Jump to content

Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

CCHR Florida

http://www.cchrflorida.org/pcp-laced-marijuana-creating-psychosis-and-psychiatric-commitment/

This source seems to contain a lot of hearsay and propaganda, the sources it cites itself do not meet wikipedia standards (a dead yahoo link, Drugs-forum thread, similar poor articles. They also do not provide inline citations for each claim, instead the reference list seems to exist only to add legitimacy to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.48.119 (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, despite much discussion on anti-drug sites I am not aware of any data relating to the frequency of Cannabis lacing with PCP, where is the evidence it occurs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.48.119 (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2016


200.163.235.140 (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC) http://legalizacaodamaconha.com/2013/11/04/maconha-a-polemica-legalizacao-do-uruguai-e-as-startups-que-investem-no-ramo/

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cannabis (drug). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2016

Under Pharmacology, the second to last paragraph requires citation. "Via CB1 activation, THC indirectly increases dopamine release and produces psychotropic effects.[citation needed]"

This information can be verified in the following article. http://perspectivesinmedicine.cshlp.org/content/2/8/a012229.full

You can change to "Via CB1 activation, THC indirectly increases dopamine release and produces psychotropic effects.[1]"

Craig Sandez (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://perspectivesinmedicine.cshlp.org/content/2/8/a012229.full
Done -- Dane2007 talk 23:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Adverse effects / DEA credibility lawsuit

New medical marijuana research could greenlight more uses in treatment (theGuardian 10 December 2016; Olga Oksman)

Studies like Meier’s, showing the safety of long term recreational cannabis use, chip away at that stigma. Her longitudinal study, published in June in JAMA Psychiatry, ... The study found that participants had no long term physical health risks from the drug except for a higher likelihood of periodontal disease.

It is worth mentioning that a lawsuit was filed regarding removal of the medical info that the DEA published. The DEA's public statements of the negative heath effects of cannabis failed verification and they are being sued to remove it.

The DEA refuted its own misconceptions about pot, group says (SFGate Bob Egelko; December 9, 2016.) Johnvr4 (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

We do not use the popular press for adverse effects generally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2017

Remove this:

In the elections of October 2014, there is a significant chance that lawmakers opposed to legal cannabis will come to control the legislature, and the law will be repealed before it has fully taken effect.[205][206][207] 2601:188:C302:F8BA:48A3:54BD:EC26:49F6 (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Sizeofint (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

suggested cancer section edit

the cancer section should be edited to distinguish: -smoked cannabis: which contains toxic combustion products -industrial hemp oil: no THC, various levels of cancer curing CBD -medical grade hemp oil: contains medically significant amounts of anti-cancer chemicals such as CBD and THC

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/279571.php http://naturalsociety.com/marijuana-kills-cancer-cells-admits-the-u-s-national-cancer-institute/ https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/cannabis-pdq/#link/_13 https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana-medicine http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/23/20-medical-studies-that-prove-cannabis-can-cure-cancer/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DttdDOqQMuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8C6CK3LEXw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.48.133 (talk) 06:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

