Jump to content

Talk:Cannabis/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Old talk moved to Talk:Cannabis/Archive 1 Talk:Cannabis/Archive 2 Talk:Cannabis/Archive 3

Minor edits to Cannabis Trade

I eliminated some of the cannabis trade article. For example this section claimed that Alaska is where Northern Lights and Alaskan [Matanuska] Thunderfuck are produced. While it is most likely that Alaskan Matanuska Thunderfuck was developed and bred in Alaska's Matanuska valley it is certaintly produced in other places as well. As for Nothern Lights, while it is such a famous strain that while there are probably people growing it in Alaska, it is a strain that traces its roots to America's Pacific Northwest. 65.125.163.221 11:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Growing cannabis for your own consumption is legal in spain. The price of 1 grame is around 3 o 6 euros, 3 for countryside and 6 for cities. Quality is at least like holland's weed.

What, you mean Oregon and Washington? SqueakBox 15:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

A couple other things about this section. I made the following minor change:

"On the Pacific coast of the United States, a cannabis "superhighway" of sorts exists"
to "On the Pacific coast of North America, a cannabis "superhighway" of sorts exists"

Besides the four American States on the Pacific coast it also mentions British Columbia and Mexico. But I agree with a comment below that perhaps this secton doesn't belong in an article that's supposed be primarily about the plant. Perhaps this section could be moved? --69.158.16.251 05:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This section of the article is totally US-centric, which is wrong for ANY article about cannabis.24.33.28.52 06:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What the?

Somebody please fix the page up- go back in the history perhaps. At the moment it looks like a train wreck.

Article should be at Cannabis

There are 3 types of cannabis, Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, and Cannabis ruderalis. The first 2 are the kinds that are generally smoked. The article for cannabis in general is at Cannabis sativa, and should be moved here. The differences between sativa and indica are that sativas are from tropical environments and have longer growing seasons. Indicas have bigger and darker leaves. The high for sativas is more energetic, and the high for indicas is more sedative. Conwiki 02:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New kind discovered

Actually it looks like its 4. Despite the articles missleading title, they didnt include ruderalis in their count, it looks like Rasta lends its name to a third type of cannabis and we might have a edit to do.--PetterBudt 11:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Cannabis (drug): drug or psychoactive drug?

If the focus of Cannabis (drug) is restricted to the use of plant products as psychoactive drugs then the article's title is too broad, and should be Cannabis (psychoactive drugs)). Laurel Bush 12:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Please explain further, I am not quite sure what you mean, SqueakBox 16:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I mean if, for example, you are using cannabis as a drug for relief of symptoms of MS, are you using it as a psychoactive drug? Laurel Bush 10:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC).

I note, by the way that the Drug page is now an article again, not a disambiguation page. Laurel Bush 11:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC).

I don't find the point, every drug is psychoactive (it's part of its definition). May be we want to split drugs and meds, but is this ethic? Freecannabis

All drugs are not considered psychoactive, only those that have cause a perceivable change to one's mental state. For example, aspirin is generally not considered to be psychoactive. Morphine on the other hand is a psychoactive drug, even though its primary medical use is for pain management. --Thoric 19:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be noted somewhere that most people in the cannabis culture refuse to identify cannabis as a drug. Though it is technically a drug, many argue that labeling it as such gives cannabis a bad reputation that it doesn't deserve. (Ngoah89 17:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

But if we are fond of being open-minded, why use euphemistic terms to describe the reality? Freecannabis

Because most of the anti-cannabis movement is not fond of being open minded. They are sometimes so close minded that they would assume that anything labeled "illegal drug" is a deadly poison. Many feel that this label is weighing down the cannabis culture and simply don't think that cannabis should be associated with other illegal drugs like crack and heroin. Simply stated, cannabis sounds much better as a harmless plant than as an illegal drug. (Ngoah89 19:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

Then we have to decide about explaining reality or making pure marketing. We should not let people think that cannabis is harmless. Even if it's the softest drug. I'm not in favour of government propaganda, but the opposite ain't good either.Freecannabis

Since when has cannabis become harmful? (Ngoah89 14:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

Cannabis: Health issues, Cannabis (drug) and Medical marijuana: all seem to represent competing perspectives on cannabis-related health issues. Laurel Bush 15:55, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Factual accuracy

Anonymous user 68.251.56.116 put a disputed note disputing the accuracy of this article with no explanation or discussion on this page of why they did so. I have removed it. If anyone wants to replace it please state which part of the accuracy of this article is in dispute. I have also added an extra paragraph to the long term effects on the mind and brain, which was entirely one sided, wrongly implying that the only effects of cannabis on mind and brain are negative. Squiquifox 21:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removed parts

First, the new section on spiritual use needs to be less vague and have some supporting sources (presented here in the Talk page, not in the article).

The following does not integrate into the article and repeats several things that are already in the article. Nevertheless, there ought to be a brief synopsis of the relevant information in cannabinoids and a pointer to that article (Main article:) in a new section.

