Talk:Effects of cannabis/Archive 2

Proposed Edits
regarding the disclaimer:

I had made some edits that Smaines felt were too big to make without discussion, and they were reverted.

As a newcomer to the article I felt that the disclaimer at the top was unnecessary, and distracting. Disregarding my previous statement, however factually accurate it may be, the disclaimer uses highly POV language which is unhelpful.

I think the points being made should be wholey contained by the "Legal and political constraints on open research" section

regarding the "Legal and political constraints on open research":

I think haveing this section at the top of the article distracts from the focus of the article. It is important information, but I think it would serve the article better by comming at the end. Thereby making the actual research more the focus rather than the difficulties of research in this field.

Thoughs are appreciated
 * Andy 00:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This comment is the same as i wrote in the main (cannabis-drug) aritcle. there is mention of a swedish study (Cannabis and Schizophrenia: A Longitudinal Study of Swedish Conscripts, by S. Andreasson et al, The Lancet, 1987. Vol. 2, 1483-1486) now allthough it has been published in the lancet... i think the info needs to be removed for some time while for the article to be reviewed again. sweden is highly anti-cannabis, and several (negative) studies have been motivated by political aims. it needs to be checked for quality of its method and validity.--Mindzpore 17:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear how cannabis users treat symptoms of glaucoma with cannabis. I've changed that with cancer (pain relief).

Title?
Does anyone else feel that this title is a bit wordy? Any opinions on whether it should be changed, or what it could be changed to?

how about:


 * Medical effects of cannabis

or


 * Medical research on cannabis

Andy 08:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I like Medical research on cannabis, but it drifts into Medicinal use of cannabis. The article is presently focused as the health ramifications of cannabis use, regardless of one's reason for using it (and so doesn't talk about its efficacy for particular things, another topic of research).  The driving section is a bit stuck-on, and I think cannabis (pharmacology) should be in its own article (howrealisreal broke it out, then put it back, so we are having a think).  There is a good refactoring opportunity here, but it is complex and must be done carefully. -SM 09:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Changing the title is a very valid possibility. I've reached a plateau with this article, where I know there is more that can be done to enhance its effectiveness but I personally need to take a break from editing and use some time to just read, reflect, and contemplate the next steps. I saw you took out my War on Drugs photo, which is okay. I just kinda put that out there to "test the waters", and expected it wouldn't last long (heh). Anyway, I'm totally interested in hearing some more opinions about how to make this article better.--Howrealisreal 20:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I also see need for a more "Average Joe" article. One without all the chemicals and research-papers and more targeted on parents with "Reefer madness"-fear, students doing research for homework etc. What they usually call a exceutive summary I guess. --PetterBudt 19:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point, this is what the summary in Cannabis (drug) should be, but isn't. StrangerInParadise 01:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hash is just another form of cannabis. Cannabis contains a number of cannaboids, not just THC. Anarchist42 19:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * One issue is having a proper balance between Cannabis (medical marijuana movement), Cannabis (medical), Cannabis (pharmacology), Cannabis (drug), and Cannabis (health). -SM 21:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Cannabis is a very common word in the UK and almost unheard of in the US, from what I can gather, SqueakBox 03:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's very common in the US, actually. siafu 04:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Breaking out to Cannabis (pharmacology)
I thought there was plenty for Cannabis (pharmacology), though not all the subordinate articles on cannabinoids had been tied in. The volume of subordinate cannabinoid articles suggest it should be anchored ni a separate Cannabis (pharmacology) article. Also, did you bring the doorstep material in from other articles? I did not like the B&W pictures so much, but I thought we were on the right track. -SM 21:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Some things to ponder: I'm not completely sure what you mean by "doorstep material". If you have some things that you think belong in this article, I'd suggest that you just be bold and go for it. On the other hand, the opinion of renaming this article presents a new challenge: do we want to continue to work within the large framework and focus of this article's title, or do we want to break off the material here into other articles with a more limited scope? There is already an article about medical marijuana, and I want to warn against merging too much information that is here with that, since it'll be hard to be taken seriously, and seen as objective, when you're trying to establish health issues and general effects of cannabis while also advocating for medical marijuana. In the same respect, I'm a bit confused about what you mean when you say "subordinate cannabinoid articles" versus the pharmacology of cannabis since it is those cannabinoids (and related compounds) that produce the biochemistry involved with the drug's effects and health issues. Lastly, the pictures can stay or go, I'm fine with whatever consensus says about that. --Howrealisreal 22:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

By doorstep material, I mean like in Cannabis (drug), relative to this article but sometimes out of synch with it. In the case of Cannabis (pharmacology), I mean like in...hmmm, probably taken already, though I remember seeing it somewhere. Wait, it looks like the old content old content of Cannabis (pharmacology) didn't make it back in. I am thinking that more pharmacology material here could go there.