"Because primary biomedical literature is exploratory and often not reliable, and any given primary source may be contradicted by another. The Wikipedia community relies on guidance of expert reviews, and statements by major medical and scientific bodies. Text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal WP:WEIGHT, only be used to describe conclusions made by the source, and must describe these findings clearly so that checking can be made by editors without specialist knowledge. Primary sources should never be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors" (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)).
If you look through your sources although they very well may have these properties they are not proven to be effective in human trials. Authors are careful with their claims and use words like: could or may. There also are cell culture studies - those studies in vitro may not exist in vivo, let alone in humans. A rat is not a human. Most of your sources urge for further research and rescheduling of marijuana from class 1 under the Controlled Substances Act. Hombre de Vitruvio (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 26 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Cannabis (drug) → Cannabis as a drug – Semantically the same as the current title, but better meets WP:NATURAL. The "x as y" title format also appears in various other articles on specific usages plants and animals such as "Fish as food" and "Egg as food" and also miscellaneous concepts such as "Software as a service" Prisencolin (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I actually dont think this is a bad idea - I would endorse it or at least a redirect from the new title...but most will point to other drug articles as examples not to change like Bath salts (drug), Ecstasy (drug) and MMDA (drug)--Moxy (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
there are many many of the natural substance/drug articles: Dopamine / Dopamine (medication) ; Insulin / Insulin (medication) ; Norepinephrine / Norepinephrine (medication) ; Oxytocin / Oxytocin (medication) ; Testosterone / Testosterone (medication) ; etc etc. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Looking closely at the two pages, Cannabis is about the plant genus, whereas Cannabis (drug) is about the drug that is made from the plant. So this really isn't the same thing as, for example, Dopamine and Dopamine (medication), which are both about the same molecule. The more exact analogy to dopamine et al. would be Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabis (drug) (yeah, I know there are other active compounds in cannabis). However, Cannabis (drug) really is about just what the title says: all aspects of the drug, including but not limited to its use. The proposed target, "Cannabis as a drug", is not really an accurate description of the page content, because the title implies that the page is narrowly focused on the way that it is used, and furthermore, that there might be other uses (yeah, I know about hemp). That's not the same as Fish as food, which focuses on one specific type of use of fish, and there are other uses of fish. So the proposed change would make for a less accurate title, and that's why I oppose it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above comments. A more accurate descriptor might be as labeled on the template: "Cannabis (recreational and medical applications)". Randy Kryn 13:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: In terms of WP:NATURAL, "Marijuana" seems the more likely search term, rather than "Cannabis (drug)" or "Cannabis as a drug". I don't have a particular preference between the suggested name or the current title, so I'll go with oppose for stability reasons. Praemonitus (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cannabis Is Medicine

Today in the United States Cannabis is classified as a Schedule 1 drug, which is defined as a drug that is highly addictive and has no medical purpose. Studies show that in some cases a consumer of Marijuana may experience heart palpitations or anxiety and disorientation. Marijuana induced heart palpitations increase risk of heart attack by 5 times for 1 hour vs. cocaine which increases that risk by 25 times (HERB). Evidence may also show that marijuana can be beneficial to one’s health by aiding in pain management, the regulation of neuron connections through cannabinoid receptors, and psychological healing. A study at the University of Madrid in Spain was able to show that cannabidiol will seemingly reverse and reduce cancer cells (National Geographic), and another study suggests that thc removes heavy metals that can lead to alzheimer’s disease (Ester and Isidro).

Aso, Ester and Ferrer, Isidro of Front Neurosci. “CB2 Cannabinoid Receptor As potential Target against Alzheimer’s Disease” .https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4885828/ Web Published May 31, 2016. Web 2017.

“Medical Cannabis 101”. http://herb.co/2016/06/05/medical-cannabis-101/. Web pub 2016. Web 2017.


“Science Seeks to Unlock Marijuana Secrets”. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2015/06/marijuana-science-drug-research-legality/. April 2015. Web 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.23.9 (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


One of the oldest uses in medicine for Cannabis is in treatment of glaucoma, due to the plant's effect of reducing interocular pressure. In addition, can anyone really deny the now-mass-proven effects upon those under chemotherapy that cannabis reduces nausea, improves the appetite, and is an important tool in cancer patients' need to be able to desire to eat? Many states have medical cannabis laws that highlight both of these, as well as other med. uses. It would seem that highlighting quotes from the US Government's anti-cannabis publications do a severe disservice to the atual non-criminal medical truth.Rtelkin (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You need to read WP:MEDRS, and use sources that comply with it, in order to describe medical uses for anything in wikipedia. For this article, on a subject likely to be controversial, you need to use really good sources, or changes that you wish to make will probably not be acceptable. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, in this case the above discussion contains no solid proposal for changes. The article already contains sourced information for medicinal uses: "Medical marijuana refers to the use of the Cannabis plant as a physician-recommended herbal therapy as well as synthetic THC and cannabinoids. So far, the medical use of cannabis is legal only in a limited number of territories, including Canada, Belgium, Australia, the Netherlands, Spain, and several U.S. states. This usage generally requires a prescription, and distribution is usually done within a framework defined by local laws. There is evidence supporting the use of cannabis or its derivatives in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, neuropathic pain, and multiple sclerosis. Lower levels of evidence support its use for AIDS wasting syndrome, epilepsy, rheumatoid arthritis, and glaucoma."

