and unfounded. Therefor I request that the "Reproductive Damage" section should either be removed or revised that no trustworthy study has LINKED to repreductive damage


 * First off, I agree with you. The relevant section in the article is not entitled "Reproductive damage" but "Reproductive effects". I have added "alleged" to the list of negative effects in the first part of that section to make it clear that these are not empirically proven, while two sourced statements directly proceeding indicate that reproductive damage associated with cannabis use is not objectivly proven at this time. --Howrealisreal 21:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the entire section dealing with medical effects should put under the heading, "Truth is Relative". By the way, How real is Israel? DonPengin

Happened across this study Prenatal Marijuana Exposure and Neonatal Outcomes in Jamaica - An Ethnographic Study. The conclusion: "The absence of any differences between the exposed on nonexposed groups in the early neonatal period suggest that the better scores of exposed neonates at 1 month are traceable to the cultural positioning and social and economic characteristics of mothers using marijuana that select for the use of marijuana but also promote neonatal development." SM 17:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Way too positive of an article
Come on, everyone knows marijuana causes "amotivational syndrome." How many real potheads (marijuana addicts) out there do you know of who don't fit the stereotype of the underachieving stoner? There is not a legitimate debate about whether marijuana causes amotivational syndrome or not and I am sick of people pretending that maybe marijuana is just harmless. Get over it. People who are addicted to it are fun to laugh at but the drug is not even close to harmless. Just because it is stupid that marijuana is illegal does not make a marijuana addict any less of an addict than say, an alcoholic. --User:69.141.239.240


 * Actually, the "amotivational syndrome" myth has been disproven. Marijuana is safer than water. Anarchist42 21:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Penn & Teller on there TV show 'Bullshit' interviewed a guy who is one of seven people who still receive medical marijuana from the US Federal government. The man was a successfull stock-broker, and smoked up to 7 marijuana joints a day. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.82.90.99 (talk &bull; contribs) . 2006-01-08 16:36:21


 * Adding link to |the Penn&Teller clip -SM 22:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Your perspective is entirely subjective. I know plenty of rich, well-off people that smoke pot and lead very productive lives. You may just not know that many people smoke pot since they don't follow the specific stereotype you think they should have. You may want to look into the idea of being a "functional addict", since everyone is most likely addicted to something (like drugs, food, chocolate, exercise, sex, etc...) I would also suggest that you find some objective, peer-reviewed scientific journals that substantiate your feelings about "amotivational syndrome", but you'll probably have a hard time finding them since it is a POV that is only often discussed inside anti-marijuana circles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia dedicated to finding the truth using valid sources, not perpetuating myths and propaganda. --Howrealisreal 13:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * IMO those potheads "suffering" amotivational syndrome are just lazy. What I would say is that it is easier to be lazy smoking pot than doing nothing because it is less boring. There is a stoner archetype, but they tend to be young and disafected, and not a true reflection of the marijuana using population. One well known example of a pot smoker who didn't fit the amotivational stereotype was Bob Marley. The extraordinary energy of his music made him world famous and still generates huge quantities of money 25 years on, SqueakBox 16:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * How would you, anonymous user, know any non-stereotypical cannabis users? If they were open about it, they could be vulnerable to an array of de jure harms, include loss of employment, loss of child custody, loss of professional license, loss of public housing, loss of driving license, incarceration, forfiture of assets, circumvention of criminal procedure, as well as any number of de facto harms, such as workplace discrimination, police harassment or simple, ignorant prejudice as evidenced by your comments. Cannabis prohibition has significant civil rights ramifications.


 * Cannabis is largely harmless and non-addictive (see comments throughout this page), both science and anecdote broadly support this, with only decades of desperate, hysterical, and at times racist goverment propaganda to oppose it. As the MPP puts it, the greatest harm from cannabis use is prison. Haven't you noticed where the goverment would assert "harms" of cannabis use on the flimsiest of indications, but on medical marijuana, "well, the science just isn't in yet", because where they don't outright ban research, or supress supportive research they've inadvertently funded, they simply ignore it.