Marijuana is a drug with a mixed history. Mention it to one person, and it will conjure images of potheads lost in a spaced-out stupor. To another, it may represent relaxation, a slowing down of modern madness. To yet another, marijuana means hope for cancer patients suffering from the debilitating nausea of chemotherapy, or it is the promise of relief from chronic pain. The drug is all these things and more, for its history is a long one, spanning millennia and continents. It is also something everyone is familiar with, whether they know it or not. Everyone grows a form of the drug, regardless of their political leanings or recreational proclivities. That is because the brain makes its own marijuana, natural compounds called endocannabinoids (after the plant's formal name, Cannabis sativa).
The study of endocannabinoids in recent years has led to exciting discoveries. By examining these substances, researchers have exposed an entirely new signaling system in the brain: a way that nerve cells communicate that no one anticipated even 15 years ago. Fully understanding this signaling system could have far-reaching implications. The details appear to hold a key to devising treatments for anxiety, pain, nausea, obesity, brain injury and many other medical problems. Ultimately such treatments could be tailored precisely so that they would not initiate the unwanted side effects produced by marijuana itself.
Reference: taken from the Scientific American Magazine December 2004 article by Roger A. Nicoll and Bradley E. Alger

The following is not related to long-term effects and is vague as to not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia:

There has been little or no research into the benefits and positive effects of cannabis use on the brain, though many users do report an increase in the ability of the brain to perform in certain ways, and particularly to self-reflect. In many traditional cultures cannabis has been taken in order to stimulate mental activity. A significant number of cannabis users report the positive effect of this substance on enhancing brain activity, but as yet there is no evidence to associate cannabis use with increased intelligence.

- Centrx 21:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Spiritual use

This is a stub at the moment, but I cannot say that about an individual section. I do think it should stay, will try to expand it, and hope others do so as well. RE Mind and Brain I am concerned about the bias in this section that implies cannabis only has negative effects on the mind and the brain. Perhaps the whole section needs re-writing! I will try to get something solid together before doing so, and recognise I was being vague. Squiquifox 00:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) I have changed chronic for long-term and added dreams to tolerance and withdrawal section, both in order to get the article to have a neytral POV, something lacking in sections of this article.Squiquifox 13:35, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

==Depression is not a disease==Depression IS a disease [see below] Nowhere in clinical depression does it state that depression is a disease, and I have removed the comments implying that it is a disease from the Mind and Brain section of this article, as well as trying to make it come from a more balanced and neutral point of view. Mental aberration has been removed as well. Squiquifox 13:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that depressesion is a state of mind. Freecannabis

Depression is not a disease

Nowhere in clinical depression does it state that depression is a disease, and I have removed the comments implying that it is a disease from the Mind and Brain section of this article, as well as trying to make it come from a more balanced and neutral point of view. Mental aberration has been removed as well. Squiquifox 13:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that depression is a state of mind. Freecannabis

Depression is a disease

I disagree. I have a Masters in Psychology from NYU. The well-regarded “Undoing Depression,” by Richard O’Connor (no relation to me), a clinical Ph.D., is based on scholarly research by a professional who overcame depression himself. In the trade paperback edition on pg 20, I quote: “There is a great deal of value in thinking of [depression] as a disease. For one thing, it responds well to medication….Further supporting the disease idea is the finding that the brain chemistry of depressed people is different from that of other people…” This is certainly true for people who suffer chronic depression throughout their lives.

You’re entitled to your opinion but I assert that you erred in your revision. There is a genetic component in depression and your relying on the "clinical depression" article in Wikipedia (while acknowledging my increasing respect for and usage of Wikipedia and its increasingly stringent standards and usefulness) suggests that the Wikipedia article alone is sufficient to settle this complex issue.

I can cite additional scholarly sources but that's not necessar. Just Google "depression" and "endogenous" depression (a term declining in usage). There is an inherited, genetic basis for depression in some individuals. To say categorically that depression is not a disease is to say that alcoholism is not a disease or schizophrenia, to name just two.

A psychological “state” is, by definition, a temporary, passing condition, as in reactive depression. But a trait is a behavioral characteristic that is relatively stable and consistent across time and situations. Bipolar disorder, formerly known as manic-depression, is a genetically based disorder of the mind of which severe depression is a recurring component. In such individuals, depression is hardly a “state of mind.”

There is a great deal of controversy and debate over the different types of depression, its causes, symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. But to categorically wipe away the assertion that depression is a disease and merely a state of mind (based solely on an entry in Wikipedia) is mistaken and misinformed. [User: Thomconn]

Your reference does not state that depression is a disease; rather it states that doctors can gain value from thinking of it as such. This is -not- an assertion that depression -is- a disease. Alcoholism and schizophrenia are extremely poor examples to bolster your assertion as both are controversial regarding description as disease. The question is not whether it is politically, scientifically or educationally expedient to describe something as a disease in order to provoke an emotional response. The question is whether or not such conditions satisfy scientific definitions of disease. This is why we have terms like "syndrome" and "condition." Disease is something specific.24.33.28.52 19:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Depression is not a disease, but it might be an illness? Laurel Bush 09:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC).

Please cite your sources

Please add your sources (at least on this page) so that we can check that your changes are substantial. Otherwise your contributions might get reverted. Cacycle 14:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Squiquifox: PLEASE start to provide links and references so what we can check your sometimes obscure edits. And please add a change summary before submitting.

Recent changes

Increased appetite (colloquially known as "the munchies")

As this is an encyclopedia article, I think it best if it slang is not scattered around the article in otherwise scientific information, so such slang should instead be in the Common Slang section.

Chronic effects of human consumption vs. Long-term effects of human consumption

Chronic has a specific meaning of long-continuing or lingering effects that are a result of frequent recurrent use. This is apt for this section because the effects delineated in the section are a result of such chronic use rather than simply long-term effects of usage of any frequency, and the section doesn't only cover long-term effects, it also covers medium-term effects of tolerance and withdrawal.