We have a more a more detailed article on medical cannabis, which lists both potential benefits and potential problems from using it. For example, a 2010 study found it to be effective for treating chemotherapy-induced nausea in children, but noted a rather large number of potential side effects: "drowsiness, dizziness, altered moods, and increased appetite", and less commonly "occular problems, orthostatic hypotension, muscle twitching, pruritis, vagueness, hallucinations, lightheadedness and dry mouth". Dimadick (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

New NAS report

Press release Seems like an excellent source for medical uses/effects in this article (and other related pages). Everymorning (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2017

Please remove either all or most of the section Adulterated cannabis. The reference to PCP in marijuana did not likely come from the source listed. One statement, "a recent survey" was from 11 years ago. The paragraph starting with "Drug dealers may "spike" reference is the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, a religious organization. Thank you Buranto-desu (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. bit out of scope for a simple edit request. presumably other editors watching this talk page will see your comment and you can discuss it further Cannolis (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree section needs some real work...will ask a few others to look at this.--Moxy (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Remove: CCHR is a Scientology-backed organization, so ideological rather than an academic authority. Unless someone has a better academic reference documenting that PCP-laden cannabis is anything other than extremely uncommon. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Removed the scientology source and replaced by better sources. --rtc (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cannabis (drug). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2017

Memelord000 (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
No edit request made. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The opening of this article is three years out of date.

the opening (3 paragraphs) of this article are in need of MAJOR revision. I will attempt an update of info in near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josefaber (talk • contribs) 06:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Josefaber: What exactly do you think needs to be updated? SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 02:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Seeking Editor to help explain 8:40

I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm asking around to find a good writer to help me explain in to document the term 8:40 the doubling up of 420 for mature cannabis consumption at the end of the day and to be separate from the smirking and juvenile Behavior and stigma of being a pothead could someone please help me write a good 8:40 definition Eandi840 (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if 8:40 is notable yet? I haven't seen it used that often but I do like it because it's (4:20 + 4:20) which gives you 8:40 am or pm. It's easy relatable in 420 culture. And is just another reason to smoke. :D --Mickey ☠ Dangerez

7:10 is another term in 420 subculture

7:10 stems from the 420 culture when cannabis extracts(oils) became popular. If you turn 7:10 upside down it spells oil. This has been used to some extent. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 21:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Not a drug

Marijuana isn't no drug.It's a plant,It come's from the ground you have to plant seeds for it to grow,fertilize it,water it, no other drug comes from the ground most drugs are mostly made by man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memelord000 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