I renamed that link to Cannabis (drug) in the other article, SqueakBox 02:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I can see the two- Cannabis (health) and Cannabis (medical)- remaining distinct and having natural boundaries (see above). As for being taken seriously, there is a dispassionate approach to asessing the therapeutic science base relative to treatment of various diseases- medical efficacy of cannabis is a well-established fact- and (briefly) the therapeutic context of medical cannabis culture as a whole, acknowledging prohibition only as a shaping and limiting force in that context. The pros and cons of medical cannabis and prohibition can be addressed in Cannabis (MMJ Movement).

-SM 00:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Smoking and harm
Putting this here for safe keeping Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic StrangerInParadise 00:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Objectivity
I really do think this article is skewed. It reads like cannabis is harmless and the prohibition is completely political. One thing which I really cant believe is that this article claims cannabis has negligible effects on a users driving ability. As a regular smoker I know that one shouldnt attempt to drive untill they are certain all traces of the drug have left their system. Is there really anyone who would claim cannabis doesnt effect reaction times?! —This unsigned comment is by 87.232.1.49 (talk • contribs).


 * If you're incredulous, you should read the studies cited. If you don't think the section as written reflects reality, find some sources to include that take that POV and cite them.  However, you can't refer to your personal experience as evidence here. siafu 00:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

How is the prohibition not political? SqueakBox 01:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Good thing we try to write NPOV, based on facts/statistics and not what we personally believe. Maybe You should write about religion in stead :-) --PetterBudt 12:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It didnt come accross as NPOV IMO, and when I edited the page I never put in personal experience, here on the talk page I appealed to your own common sense and personal experiences. Ive read the report and am happy with it. Ive posted up its actuall findings as well as a direct link to it. I find the most interesting thing was a limit equivilant of that to the legal limit on alcohol. —This unsigned comment was added by 87.232.1.48 (talk • contribs).


 * Selectively citing information from just the Executive Summary (by no means an accurate portrayal of the entire study) is far from NPOV. I have read almost the entire study in full, and have supplemented your edits to show with greater validity the conclusions and challenges associated with cannabis use and driving. You may feel that having a quantitative value associated with cannabis intoxication is important, but in reality it doesn't mean much because alcohol and cannabis are two drastically different substances. Whereas alcohol intoxication can last hours on end, making individuals at times unaware of the limits on their abilities, cannabis intoxication is not similar: Drivers "peak" at intoxication an hour after smoking (even at large doses), and are most of the time aware and compensate for their mindstate. While cannabis intoxication clearly changes driving behavior, many times the effects are not always associated with raising the risk of traffic accidents. Thanks for your comments. Regards --Howrealisreal 16:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I presumed the executive summary would be an accuarte synopsis of the full report. Why isnt it? It wasnt selective citing just according to my POV, as can be seen in the history page, my edit did contain the piece on compensatory effort. I condensed the summary, I didnt skew. I was also the first to include problems with conducting and interpreting the research into the introduction. You've definitly improved the quality of the article, but Im not going to be talked down to just because this is my first time here. The origional piece was biased, and misrepresented the study and while my edit wasnt perfect it was an improvement. --pop-eye 22:08, 21 March 2006