Tolerance, withdrawal and dreams

REM rebound is a result of psychological withdrawal, and is only a very tiny mention in the section and so is already sufficiently covered by the former title. Further, what more was added about dreams is simply in excess, a repetition of what was already said, that the REM rebound is a result of cessation after heavy use.

Long-term effects on the mind and brain

The statements added to this section require some sources, to be presented here, to back them up. After extensive perusal of PubMed it was clear that regular use of cannabis causes a diminishment of cognitive performance in the medium-term (within a month), and that this was indeed an effect on most persons and was certainly a diminishment in certain areas of cognitive performance, not just an appearance of one. Also, "subjective evidence" has no place in an encyclopedia.

Common slang

I had removed mids and regs because these are simple abbreviations (the first is actually not even an abbreviation) which are not used in any special sense, and so do not qualify as slang. They mean precisely what the words "mid" and "regular" mean.

- Centrx 20:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Centrix, as I wrote in your talk page I feel that "mids" and "regs" are legitimate additions to the common slang section. By your logic, "dro"-- since it is an abbreviated form of hyDROponics-- would also not qualify for the slang section and that would be incorrect. While the definition of mids and regs may be apparent to some and not appropriate for the slang section, I can think of countless circumstances in just the New York region where these terms have been used in a general way to describe types of cannabis different from potent strains. Howrealisreal 20:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Howrealisreal: Actually it does not make much sense to me to have such a large collection of slang here. I really don't care that much how you and your friends call different types of Cannabis products or effects. If people from all over the world (remember, en.wikipedia is not US only!) would add their drug scene slang here, the page would rapidly exceed > 32kB. Additionally, nobody benefits from such a collection because the slang is rapidly changing and usually restricted to a very small region or group of people. Cacycle 22:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Centrx: I would like to see your suggested changes on the article's page as soon as possible. Cacycle 22:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I agree that there has to be some line drawn in the sand about what is "encyclopedic" about regional slang. The terms that I contributed I thought were pretty common. You can make your edits now and I don't really care, but I would like to warn that with pretty much all language open to interpretation in terms of appropriateness, the common slang section will forever need to be patrolled. --Howrealisreal 02:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Cacycle, slang names have nothing to do with meSquiquifox 02:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC), as you would know if you had checked. The Cannabis article is already too long. Perhaps the slang section could be made into a separate article, allowing Howrealisreal more editing freedom.

Centrix, you are not addressing the issue of neutral point of view in your suggested reverts to my changes. While we need to keep our own subjective feelings out of this encyclopedia, to keep subjective evidence out of it is a very sweeping statement that I for one think is wrong. Stating such scientific conclusions as those re cognitive effects of cannabis as proven fact without the possibility of an opposing view does not reflect the debate on this issue taking place in the wider world or the lack of a variety of scientific studies into the subject. Remember Wikipedia is not a scientific encyclopedia. Wikipedia needs to reflect human experience as well. The word chronic has very negative connotations, and is inappropriate for an NPOV. If you don't like long term find a neutral word. I really think if you are not happy with what I have done you need to make changes that address the issue of NPOV, because if you revert what I have done the article will not conform to a NPOV, in my view.Squiquifox 02:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Common slang article

I propose that the Common slang section is made into a separate article in order to address the overweight problem of this article. It seems the best section of the article to do this with, in my opinion. If you disagree and would like to see a different section removed to another article please say s make much sense to me to have such a large collection of slang here. I really don't care that much how you and your friends call different types of Cannabis products or effects. If people from all over the world (remember, en.wikipedia is not US only!) would add their drug scene slang here, the page would rapidly exceed > 32kB. Additionally, nobody benefits from such a collection because the slang is rapidly changing and usually restricted to a very small region or group of people. Cacycle 22:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Centrx: I would like to see your suggested changes on the article's page as soon as possible. Cacycle 22:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I agree that there has to be some line drawn in the sand about what is "encyclopedic" about regional slang. The terms that I contributed I thought were pretty common. You can make your edits now and I don't really care, but I would like to warn that with pretty much all language open to interpretation in terms of appropriateness, the common slang section will forever need to be patrolled. --Howrealisreal 02:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Common slang article

I propose that the Common slang section is made into a separate article in order to address the overweight problem of this article. It seems the best section of the article to do this with, in my opinion. If you disagree and would like to see a different section removed to another article please say so here. This article is overweight so please address the issue in this context;unfortunately something has to go. Squiquifox 14:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I second this. I think that some of the most notable and common of the slang should remain in the Cannabis article, but there should also be a link at the top of the section to an additional main article that strictly deals with Cannabis vernacular. That way people can freely contribute without cluttering the main page. --Howrealisreal 14:50, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I object against a slang page, Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide. Cacycle 15:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest to split off Cannabis (drug) (similar to Ecstasy (drug)) and Cannabis (law) (similar to RICO (law), Custom (law), Brief (law), Sentence (law), Agency (law), Hearing (law), Prejudice (law), and Minor (law)). Cacycle 17:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