 * As for "amotivational syndrome", if underacheivement were the standard, then it would be television and videogames that would be illegal. -SM 17:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Smaines, though in the UK a lot of damage is done by smoking soap bar which is hashish cut with various fillers, some poisonous. The government's attitude is seen where they have never expressed any worries about soap bar but are now muttering about classifying potent skunk (which with more THC per lungful of smoke will presumably cause lung damage). The civil rights issues with cannabis are indeed as Smaines articulates them, while the laws profoundly affect both research on cannabis and how we ought to reflect that research. Any amotivational syndrome is about the person and not the marijuana, which is actually a stimulant drug, SqueakBox 18:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * In support of SqueakBox, were it not for prohibition, soap bar would not be an issue, nor would short-weighting and poor quality, as consumers could have the goverment do its job and prosecute such fraudsters— lack of basic consumer protection, yet another civil rights deficit— or simply go elsewhere in an open and safe market. -SM 18:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, more THC equates to less lung damage, for reasons explained in comments above, namely, less inhalation for effect and THC promotes clearing of bronchia. -SM 18:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for agreeing with me. It is stupid that marijuana is illegal. There are plenty of people who smoke pot and lead functional lives, but I doubt they do it constantly! Oh, of course the rare few successful people who make music or art are an exception, we're talking about pot here. I was talking about average marijuana addicts. Nevertheless, just because the government makes it illegal, does not mean that marijuana is some wonderdrug that is harmless, etc. Stop thinking you are so smart just because you think the government should legalize marijuana. Imagine writing an article about how alcoholism is harmless because plenty of people drink on the weekends and have good jobs. Okay, so I guess now you will write about how marijuana is so harmless compared to alcohol, bla bla bla. If you guys think its so harmless then why don't you smoke an ounce a day and see how your life goes. Acting like marijuana is so harmless is completely irresponsible. Again, this is coming from someone who doesn't see a point to making any drug illegal. Sincerely, the Anonymous User.


 * I think you are really missing the point here. I am not advocating that marijuana is good for you and that everyone, by nature, can smoke endless amounts of pot and be perfectly normal. Marijuana is only one piece of a very complex puzzle that interacts with biology and environmental conditions to produce the result. Some people undoubtably can be marijuana addicts and still do what they need to, while some cannot. It is a very interesting phenomenon that I do not know the answer to, and clearly is not being studied. From the tone of your comments, you make it sound like it is impossible to say anything good about marijuana, and critical of the current state of cannabis research. If you read the article it tells you about a lot of red-flags associated with marijauna use (the psychological dependence is not intense like herion for example, but does exist; there is uncertainty about how THC modulates the immune and reproductive systems; it is known how smoking damages the respiratory system; there is general lack of objective scientific research to know how eating marijuana effects humans..) The goal of this article is not to advocate for legalization but rather to open up the discussion about how cannabis effects us and question why limited scientific research takes place. I agree with you that alcohol may not be a greatest contribution to human existence, but it seems fair to me that people who want to be drunks should be able to, and have platforms put in place that advocate for moderate responsible use and effective treatment alternatives if they become abusers. How is it so different to want this same understanding for cannabis? In either case, marijuana and alcohol, I believe it must start with objective scientific research. --Howrealisreal 00:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that there doesn't need to be a huge scientific study, although maybe there should be, to know that marijuana is addictive and harmful. And the fact that so many academic-types think it is hip to pretend "the jury is still out" on whether or not marijuana is harmless is just ridiculous. The prevailing viewpoint that the extent of marijuana being an addictive drug is unknown indirectly causes millions of people to abuse it everyday. Now, how real is real is that?