no other drug comes from the ground... Tobacco, opium, kratom, ayuhuasca, ibogaine, Salvia divinorum, kava, coffee, psilocybin mushrooms. As long as reliable sources call it a drug we will also call it a drug. Sizeofint (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with Memelord000 on this one. A better, non-POV name for this article would be Cannabis (herbal supplement). An encyclopedia is neutral, unlike even the most reputable sources. You should be ashamed, Sizeofint, your list is compelling support for changing the name, contrary to your assertion. There are no such things as Coffee (drug), Kava (drug), Opium (drug) or Tobacco (drug). -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Cannabis in medical literature and in law is defined as a drug, so I don't see a compelling reason to change the name of the article. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 02:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Hammer of Thor, the difference is we already have a Cannabis article. Content focusing on the use of cannabis as a drug was split off so the article wouldn't be too long. If the Opium article becomes too long I would wager we will have an Opium (drug) article. In any case, this has been discussed before (e.g. Talk:Cannabis_(drug)/Archive_11#.22Drug.22_--_seriously.3F). My thinking is still that we need to restructure the cannabis articles.
Regarding neutrality, WP:NPOV means we give WP:DUEWEIGHT to the significant viewpoints. We would need multiple reliable sources calling cannabis an herbal supplement to consider a move. Sizeofint (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Plant and drug are not mutually exclusive terms. Opium, coca, tobacco, coffee and a whole range of other drugs come from the ground. I strongly oppose changing the name to Cannabis (herbal supplement). Sizeofint makes a good point too. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 06:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
As this subject has been discussed before, so the consensus of sources is that the topic is open to debate. The compelling reason to move the article to Cannabis (herbal supplement) is to give due weight to the differing viewpoints, you are right about the reasoning. You are wrong about creating an article Opium (drug) when the article for Opium grows, because the articles Morphine, Codeine, etc., already exist. Cannabis is an herbal supplement, by definition. Not a drug. And pages already exist for THC, CBD, etc. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@The Hammer of Thor: A drug by definition is: "any substance which has a physiological and/or psychological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body." So, you're wrong yet again, cannabis is indeed a drug and is not only legally, but medically defined as such. As mentioned by a previous editor, cannabis as a plant already has it's own article. So, try again. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 19:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • No doubt its a herb.....but its a herb that has a worldwide classification as a drug despite its nature. Ernest Small (2016). Cannabis: A Complete Guide. CRC Press. p. 557. ISBN 978-1-315-35059-2.. What we should have is a Cannabis herb "Marijuana" article as per Cannabis (drug)#Marijuana and many sources like United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2005). World Drug Report 2005. United Nations Publications. pp. 2049–. ISBN 978-92-1-148200-3..... moving related info...leaving this as the parent "drug article". --Moxy (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps there is a solution that will satisfy all of us. You citing the definition of "drug" is no more persuasive than me quoting the dictionary definition of "herbal supplement." As editors, in order to be non-POV and respect all viewpoints, we could go in circles forever (and that has already been done, over and over, in previous discussions) weighing the sources which argue that cannabis is a drug and not an herbal supplement against the sources which argue the opposite. That is the situation currently. I am not the only one who is opposed to the word drug here, primarily because coffee and tobacco are not identified that way. I propose that we follow the format of opium, which is a plant preparation and something different from the drugs like morphine isolated from the plant, and the plant itself, Opium Poppy, which has ornamental and other uses in addition to the medical applications. I suggest that we change the name of this article to Cannabis, and move the article currently called Cannabis to Cannabis (plant) (which happens to already redirect to that article). -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I think a better idea is to make Cannabis (the plant genus) the top level article and then have {{main}} links to Recreational use of cannabis, Medical use of cannabis, Spiritual use of cannabis, Industrial cannabis, History of cannabis etc. This article can become the recreational use article. Sizeofint (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That opens a whole new can of worms, because Recreational use of cannabis should be moved to Personal use of cannabis, and would be inappropriate to move this article, which includes both personal use of cannabis and medical use of cannabis. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
We can move all the medical content to medical cannabis. I don't think personal use of cannabis is mainstream terminology. Sizeofint (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the article Recreational drug use is fine. I also think Cannabis consumption is correct language, and appropriate for "Recreational use of cannabis" to redirect, as it currently does. I admire your desire to organize and group the articles logically. We share similar goals, in that regard. But I think cannabis is a subject so broad that several top level articles are needed, in each of the different areas of study (including politics, geography, health, justice, botany, etc.), and Cannabis (plant) is a perfectly good place for the top-level botany article, so we agree about that. This discussion is about the name of this article, Cannabis (drug), which is controversial, and to some, offensive. Moving the article to Cannabis would resolve that. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it should be moved, it is medically classified as a drug and sometimes medical facts do indeed offend people, but people need to get over it. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 02:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
My thinking is the top level cannabis article should be an overview of most topics pertaining to cannabis. This requires the top level article to cover the biology of cannabis. The article here does not contain much biology and by my reasoning is therefore a poor top level article. Changing this article to cover biology would make it similar to what we already have at Cannabis. Sizeofint (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Sizeofint, we both agree that Cannabis (plant) should remain the top-level article. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Aren't you proposing moving Cannabis to Cannabis (plant) and then moving Cannabis (drug) to Cannabis? This is what I am saying I don't think should be done. By 'top-level' article I mean the unparenthesized Cannabis article. Sizeofint (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes. What is your objection? -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I have many objections, but I will just stick with one for now which is that this article shouldn't be moved until consensus is reached after a proper requested move discussion. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 18:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