After reading the Wikipedia is not a dictionary article, I suggest moving the bulk of the Common Slang section to something more appropriate like Wiktionary Appendix:Cannabis Slang that can list language with links to individual dictionary articles to define each word. --Howrealisreal 20:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the slang section minus it's warning to Wiktionary Appendix:Cannabis Slang. Unfortunately there is still a weight problem. Cannabis (law) is covered in Legal issues of cannabis, and is anyway a small section. Where is the least painful cut to be? Squiquifox 02:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Squiquifox: Thank You. I went ahead and moved the slang from the Wiktionary_Appendix page you cr

Proposal to rearrange the Cannabis articles

There is much confusion about various terms. For example, cannabis is the scientific name for hemp and marihuana is not another name for the plant, it's the dried flowers of the plant. Furthermore, it would help if readers understand from the start what the different uses of the plant are (eg, that hemp rope and hashish come from the same plant). I've written a proposal to clarify all this in one page, based on this disambiguation page, and then rearrange (and partly rewrite) the articles accordingly, at Talk:Hemp#Two articles or one.3F. Not the most logical place for it, but it started as a reaction to another posting. I added a horizontal line to mark the spot. I suggest you place any comments there, to keep everything together. DirkvdM 13:10, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Marihuana is the (phonetic) mis-spelling of the Mexican slang term marijuana (or also sometimes mariguana), which yes, does primarily refer to the flowers and leaves of the plant, with the proper botanical name of Cannabis Sativa. Hemp is same plant, but generally refers to the fibrous stalk. The adoption of the Mexican slang term marijuana was entirely for the purposes of demonizing and criminalizing the well known hemp plant, which was widely cultivated prior to its prohibition to make rope, canvas, paper, clothing and medicine.
Today, we use the word hemp to refer to low-THC strains of the plant used strictly for the plant fiber material, and for the nutritious seeds and oil. We use the word cannabis to refer to the high-THC strains used for medicine as well as recreation. The term medical marijuana is generally derogatorily used by those who oppose the medical use of cannabis, akin to referring to the medical use of alcohol as "medicinal booze" (BTW, alcohol is listed as medicinal in the United States Pharmacopoeia.)
Since marijuana is a slang term, I don't think it should be used as encyclopedic terminology. It may be used quite a bit in North America to refer to cannabis as a drug, but that does not make it correct. Redirecting Marijuana to Cannabis is still the correct action in my opinion. --Thoric 16:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Hashish

Hashish is made from the resin coated trichomes of the cannabis plant. It is not an "extract". --Thoric 30 June 2005 19:27 (UTC)

I wrote that hash is the resin from the flowers. Pedant changed that to "various extracts of the cannabis plant, collectively referred to as hashish or hash oil". Now you say it's made from the resin coated trichomes. Actually, it's a sticky mess that gets rubbed off the plant which largely consists of resin made (I believe) in those trichomes. But also other bits of the plant. You can't ever get anything completely pure. Now this is an overly detailed description for a disambiguation page. It's the resin that counts, I'd say, so I suggest leaving it at that, in other words (partly) reverting to my version. However, hash oil is an extract. So what about this:
As a drug it usually comes in the form of dried flowers (marijuana, also known as marihuana, ganja, dope, pot, weed, grass or Mary Jane), the resin of these (hashish) or various extracts of the cannabis plant, collectively referred to as hash oil.
Although this suggests that hash is made from the flowers and hash oil from the entire plant. That seems to make sense; the flowers are the most potent pits but if you're making an extract you might as well use the entire plant. Or not?
Also, I'm not sure about putting all the slang terms for marijuana on this page. These should be mentioned somewhere, but this doesn't seem the right place.
DirkvdM July 1, 2005 08:06 (UTC)

It is best if we keep the cannabis slang at *Wiktionary Appendix of Cannabis Slang. --Howrealisreal 1 July 2005 14:14 (UTC)

No other comments, so I've changed it to my version above, without the slang listing. Though I don't agree that should only be in Wiktionary, it should also in the Cannabis (drug) article. But all these terms also redirect to cannabis through disambiguation pages, though not always in the most logical manner. I'll correct that next.
There's still the problem that Indica (and to a lesser degree also Ruderalis) can also be used as drugs. The text ignores this and even suggests otherwise.
One other thing. Is the word hemp only used for Sativa and not Ruderalis and Indica?
DirkvdM July 3, 2005 18:28 (UTC)

The word hemp refers to fibre and oilseed varieties of Cannabis that are characterized by being low in THC and high in CBD. The ratio of CBD to THC is greater than one. --Cannabis 23:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirect issues

I was redirected here from "Dagga"-- I'm still not sure what "dagga" is (which is the problem), but I know that the word is sometimes used to refer to marijuana and sometimes to refer to some other type of smoked narcotic. I'm not sure a redirect is the best thing for it, especially when the redirected phrase appears nowhere in the article.155.33.204.202 23:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Dagga is a South African word for cannabis. I think when it is used generally for any drug, it is in the same manner as "dope" -- Meri

I have asked for it to be deleted, SqueakBox 20:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not South African, but I don't think it "is used generally for any drug". I think dagga is standard South African English for the plant, taking the place of hemp or cannabis in that variety of English, ie. unlike dope, dagga is not some kind of street slang. It also appears in placenames such as Daggafontein. I think it should be mentioned here, and the redirect from dagga should be restored.