 * Pop-eye, I'm sorry if my comment came across as talking down to you. That was not my intention. I was just commenting on how your edits seemed to pay most attention to the impairment in laboratory-based tasks, while glossing over the fact that the study fails to directly correlate cannabis use as a traffic accident risk factor and why. Particularly, the quote in your version that was taken from the summary "Specifically, 4-12% of accident fatalities have detected levels of cannabis..." trails off right after the important next statement that most of those cases have alcohol present as well. Additionally, you also removed a statement from the section that cannabis "intoxicated individuals [tend] to drive slower and more cautiously," which is proven in the study as well. Your edits, although alarming to me, were an improvement in some ways and I'm sorry for not making that point clearer previously. --Howrealisreal 23:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean you represent each side equally. It means to do so as accuratly and verifiably as you can without introduction one's own POV. If the greater body of evidence supports cannabis being harmless and prohibition being political then that is how a NPOV article will read(This is an example, I am not trying to state this is nessecarily true.). If you disagree, research the topic, and introduce new evidence. Perhaps you can check citation on facts you disagree with and verify their reliability. Thanks for bringing a fresh mind to this article, the more responsible editors checking different angles of the topic the better! HighInBC 16:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Most biased article I've ever seen
What a disgusting display. This "encyclopedia entry," suggests that smoking marijuana not only improves driving, but that it lessens your chances for lung cancer. Hey, stoners, keep fighting the good fight! I bet if you keep pretending to be an expert and saying that every study ever done was flawed, people will finally realize that marijuana is a wonder drug. —This unsigned comment was added by 69.141.218.147 (talk • contribs).


 * Unsigned anonymous comments displaying ignorant bias fail to inform or enlighten any of us. No doubt some folks are scared by the fact that Cannabis does indeed reduce cancer risk. Anarchist42 18:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If only......SqueakBox 15:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hardly. Regarding driving, the article specifically says that it "intoxicated individuals had a lowered "tracking time"". It only compares driving under the influence of marijuana favourably against drunk driving, noting that marijuana users tend to be less confident of their abilities while under the influence, and therefore drive more cautiously.


 * If you have specific problems with the methodology, findings, or conclusion of the study on "Marijuana use and cancer incidence" perhaps you'd be so good as to explain them to us? — Cmdrjameson 14:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder whether anon-147 above might be willing to consider the role that decades of shameless government propaganda might have played in forming the basis for his disgust. Actually reading the many sources cited would be a corrective. BTW, in my own non-encyclopedic opinion, cannabis is a wonder drug, but this is unimportant. What is impotant is the dramatic contrast between what the government says and what both science and common sense show. Why not be disgusted with that? Why complain to us for having faithfully distilled dozens of peer-reviewed studies? Why not complain to your Congressman that the Government is still lying about cannabis, suppressing research, and spending billions of our taxdollars to oppress people- even helpless sick people- around the world for smoking a flower?

As for driving, the idea is not that cannabis doesn't affect driving skill in some general sense, but rather that if you have N typical incidences of cannabis use and driving, the outcomes tend to be of lower risk due to over-compensation, risk-aversion and low-aggression; this is not true for N typical incidences of alcohol use and driving. This is important when formulating public policy. As a matter of public policy, intoxication standards make sense, IMO, but as they are done now, one can be proscecuted for driving today and having smoked last week, due to the use of tests which measure non-psychoactive metabolites (intended to enforce prohibition by detecting any cannabis usage), rather than those tests calibrated to determine recent impairment. This is a civil rights issue as much as anything.

-SM 19:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

My disgust is based on the fact that you can't justify acting as if pot is harmless just because it shouldn't be illegal. I hate to break it to you, but the reason no one in Congress is actively fighting to legalize marijuana is because none of them actively smoke pot. And the vast majority of people just don't care enough to legalize it because even if it is ridiculous to lock people up for using marijuana, just about everyone realizes that it isn't practical to get high all the time. As for using common sense, you don't need to cite a study to know that young people who smoke pot all the time are amotivated, get bad grades in school, and are more likely to drop out. Admittedly, an average person who already knows what marijuana is all about isn't going to take the time to compete with a group of people hell-bent on trying to prove that it is harmless. I'm no different, I don't have the time to go around looking for millions of sources to try to argue with you guys. But I would like to point out that after briefly looking at your "peer-reviewed" sources I noticed that one of the two references about cancer is attributed to "The Anderson Valley Advertiser." (www.theava.com) Be honest, the real section under "Behavioral Effects" should end after the first paragraph, which describes the problems associated with frequent marijuana smoking. This article suspiciously reads as if people are trying to prove something to themselves. Hey, it's not the worst thing in the world to be a pothead, there's plenty of worse problems out there, but don't pretend that 90% of the population is wrong to believe that smoking marijuana is harmful. The real article about marijuana on Wikipedia is the one under the heading Cannabis (drug.)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.218.147 (talk • contribs)