What is your objection? See the paragraph beginning "My thinking is...". I concur with SparklingPessimist about having a proper move discussion if you wish to pursue this. The naming of Cannabis related articles is frequently controversial. Sizeofint (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is not about the recreational use of cnnabis or about cannabis as a so-called ehrbal supplement, it is about cannabis as a drug and therefore there is no need to change the title. I would strongly object to making the drug article the top-level article which should clearly remain with the plant. I see no need for any action. Also, we would need serious discussion and clear consensus before any such move were to take place invoking the requested move procedures and ensure a wide debate. IMO, a complete waste of time but would have to be done. You could create a new article on cannabis as a herbal supplement but other thn POV pushing what would it say? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Think this is a question involving semantics. The top level would make more sense if it simply referred to the botanical. Then a Disambiguation page may help to subdivide all its botanical derivatives. I.E. Cannabis fiber (for canvass, rope making and in Europe paper making) , Cannabis oil (for culinary use), Cannabis oil as a refined enrichment of cannabinoids. Dried leaves and buds. Licensed pharmaceutical preparations and analogies. Cannabis as a antiseptic (does any one remember when band-aid plasters had a light brown colored gauss – that colour was due to cannabis tincture), Etc. Somewhere in all of this we can divide the botanical raw material (plant) from the derived psychotropic aspects. Aspro (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Final clarity: The definition of a drug is any substance that when ingested alters or influences the body's physiology. Thus even Oxygen can be seen as a drug. Other common drugs include Sugar & even innocent nutmeg is a psycho-active drug. The misconception about cannabis not being a drug stems from the common belief that drugs are manufactured in a lab and that drugs in their natural form is not drugs but a herb. However all herbs are drugs. Also the misconception comes from the war on drugs that phrased illegal drugs as narcotics. Thus leading to this confusing state of what is and what isn't considered drugs. Commonly when the word drug is used it is referred to illegal drugs. I hope this explanation enlightens OP --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 21:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I do however agree with The Hammer of Thor that the label (drug) doesn't really seem fair. Considering Coffee is also a recreational drug but no disambiguation label to identify it as a drug? Is there any other examples where this label is used to identify cultural use? Regards --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 21:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Highya SparklingPessimist please see my response above, I would like to know if other examples exist where cultural use of a drug is also label with (drug) for disambiguation for cultural use or use as medicinal drug in the strictest terms? While typing found some example such as Speedball (drug) and Purge (drug). Purge redirect to castor oil I don't understand why? Haven't purged before. So not sure how Castor oil is used as a drug. This comes back to speedball. This leads me to believe that the label (drug) is foremost used to distinguish an illegal drug. Found more, Nitroglycerin (drug), Horse (drug) and Camphor (drug). Ok So the use of this label is not 100% clear and concise. But is either use to indicate an article about the cultural use and illegal nature or it's medical use as seen with Nitroglycerin & Camphor. Thus it is conflicting because the article covers a wide range of topics including the cultural use and since it is not exclusively a narcotic anymore the label does not have context in which it may previously have been used. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 21:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Created recently, but Alcohol (drug). There hasn't been a need to fork off content about the psychoactive effects and use of coffee in the same way done here. I don't find the comparison is quite compelling. Sizeofint (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Alcohol is unquestionably an illegal dru inn some parts of the world, I dont believe the same can be d said fro coffee, and even where alcohol is legal like tobacco it faces restrictions, the classic alcohol restrictions are age-based and beig unable to drive with more than a certain amount in the bloodstream. Tobacco also faces restrictions as to age and who can sell it. Cannabis even where it is legal faces similar restrictions to alcohol. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The title of this article is contentious. I am not the person who opened the debate more than ten years ago. Nor am I the one who started this latest installment in the discussion. SparklingPessimist directly states that editors who object that the current title violates POV "need to get over it". Now, despite intention, Sizeofint's argument also illustrates why this article should be moved in order to give due weight to both sides: alcohol is a drug; It is a single chemical compound; It is neither a plant preparation nor an herbal supplement, as cannabis is. I agree with the editor who, a decade ago, suggested cannabis used as a drug is at least a better title. Now I have made the suggestion to move this article to Cannabis because that is the most common use, so it solves the confusing-titles issue and resolves the POV issue at the same time. Whether the botanical article should be moved to Cannabis (plant) or Cannabis plant is something for discussion on that article's talk page, more so than here. I am still waiting to hear an objection to moving this article other than POV: "Facts are facts. Get over it." I do not think this article should remain controversially titled. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
The title is currently confusing because this article is the most common use of the words cannabis or marijuana: This is the page that should be named such. The number of articles that incorrectly link to the cannabis plant article but were meant to link here is astronomical. When people are looking for an article about the Cannabis plant, that is what they search. Cannabis plant is the most commonly used term for the plant: That page should be named as such. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
At this point your choices are a) WP:DROPTHESTICK or b) open yet another time-wasting formal move request (see WP:RM#CM for instructions). If you continue to bludgeon this talk page you are walking yourself into a topic ban. Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Not sure toward whom that is directed. Silly me. An interesting discussion is all I see. Someone must have touched a nerve. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@The Hammer of Thor: Jytdog (talk · contribs) was talking about you since you insist on dragging out this discussiin SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 04:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I fully agree with Jytdog and would support a topic ban for Hammer of Thor right now after today's comment as a culmination of banging on and on and wasting everyone's time with his ideological opinion that cannabis is not a drug. Take your views elsewhere, wikipedia is not the place. His raw nerve comment is also a personal attack on the person who dared to point out his or her inappropriate behaviour and suggest a solution. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
It is inappropriate to threaten editors on Wikipedia. In the role of mediator, I offered a solution to the problem that had not been suggested before. Now after some discussion, I am unsure whether swapping this article's title with the title of the article for the plant genus Cannabis is the best way to fix the non-neutral POV issue. I think all the articles, Cannabis, Cannabis (drug), Hemp, and Medical cannabis, are excellent and very well-written by themselves. But the problem is the title for this article. Now I am starting to think that the best solution might be to merge Cannabis (drug) into Medical cannabis since both articles are about the same subject, from a neutral worldview. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Let us know when you have clear consensus to move the article until then I think it is past time to drop the subject. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 20:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Past discussions