NB: This is the English wikipedia, not Wikispecies. Names should be given in all standard varieties of English. If you are afraid it might clutter the introduction, perhaps a Cannabis#Names section should be made. – Wikipeditor 19:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I also got redirected from dagga, and I would have edited it to change it, But I don't know how do this stuff in wiki, but I can tell you that Dagga Dagga is not cannabis, its an African plant, with orange or white flowers, I think the white one is called Leonurus Sibiricus, AKA marijuannila(or is it double 'L' ?) anyway, Leonurus sibiricus and L.Leonitice are both called wild dagga, dagga dagga OR just 'Dagga' ! so change the link please , cause I have no Idea how to. There is also a big mixup between L.Sibiricus, L.Leonitice and what they call 'Motherwort' after reading a bit of studies, (i.e Biological effects of Leonurine (the active compound in L.Leonitice ) (W' Yeung et al., Planta Med 31, 51(1977) ) and also on the net, I found that wiki's article on motherwort states the motherwort is Leonurus Cardiaca, While in many sources it is Leonurus sibiricus. (Motherwort also contains Leonurine ???) I know this isn't the place to discuss it, but Please ... do something, I'm way to busy these days. For more info on Leonurine, I have this CAS NUMBER [24697-74-3], If you have the merck index, 15th edition then have a look at #5459 Bye

C. Sativa

I noticed in the original article that C. Sativa was said to have a low THC content, this just is not the case. C. Sativa and C. Indica both contain high levels of THC, C. Ruderalis on the other hand contains very low THC levels and is better known as hemp and is grown mostly for fiber, as it's growing season is only about 60-75 days. All three varieties of Cannabis are the same species as they can all cross pollinate producing viable offspring.

This is correct. Both sativa and indica can have very high THC levels. There are strains such as Kali Mist - a 100% Sativa strain - which are extremely potent and some of the pricier smokes to be found in Amsterdam.

Comment

(from talk page SqueakBox 03:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC) Marijuana is a natural cure. It's the only medicine that works for me. I've taken prescriptions and they only make my physically ill. Marijuana helps me and many, many others too. It's time that people wake up and realize that it is not a drug. Drugs are things like Heroin, Cocain and Pharmacuticles. They cause many side effects that can make us feel sick. The whole world and especially America would be much better off if Marijuana could be legalized. It's just a plant, people- lighten up and let us treat our illnesses in the way we choose. Police will often set up sting operations using several officers in waiting in an unmarked van, just to catch some highschooler trying to get a joint. Leave us alone. There is nothing wrong with using marijuana, and I would gladly tell a cop or judge to his/her face that I smoke marijuna and only imprisonment or death can stop me. When alcohol was prohibited, the public had a fit. They continued to make, sell and drink it. Eventually, the gov't. gave in and ended the prohibition. We can only continue to use marijuana to be able to eventually prove our point- that marijuana is a natural medicine and many people use it and use it responsibly. I think it's time that a have a public official in office who is in favor of legalization. Minorities and women finally have plenty of officials representing them, so how about the pot smokers? Our current President admitted to trying cocain, and yet we-the American people- are denied the benefits of the Harmless Marijuana. Legalize it!

I agree with him. I have also taken prescriptions, for depression and anxiety. Luckily I found cannabis to be better than meds for both problems, mainly because of lower side-effects. I do even have the strong intuition that it's a strong mood-stabilizer. Yet there are so few clinical studies about the topic! May we discuss about chemistry industry's benefits and how does this affect to the legal status of cannabis?

Species vs. subspecies

I just reverted a change to the Species section; in the paragraph describing how the "all the same species" camp works, the full species name should be "Cannabis sativa" or "C. sativa", not just "Cannabis", which is just the genus name no matter who you're talking to. /blahedo (t) 20:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the link [http://www.youknowsit.co.uk/ You knows it!] to Goldie Lookin' Chain (Welsh rap group & cannabis smokers). I found only one reference to cannabis on the entire site and no information regarding physiology or science. If I proved too hasty and missed the section of the site that does speak about the science of cannabis, please link directly to supposed section. Shawn M. O'Hare 08:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Doobie

Doobie links here but the word doesn't appear to be on the page --62.251.90.73 22:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No but it still gives one an idea. It should be in Cannabis (drug) and I will put it there, SqueakBox 23:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Marijuana is not even dangerous

It's physically a drug but it helps people, and life is too short anyways to worry for such little things. The issue on illegalizing in the US started as a way to stop competition with other fibers but now its morality. Old religious morals telling people what to think do and act. Blah blah blah!!!

Cocaine, acid and meth now those are "actually" dangerous and should completely remain illegal if you ask me. People should focus more on stopping the real addictive killers

What the UK government has done reducing cannabis to a class C, SqueakBox 06:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"Drugs are bad so dont take them, because you will get wasted, even if your friends want to take it and get wasted. DONT DO IT MAN!"

"It's physically a drug but it helps people, and life is too short anyways to worry for such little things ... Old religious morals telling people what to think do and act. Blah blah blah!!!"

Neither of these attitudes is going to help anybody. To the writer of the first: do you plan to justify yourself? Give evidence? Have you really thought through the relative pros and cons of drug use, and if so, why is your argument so weak as to be almost non-existent? To the writer of the second: I am afraid your argument is not strong either. An argument that flings insults at its opposition without trying to demolish its opposition's argument is worse than useless.

I am a cannabis user, though I am thinking of quitting. In its defence:

(i) It gives one a mellow, beautiful high, stimulating the imagination and heightening one's appreciation of art and music. (ii) Unlike alcohol, it does not lead to aggression in its users and seldom endangers anyone but the user. (iii) It is not addictive and to take an overdose of it is next to impossible (my own intake, even on a particularly stoned day, is less than 0.5% of what scientists believe could be a dangerous dose).