 * Wow! Quoting 69.141.218.148:
 * you don't need to cite a study to know that young people who smoke pot all the time are amotivated, get bad grades in school, and are more likely to drop out.
 * Ok, this is exactly why we require citations. You hear this sort of thing said all the time, but try finding a reputable source. HighInBC 13:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Word! If it weren't so stigmatized, you'd see all of the politician-tokers coming out of the woodwork. I think it's funny that 147 argues that his reality is dominant, when is own government tells him that potheads are...everywhere! BOO! I for one improved my academic performance when I started toking (at 14). rmbh 06:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason no Congress people or other politicians use cannabis is because they would lose their political career if they were caught doing so. Cannabis laws work. The youthful cannabis smoking culture is anti-society for the most part so no surprise potheads don't integrate, which means they end up poor and on the margins of society. I would argue it is the laws not the cannabis that is creating the problems such as amotivational syndrome. 90% of the population believes in the laws against Cannabis. Perhaps in Tunisia and Cuba but I doubt if that is the case in most parts of the world,

SqueakBox 22:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * SqueakBox, don't you know that US foreign aid is often contingent on "hardline" positions on cannibus? Most of the world "consensus" is issued top-down. Drug use of cannibus is traditional all over north Africa, the Middle East, extending through India? Food and fiber uses of cannibus are traditional in Asia as well. All in all, the majority of Old Worlders live in cultures were drug, food, or textile uses of cannibus are traditional. Drug use is present in every industrialized country, moreso in the more socialized and easygoing ones, less-so in the more regimented and militaristic ones.rmbh 06:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Anon-147, you need to learn to sign your posts. This is easily done by adding four tildes to the end of your post, like this ~.

Now, to the topic at hand. This article is very well-referenced, with thirty citations from peer-reviewed journals. You chose to examine the one citation of an article in the Anderson Valley Advertiser which covered a press conference of a study, soon to be published, by the expert most often cited by the government on this topic, Dr D.P. Tashkin (see his many other papers in the references section). Honesty involves using well-sourced facts, rather than the ignorant bigotry you are so disappointed to find missing in this article, but are enthusiatically sharing with us here- tell us, while you're on a roll, do you think it is a good idea to get drunk all the time?

Very much consistent with SqueakBox's statement, the reason you see positive correlations between cannabis use and poor academic performance in grade school is that only the kids with something to lose can be controlled and those that don't attract scrutiny due in part to the hysteria of, well, people like you. In college, where students are not under constant pressure of being arrested, expelled and sent to rehab by their parents, academic performance among cannabis-users is comparable to that of non-users.

BTW, to say something about amotivational system in this article, you do need a study, which we have done. To say that "90% of people think it is harmful", is neither true nor relevant, though you're free to speculate on the talk page.

Speaking of having a stake in the system, you have no idea whether anyone in Congress smokes pot or not, and of course they will not tell you, because of, well, voters like you. One of the tragedies of prohibition as a civil-rights issue is that opponents of prohibition often cannot afford to speak out on the matter due to the hysteria of, well, people like you. Do you see pattern here?

The simple fact, IMO, is that it is pretty much harmless except for the points we have raised. Most evidence to the contrary just doesn't stand up. Note that in the article, we do not say it should be legalized, though we do say that most of the limitations on what we know are due to how it has been illegalized. We do not draw conclusions, we summarize facts and expert opinion, cite sources, and let you draw conclusions. Instead of jumping up and down and crying "Bias!" because we did not tell you what you expect, why not go read about the real biases behind prohibition. Here is a start.

-SM 03:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest, this does read like a refutation of claims that Marijuana has a negative impact on health. I don't really care and don't want to get into a big thing (I'm not even sure how I got here) but there's a clear POV in this article. And this is coming from a person who used to have more than a passing interest in pot and considers cannabis laws to be hypocritical and would be more than happy to see them over turned. Rx StrangeLove 21:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You got here as Wikipedians everywhere get anywhere, you were guided by your Muse. Neither my comment, nor the article itself says that cannabis is harmless, though the studies we cite do refute several common claims of harm. We have made a careful, well-referenced analysis of the questions, which one may challenge on the merits. If someone says, however, "but, [stammer]...you've made cannabis seem so much less harmful than I have been led to expect! You must be biased!", what should we say to this except if that is all someone brings to the discussion, perhaps it is he who is biased, though this may not even be this person's fault. Should we exagerate the harms to seem less biased? The broad gap between government statements and published science on this issue is truly frightening, considering the many harms visited on cannabis users by the government. -SM 22:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