 * Well if we ignore scientific studies and just listen to you we will get nowhere, as what you are saying is just your point of view. You can't source the fact that millions are daily abusing marijuana, and whether that is true depends on one's POV. I think people use and abuse many substances, of which marijuana is one. I think marijuana is good for you but that alcohol should be banned. I don't believe you have any evidence for your beliefs that marijuana users can't take the pace etc. What opinionated rubbish, SqueakBox 01:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we have gotten as far as we can with this. Marijuana, harmless or not is here to stay and nothing you or I have to say about it will change that. People who want to abuse drugs will do so, whether they are legal or not. I know that I am only one person and far from an expert on this topic, even though most onlookers of this article persistently try to paint me as one. I'm just a young man, a student of Biology, an occasional cannabis smoker (although I too did abuse marijuana various times and even got on Dean's list in the process), who is on an endless quest to put together some truths about what I am doing to myself and create a resource for the many like-minded people out there. I challenge you, if what I write is really so horrid, to get your own reliable sources and contest my work. Or, are you just going to let a marijuana abuser show you up? And please, if you think you deserve a creative award for making clever puns with my username, you are one of a tired group of respondents who must comment on me personally because they have nothing to say with substance about the actual article contents. --Howrealisreal 02:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Intro
I tried to write an intro to the article that brings up the monopoly federal goverment has on marijuana research. I get the feeling now that it may be too US-centric for a topic that is international. --Howrealisreal 18:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I changed the opening a bit, and it could do with some fleshing out citing non US examples, SqueakBox 23:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks and I'll keep an eye out for other non US examples. Perhaps something from the World Health Organization could be used but on the other hand, that is really just a front for westernized thinking anyway. --Howrealisreal 00:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There have been several studies centered in Jamaica and the Netherlands, surely we can find some of those to cite? siafu 00:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * See Reproductive Damage -SM 18:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thats really funny. I had just finished reading another reproductive research study in Jamaica and just finished adding it to the article without even reading this yet. --Howrealisreal 18:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * With further investigation, it seems like the study SM speaks of is related to the one I added to the article so I included the 1994 study abstract to help explain the 1991 study result. Thanks for pointing that out. --Howrealisreal 19:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Cannabinoid Hyperemesis
I removed an anonymous addition to the article about Cannabinoid Hyperemesis from an austrailian doctor named JH Allen. My problem is with his methodology (as indicated in his report): He found people who had this so-called "marijuana morningsickness" disorder— characterized by cannabis use, vomiting, and compulsive bathing— then had some of them abstain from smoking marijuana to find those individuals to get better. His sample was not random, and thereby does not really prove anything aside from the fact that those subjects that he investigated have some sort of psychological disorder which may or may not be caused or a consequence of marijauna use. It is another example of a researcher creating a hypothesis and then going out and finding subjects that fit that prediction while ignoring everything else. --Howrealisreal 13:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Cancer
I am not impressed with So far, no "marijuana only" smoker has been found to have gone on to get lung cancer from their cannabis smoking. The causes of lung cancer in individuals is not always clear, and such a statement is almost certainly not true as it would imply cannabis protects 100% against lung cancer in all cases. Please source the c laim if you want it back in the article, SqueakBox 16:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Driving
"Most studies that have taken factors such as age and alcohol intoxication into account have concluded that cannabis' effect on driving ability is negligible, noting in fact the tendency of intoxicated individuals to drive slower and more cautiously."

This seems unlikely. Is it certain? If not, it is highly irresponsible that it appears here. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.33.38 (talk &bull; contribs).


 * It is indeed certain. A recent study (which I don't have bookmarked, sorry) showed that high drivers are 1/10th as likely to be in an accident than drunk drivers, or about the same as a driver who has had one drink. Anarchist42 19:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See this U.K Department for Transport report. The executive summary states: "Most studies report that the majority of fatal cases with detected levels of cannabis are confounded by alcohol... In short, the research strategy to evaluate the effect of cannabis has been piecemeal. Consequently, firm and reliable conclusions cannot be drawn." In Chapter 7 it reads: "The style of driving performance after consumption of cannabis can be interpreted as cautious. Evidence of increased caution includes fewer overtaking attempts, larger distances required for overtaking, slower speeds, and larger headways." Understandably, this is just one source on the issue but I tend to agree with the sentiment that cannabis-only intoxicated individuals will not drive as reckless as those under the influence of alcohol. --Howrealisreal 02:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

My 2 cents: Howisreal, that is quite true, but note one more aspect: cannabis can (and more often than not does) introduce paranoia, and that may (or may not) be a cause for accidents in heavy traffic.

And, I would suggest no-one to actually drive under cannabis if avoidable, for your driving-style will become awkward and sucpicious to authorities. Good smokin'! --Anynomous subject &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.52.201 (talk &bull; contribs).


 * The bottom line: driving under the influence of anything (including your cell phone or even when tired) increases the risk. The effects of cannabis are tricky because they are so dynamic depending on the person and the situation. The paranoia aspect is possible, but there's insubstantial evidence to make that connection. The most troubling aspect seems to be that many who happen to be getting into accidents while intoxicated are on alcohol and cannabis. Overall, there needs to be better research done globally to understand this phenomenon. --Howrealisreal 19:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)