However:

(i) It reduces motivation & ambition. (ii) It can lead to tobacco addiction if smoked with tobacco (which it nearly always is). ^--- Wrong. (iii) It can lead to clinical depression (as I write this, I'm feeling pretty low, though I can't prove a connection). (iv) Cannabis users often progress to other drugs.

I don't include the law in the arguments against cannabis because I have never known a fellow user to have any trouble with the police, not even dealers.

I will not try to make anyone's decisions for them, as I am having enough trouble making my own decision, and am far from certain whether I will continue to use cannabis. I will say only this: only by considering both sides of the debate can anyone come to a rational decision on whether to use any drug.

-The Free Agent, 27th December 2005

(ii) It can lead to tobacco addiction if smoked with tobacco (which it nearly always is). ^--- Wrong.Anon

Hi Free Agent. Your list is interesting though I don't believe it is appropriate for this page as arguments pro and anti cannabis always tend to create conflict between editors who, of course, don't all think the same thing on this subject. Obviously cannabis does not represent a risk of using either tobacco or other drugs, it is some users who are rash enough to do that. What I strongly disagree with is your claim that it redices motivation and ambition. This is simply not true. Now I recognise that you get lots of lazy users who don't think about the future or have any strong goals in life but I would suggest that the illegality of cannabis attracts people who are lazy and unfocussed while the fact thatv a cannabis conviction can ruin many careers tends to strongly discourage professional politicians, etc, from using cannabis as a conviction can ruin someone's career. Fascism alive and well in 21st Century democracy. But the idea that marijuana demotivates is pure government (brewery industry, self righteous lefties etc) propaganda. The case I always site is Bob Marley. Not exactly your typical apathetic lazybones the whirl of energy around him created a legend and a commercial empire that still generates vast incomes. Yet he was smoking night and day. That is just one example of a highly ambitious, highly energetic individual who uses cannabis. What made/makes him unusual is that he was open about his use. Other dynamic users are very closed about their use because they know their careers can be ruined by these insane and vicious laws, or by nast6y, unfriendly neighbours, so I am somewhat bemused by your comments on the law and cannabis. Cannabis is a stimulant drug that aids creativity, thinking, and gives that extra energy needed when one is working long hours fulfilling deeply held ambitions, SqueakBox 15:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


Actually, I disagree. I believe it is well-known that cannabis, particularly in its use in adolescent/pre-adolescents causes a condition called amotivational syndrome. Cause of effect is debatable (ie. whether the amotivation causes them to seek drugs, or the drugs causing amotivation) is perhaps debatable but from my own ongoing experiences a few years back, I can tell you that after using it, for a good few days I felt rather uncharacteristically lazy. Since then, having not used it in a long while, I do not suffer from this.
I also had friends who were signficantly high achievers, who fall way-side, as it were, after using cannabis and just becoming lazy and unkempt. Fergy 20:34, 16 March 2006 (GMT)

The low achieving cannabis users tend to be the ones who get noticed as the high achievers won't let on they are smoking because they are high achieving and therefore with substantially more to lose. What does appeatr is that some users are affected by amotivational syndrome and some aren't. I would say amotivational syndrome is something you can grow out of and that commitment to hard work is an inner thing. Dpon't blame laziness on cannabis as that is an inner thing too. The unkempt appearance may be social, SqueakBox 23:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyone's right. Is pot addictive? Yes, according to the government, and the government is the highest authority on marijuana. But it's not addictive, according to science, which would make it scientifically incorrect. I propose that on matters like these we must maintain a completely neutral standpoint. Be as correct as possible. Instead of saying pot is addictive. Say something like, "in 1998 the government's anti-drug campaign stated that marijuana is addictive" or "in 1999 Ohio State did a test that concluded that although cannabis can be mentally addictive, it is not physically addictive". (Ngoah89 20:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

The government should not be considered more authoritative on scientific matters. Yes, we need to maintain a NPOV, but certainly should be leery of giving any sort of preference to suspect (i.e. government funded) studies. --Thoric 21:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, the government has no authority on scientific matters. But they have gotten "facts" from "valid sources" that say things like pot is addictive. The point is that there's conflicting evidence about the dangers of marijuana and in order to maintain a neutral point of view we can't state as a fact weather or not it is dangerous. (Ngoah89 22:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

MISLEADING ETYMOLOGY

I wanted to point out that the reference in the bible that Kaneh-bosem (Calamus) is cannabis is very wrong. First of all, this is a very different plant. Calamus is a spice, not a hemp. Second, the THC properties inherent in cannabis is not present in calamus. Hence, to even suggest that these plants are the same, the person who keeps making this claim ought to first take a closer look at reality and then verify the facts. Misleading information is destructive and unnecessary.