According to wikipedia France, Cannabis smoke is 7 times as dangerous as cigarette smoke. I have been IP banned by trying to rectificate a factual error in that they were not talking about 'cannabis smoke' but 'soap bar smoke' (i described it as 'cannabis and tobacco smoke'), wich is proven by the fact that their 'cannabis smoke' contains twice as much nicotin as authorized for cigarettes. Do cannabis contain nicotin ? Apparently truth doesn't matter that much. Is wikipedia the safe place for governement subzidized propaganda ?

please add
Since I'm not very good with editing this just yet, I'll just leave the facts here at the discussion page and hope that someone else edits the info into the real article (I'm just to busy right now to learn how its supposed to look like).

it is a (relatively) recent study that shows NO link between cannabis use and schizofrenic effects. here is the ref: Schiffman J., Nakamura B., Earleywine M., LaBrie J., (2005). ''Symptoms of schizotypy precede cannabis use. Psychiatry Res.'' 134(1):37-42. and a link to the online text: http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/psy/article/PIIS0165178105000284/abstract --Mindzpore 16:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "the onset of schizotypal symptoms generally precedes the onset of cannabis use" Anarchist42 18:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

yes, im sorry, i realize that saying "NO link" was clumsy, what i meant to say was that it finds no causal relation between cannabis and schizotypal symptoms (ie. it doesnt support that weed causes scizofrenia). which is strongly implied by both this article and the main cannabis (drug) article. --Mindzpore 10:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is so POV... ---bamonster

This article NEEDS a POV tag, I posted one and someone claimed it needed a rational, just reading this talk page is rational enough! read the article to understand. --khaosduke


 * I'm afraid that stating that this article needs a POV tag beacuse it does isn't really a solid substitute for a rationale. siafu 03:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Dependence: in the section on dependence, pot is compared to alcohol, cocaine and heroin. Could we compare its dependence-causing effects to coffee or tobacco? I don't have sources, but it seems misleading to confuse the idea of intoxication with that of dependence. --Zachbe 12:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look through the talk page archives, people are always stating this article is POV. But what they are not doing is finding any sort of evidence that it is so. I honestly think most of the editors here do seek a NPOV article.
 * If the article seems the lean in certain directions, it is becuase the bulk of the evidence suggests this is the correct direction. A NPOV article needs to concentrate on the truth, it is not an election where both sides get equal coverage.
 * Also, in response to Zachbe, I agree using addictive, non-intoxicating, drugs would allow the comparison to be made without confusion the issue of addiction with intoxication. However the citation must be checked to be sure this is really what it says. HighInBC 13:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the "schizotypal study" should be removed as misleading. The study shows no link between the cannabis use and schizotypal personality disorder. Schizophrenia is a mood disorder and is on a different axis of DSM-IV from personality disorders. There is a reason why mood disorders are separated from personality disorders, which is to prevent non-recognition of personality disorders comorbid with mood disorders. Mood disorders (including schizophrenia) normally present much more florid symptoms than personality disorders. Also, have a look at this - http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/325/7374/1183.pdf.

Add something about this...
Please add something about how organizations such as the DEA constantly publish baseless claims concerning the dangerous of marijuana while sourcing back to themselves.

One example.. http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html

They make claims concerning the dangers of marijuana while the sources they use don't even support what they're saying.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.70 (talk • contribs).