Actually it seems there are credible scholars claiming that kaneh-bosem is cannabis, and at least one who thinks it is cinnamon; it is not at all clear to me that it wasn't cannabis. The claim was I believe originally made on etymological grounds; i.e. that kaneh bosem is the root of the Greek and latin words for kannabis; that part of the claim checks out, according to scholars. I'm not a Bible scholar at all but there seem to be credible ones making this argument; can you point to something definitive about this that backs up your claim?--csloat 04:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This entire section is well-referenced and informative, deleting it in toto because you do not like it is not on. Doing so anonymously is especially not on. If you have sources to back up your exegetical conclusions, please share them. -SM 05:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
What is kassia? The link does not point to an herb.-csloat 06:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Kassia may be refering to cassia which is commonly sold (in ground form) as cinnamon, in the U.S. Grimm
Who are these credible scholars? I looked at the pictures of both plants - kaneh-bosem and cannabis - and they don't look alike. The bible was written by Hebrews and they obviously dont speak Greek and Latin! There is no credible evidence to show that the bible endorsed the use of cannabis. Thus the Etymology is incorrect - cannabis should not be confused with anything else.
You erased the names of scholars who were in there to put in your own unsourced etymology. If you are going to add your analysis that is great but please make it encyclopedic -- which means, it should be sourced (see WP:NOR) and it should not be told in the first person (stuff like "I should make clear here that I am not stating one way or another whether ..." is unacceptable). For now I am reverting this -- I think your contribution could be valuable but it should be entered in a way that is not destructive of what is already there and it should follow wikipedia guidelines rather than sound like a term paper you quoted.--csloat 19:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I think I am going to leave that for somebody else to pick up. I never really considered Wikipedia to be the official source of information. If people can easily enter false information like this, this place isnt worth my time.

Denial isn't just a river in Africa! This has been sourced from 3 independant scholars, not to mention, had parallel in practices in the region, in other religions... not one or two, *most* of the regional religions. FWIW, don't feel bad. Most Christians think Jesus never drank, or had sex, even though clues in the bible suggest that he did.

I read ... is closely related to peyote and somehow dont quite believe it. Peyote is a cactus. Laurel Bush 15:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

I don't know where that came from, they are very different and affect different receptors. --Thoric 18:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous IP was randomly inserting nonsense, including the peyote comment. It was as if testing for response. I reported it. -SM 20:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have requested semi-protection for this article

Please see my request, and comment here. I have also requested and received semi-protection for Cannabis (drug). -SM 17:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, be certain to use RVV in the comment when reverting vandalism, as the tool used by administrators to monitor it ignores most of the vandalism we see. -SM 04:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Please weigh in on the request, as it has met resistance. -SM 13:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

An anon comment

examining these substances, researchers have exposed an entirely new signaling system in the brain: a way that nerve cells communicate that no one anticipated even 15 years ago. Fully understanding this signaling system could have far-reaching implications. The details appear to hold a key to devising treatments for anxiety, pain, nausea, obesity, brain injury and many other medical problems. Ultimately such treatments could be tailored precisely so that they would not initiate the unwanted side effects produced by marijuana itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.184.232.171 (talk • contribs) .

Etymology Redux

This make reference to both Cannabis (drug)#Ancient history and Cannabis#Etymology, which are somewhat out of synch.

A few observations,

  • It seems unlikely then to have entered Greek directly by way of Hebrew, especially if putatively the septuagint mistraslated it as sweet calamus.
The Septuagint probably misunderstood the archaic Hebrew term for 'cannabis' qěnēh bośem because by the time the Septuagint was written the contemporary Hebrew term had become qannabôs.
Haldrik 19:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Haldrik
Actually, there are many loanwords that entered Greek directly from Hebrew. Linguistically, both Hebrew and Phoenician are dialects of Canaanite, so either source can be argued. However, certian words are certainly from Hebrew directly.
For examples, 'Sabbath' (Hebrew שַׁבָּת Shabbāth > Greek σαββαθον Sabbath-on).
Like the Greek plant name kannabis comes directly from Hebrew qannabbôs, there are other Greek plant names that come directly from Hebrew, like 'hyssop' (Hebrew אֵזוֹב ’ēzôbh > Greek υσσωπος hūssōp-os).
Also note some Greek names for certain gum resins that are of Semitic origin, possibly via Hebrew: 'myrrh' (Hebrew מֹר mor > Greek μυρρα mūrra), and 'bdellium' (Hebrew בְּדֹלַח bědolaħ > Greek βδελλιον bdell-ion).
Haldrik 21:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Haldrik
  • Another contributor pointed out (above) that the Hebrew root tends to denote things that are hollow (like reeds), however this objection could be satisfied by showing the migration of the word cannabis from Indic languages to Semetic (hence the cognate), also to Finno-ugric and others. Sara Benetowa claims the Scythian word may be of Semitic origin, but what if is the other way round?
  • Although there is expert opinion that the septuagint tranlation was in error (interestingly, sweet calamus has mescaline-like effects), there is by no means consensus on this. This should be acknowledged.
  • Haldrik describes Hebrew קְנֵה בֹּשֶׂם qěnēh bośem abbreviated into קַנַּבּוֹס qannabbôs, but how certain is this? I suspect that this may be a case inflection, rather than an abbreviation, as the verse in Exodus is describing 250 shekels of קְנֵה בֹּשֶׂם. Hebrew, however, is definitely not my language.
Hebrew qannabbôs and Greek kannabis are obviously related. The question is which borrowed from which. Unfortunately, the Hebrew has late attestation. Nevertheless, considerations favor the Hebrew as the original. Hebrew qannabbôs probably derives directly from the Hebrew qěnēh bośem. Therefore, Greek derives from it.
Hebrew קְנֵה בֹּשֶׂם qěnēh bośem > קַנַּבּוֹס qannabbôs > Greek κανναβις kannabis
Abbreviations in names happen all the time in Hebrew, like the formulaic plea for Sukkot, 'please save [us]' (hôsha‘ nā’) abbreviated into the name for the ritual willow twig used in Sukkot, the 'hoshana' (hôsha‘nā). It is likely the Hebrew construct name qěnēh bośem also abbreviated into a single noun name qannabbôs. In Late Biblical Hebrew the final -em weakened into a nasalized vowel (like French en), so the silent final m in bośem could fall off in the abbreviation -bôs. Finally the stess in the construct name is odd in Hebrew. Usually the stress of a noun is on the last syllable, whereas qěnĒh bOśem has two medial stresses. The shift to qannabbÔs when shortening explains why the vowels distorted to qanna-, the stress of -bôs- remained but defaulted to a stressed final syllable, and the previous unstressed final syllable -em was lost.
In sum, Hebrew qannabbôs probably comes directly from Hebrew qěnēh bośem. Therefore Greek kannabis derives from Hebrew qannabbôs.
Haldrik 21:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Haldrik