 * I'm sure someone could, assuming it was NPOV, naturally. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I checked out the website... Oh wait! They have my IP now! I gotta go move some stuff!!! HighInBC 17:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point, not just limited to marijuana. In my recent research of drugs on the internet I find a large number of misleading statements or factual errors given by US government sources. I ran into this problem researching 'embalming fluid,' finding that the government and anti-drug sources that used the government as a source of information said one thing, while erowid said another. Personally I would believe erowid over the government any day, but to the average person it looks like the professionals are saying one thing while some anonymous druggie says another. So there should definitely be something on wikipedia that shows that, often, the government can't be trusted when it comes to drugs. 68.40.167.60 15:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Gateway theory vodo
The "July 2006 study by Ellgren et al" seems to prove little beyond what happens when one forces mice to use heroin. Since humans usually use heroin (and cannabis) by choice, I see no scientific validity in this study's claim of the validity of the (still unproven) "gateway theory". I suggest that we remove the citation as not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchist42 (talk • contribs)

Intentionally bad methodology is a great way to make a study say most anything. In this subject specifically we must take the methodology of the studies into account. I say chuck it. HighInBC 18:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

oh lord
Hi. I am a user from Germany and i just read this article. I noticed that this artice is, sorry, a bunch of crap. I think that such a topic should be discussed a neutral way and not as bad as this artice does. my two cents, do whatya want, people find out anyways... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.135.150.163 (talk • contribs)


 * Once again, which fact do you object to? Which citation do you not find valid? Do you have a citation that conflicts? Just because the article says something different than you were taught does not mean it is wrong. HighInBC 02:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think 163 is having the same problem as 147. 163, please see "Most biased article I've seen" if you're questioning the neutrality of the aritcle. If it's something else please just feel free to say it rather than making random accusations, please~ 74.139.38.43 22:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Although, HighInBC, I agree that the results cited are compelling, that isn't really what we should use to establish the tone of the article. There are many mainstream opinions that we can draw on. Statements from bodies like the CMA or AMA are mostly supportive of legalization, so why not use them? Then the critics will realize that their views have been largely shaped by propaganda, junk science, and compliance with state agendae. In other words, I also support the notion that the article needs further work with respect to neutrality.rmbh 06:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional Link
The following link from the largest US Government study ever done needs to be included:

http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncchap2.htm Marihuana use and its effects.

DEA Judge Young's ruling on medical marijuana http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/YOUNG/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfman97 (talk • contribs)


 * NO IT DOESN'T! US-governement generated science cannot be considered NPOV. It is clearly against the DEA's interests to characterize marijuana as safe (a position advocated by the Surgeon General, who doesn't have a conflict of interest.)rmbh 06:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * NPOV is a rule for wikipedia articles, not sources. 68.40.167.60 15:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not true, read WP:Reliable sources, it clearly states that sources that have a bias should be avoided. HighInBC 15:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Gateway Myth
First, there is no drug that will magically give you a craving for other drugs you have never had. That is a belief in witchcraft, not science.


 * Nice straw man. 68.40.167.60 05:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hemp was George Washington's primary crop, and a secondary crop for Thomas Jefferson, so hemp has been around in America for a long time, without apparently causing much destruction in society. Each sailing ship carried several tons of hemp in its rope and sails, so cultivation of hemp was a major industry. Even though cannabis was widely grown, there were no allegations that it led to harder drugs.(2,3,5,10)

In 1910, they believed that the certain steppingstone to opiate addiction was "eating Mexicanized food". The fundamental idea comes from America's puritanical history. It is the idea that pleasure is sinful, and small pleasures lead to cravings for larger pleasures. In this example, those who crave spicy food will inevitably crave larger pleasures, such as opium.(1)

In the 1920s, some states outlawed marijuana because of the belief that heroin addiction would lead to the use of marijuana - just the opposite of the modern myth. (2,3)

Cannabis had been widely known and used in many medicinal compounds for hundreds of years, so there was ample evidence in the 1930s to know whether there was a connection between marijuana and harder drugs. (7,8)

In 1937, Harry Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, testified before Congress that there was no connection at all between marijuana and heroin. In the testimony for the Marihuana Tax Act he said: [quote] ANSLINGER: This drug is not being used by those who have been using heroin and morphine. It is being used by a different class, by a mostly younger group of people. The age of the morphine and heroin addict is increasing all the time, whereas the marihuana smoker is quite young.

MR. DINGELL: I am just wondering whether the marihuana addict graduates into a heroin, an opium, or a cocaine user.

MR. ANSLINGER: No, sir; I have not heard of a case of that kind. I think it is an entirely different class. The marihuana addict does not go in that direction.

MR. DINGELL: And the hardened narcotic user does not fall back on marihuana.

MR. ANSLINGER: No, sir: he would not touch that. [/quote]

The reason marijuana had to be outlawed, he said, was because it caused insanity, criminality, and death. One example he gave was of two young lovers who became so crazed after smoking a joint that they eloped and got married. Marijuana causes people to become so crazy that they get married. The other reasons he gave were no more sensible. The hemp industry representatives who testified were uniformly surprised and mystified to hear that a dangerous drug could be made from this widespread and common crop. The American Medical Association testified that they knew of no evidence that marijuana was a dangerous drug. (2,3,4)

The US Government encouraged farmers to grow hemp during World War II, because it was vital to the country's war effort. There were no claims at the time that marijuana would lead to harder drugs.(2,3,10)

In 1944, the La Guardia Committee Report on Marihuana confirmed Mr. Anslinger's statement -- there was no connection at all between marijuana and heroin.(6)

In 1951, the story changed. Harry Anslinger was testifying for the Boggs Act about why he needed more money and men to enforce the marijuana laws. Just before he testified, the head of the Federal addiction research program testified that they knew for certain that all of the reasons that had been given for outlawing marijuana in 1937 were entirely bogus. They knew for certain that marijuana did not cause insanity, criminality and death. Anslinger was left with no reason for tougher laws so he made up -- on the spot, with not a shred of evidence -- the assertion that marijuana is the certain stepping stone to heroin addiction. He directly contradicted his own testimony from 1937. It has been the basis of US marijuana policy ever since. (2,3)

Since that time, the Federal drug enforcement officials have tried to support this myth with the idea that most heroin addicts started with marijuana, and statistics which seem to show that marijuana users are more likely to have used cocaine. The first assertion would get a failing grade in any freshman Logic class. The second can be explained by the fact that people who engage in one risk-taking behavior are likely to engage in other risk-taking behaviors. It, too, would earn a failing grade in freshman Logic.

In 1970, the Canadian Government did their largest study ever of the subject, and found no connection between marijuana and heroin.(9)

In 1972, the US Government did their largest study ever of the subject, and found no connection between marijuana and heroin. (8) This was also the conclusion of the largest study ever done by Consumers Union, published the same year.(5)

Every major study of the marijuana laws in the last 100 years has concluded that the only connection between marijuana and heroin is that they are both prohibited and, therefore, sold in the same black market.(11)

The most recent study of the subject was the report of the US Institute of Medicine on medical marijuana.(12) They reported: [quote]Instead it is the legal status of marijuana that makes it a gateway drug.[/quote]

In other words, the people who support prohibition are using the bad effects of prohibition as justification for prohibition. The conclusion of all the research is that we have a "gateway drug policy". It is the laws that create the problem.

All of these references can be found on the Internet at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/history.htm

(1) Themes in Chemical Prohibition, NIDA Conference Report, 1979 http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/ticp.html

(2) History of the Marijuana Laws, speech to the 1995 California Judges Conference, by Professor Charles Whitebread, USC Law School. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

(3) Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of Knowledge:  The Legal History of American Marijuana Prohibition, Professors Richard Bonnie, and Charles Whitebread. http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/LIBRARY/studies/vlr/vlrtoc.htm

(4) Transcripts of the Congressional Hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937,  see transcripts of Harry Anslinger's testimony. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/taxact.htm

(5) Marijuana in the New World,http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cu54.html from The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs, 1972. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm Also found under http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer - Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy.

(6) LaGuardia Committee Report on Marihuana http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/lag/lagmenu.htm- Also found under http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer - Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy.

(7) Cannabis Fluid Extract, From the Parke, Davis & Company 1929-1930 physicians' catalog. http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/history/vbchmed1.htm

(8) History of the Medical Use http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/nc1a.htm -- From Marihuana, A Signal of Misunderstanding, by the US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972 http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm -- Also found under http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer - Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy.

(9) Canadian Government Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, (The Le Dain Report) http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/ledain/ldctoc.html - Also found under http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer - Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy.

(10) Transcript of Hemp for Victory, US Dept of Agriculture Film, 1942. http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/hemp4v.htm

(11) Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy --  http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/studies.htm

(12) Marijuana as Medicine, Assessing the Science Base, by the US Institute of Medicine, 1999 -- http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/iomreport.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfman97 (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for the info, the section about gateway drugs in the article seems to mostly deal with the danger to rats. HighInBC 16:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it
Come to think of it, that could be a whole page in itself. I only hit the high points in that summary.

Wolfman97 17:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)