I have been thinking that this topic is worthy of a separate article. I'd like to engage a proper Hebraicist to look at it as well. Any Wikipedians out there with the chops?

-SM 07:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

New Pro-cannabis userbox

This user is pro-cannabis.

If you would like to have this on your userpage, just add {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/pro-cannabis}} to your userpage, and the box at right will appear on it. Also, if used in your user space, the page will be listed on Category:Pro-cannabis Wikipedians. If you would like to share it with someone else, type {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/pro-cannabis|stamp|right}}

Also, consider weighing in on the Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll.

Stand up and be counted while you still can,

StrangerInParadise 20:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Any body knows if THC is meant as a pesticide by the plant?

Any body knows if THC is used as a pesticide by the plants? Or if it is for some other use.

I read so long time ago, but can't trace back the source. The main use of cannabiloids is to protect the plant against the sun's light (ultraviolet).

Caffeine for example is:

In plants, caffeine acts as a natural pesticide that paralyzes and kills many insects feeding upon them. (from Caffeine)

I find this information very interesting. It makes sense that something that can imitate neuro chemical in humans could be used against insects. Spiders seem to be very much affected by caffeine (also from caffeine). I've tried to find this info for long.

Neat question! I have no idea--but I do know that the level of THC (which is not the only cannabanoid in cannabis, just the most popular with recreational users) is much higher in "bred" plants than it is naturally because of selective breeding. Justin Eiler 01:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


well i know that the trichomes on the buds (the crystals) which contain the thc are used to collect pollen from the male plants, hence why the buds are sticky. but i don't know if the actual THC chemical is used as a pesticide by the plant, good question! Chq 15:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Not one anti-canabis website?

This page is so POV, its disgusting. Can we get at least one, or idealy an equal amount of anti-canabis websites? IamFingolfin 15:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

We used to have some, someonehas obviously removed them. I don't nbelieve there are an equal number of pro and anti sites on the web so we don't need an equal number but do need some, SqueakBox 15:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway the marijuana anon is a classic anti-cannabis site that I have now added. You could try the history, go back 9 months or so and there were a fair few anti sites. We used to divide them into pro and anti sites but that was very contentious so we got rid of that but the unfortunate consequence is that all the anti sites have been removed, SqueakBox 15:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through every link and chopped out the ones that were crap or commercial. The marijuana anon link is still in the list. See how it looks now. --GraemeL (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Part of the reason for lack of anti-canabis websites is that this page is not about the drug, where most anti-canabis websites will focus. This discussion is probably better over at Cannabis (drug).
That said, I'm not sure the Production, Cannabis trade and Distribution sections should not realy be here at all as the talk about the drug. Likewise of the links only the sticky bud one is really just about the plant. --Salix alba (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Native to ?

Where is cannabis originally native to? Funkyj 17:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Cannabis "is believed to have originated in the mountainous regions just north-west of the Himalayas in India, though it could also have come from Northern Africa."--Cannabis 00:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Cannabis Species and Sex

To clarify a few things about my changes which included references.

(1)SPECIES: "All strains of Cannabis can interbreed which means all known Cannabis plants satisfy the criteria for a single species type called (Cannabis sativa L.)." This means exactly what it says. All known Cannabis plants can interbreed. Speciation must be shown by proving that two different strains can not breed or if they do they produce infertile offspring. At this point in time all Cannabis plants can be breed together to produce fertile offspring. It is an important starting point with the species topic so I have included it at the start of the species topic in the article.

(2)SEX: To say that Cannabis is only dioecious is not correct. There are monoecious populations and the hermaphrodite condition is present with some plants and strains and thus, populations. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 18:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)]

would a link to this cannabis strain guide be acceptable? www.cannabishq.com/strains.html it has no ads, or popups. the strain bible link has forums but they are in spanish. cannabishq has a strain guide as well as forums but the forums are in english, so it would be a good additional link.

There is a list of cannabis strains at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_strains. I am going to update the cannabis article to link with this. You can probably ask there instead. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 18:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_cannabis_strains i already posted it... Chq 15:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

i posted a link to cannabis headquarters because the strain guide on the site is extremely helpful to many people searching for cannabis information on the web. if the link is not ok i'll remove it but the site is non-profit and there is a link to CannabisFAQ which has basically no information and a very small community.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cannabis/Archive_3&oldid=97209166"