Decriminalization/Legalization

The article states that cannabis is decriminalized or legalized in Canada, neither of which is true. Legalization is coming next year however it is still by law, illegal except if prescribed by a doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.30.174.225 (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposing full re-write of History section, and a new History of cannabis

The current history section is too weak on some major points, and spends far too much time on really minor/niche points like individual archaeological findings.

My proposal, we start a new History of cannabis (that page is currently taken up by a different article that I'm having moved), and after we finish it we can move my draft there, and then extract from that main page to put a shorter and drug-focused version here (this is a drug page so doesn't need all the fabric/hemp content).

Here is my draft: Draft:History of cannabis. Below I also suggest an outline for what we should cover; feel free to edit my draft itself, or just the below outline, and we can start moving forward on improving a weak section of a heavily-viewed page. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed outline

  • Possible origins in Central Asia
  • Ancient Chinese and Korean uses as textile
  • Use in Ancient India, possibility of origin of soma, etc.
  • Use by the Scythians as noted by Herodotus
  • Spread with the Islamic conquests
  • Arrival and spread in Africa
  • Columbian Exchange and cultivation in North/South America
  • Europeans encounter cannabis in Africa and Asia during Colonial period (Napoleon in Egypt, British in India and South Africa)
  • Cannabis starts to gain niche popularity in Europe and US (William Brooke O'Shaughnessy, Jacques-Joseph Moreau
  • 1800s: countries begin to limit use of psychoactive cannabis: Mauritius, Singapore, Ottoman Empire, South Africa, East Africa, Colombia, Brazil
  • Anglo countries begin to be alarmed about cannabis
  • Opium Convention brings more countries into alignment re limiting cannabis
  • US 1937 Marihuana Act
  • WWII and hemp rope
  • 1960s and increasing mainstreaming of cannabis use in West
  • 1970s and further pushback through international orgs, US pressure on India/Afghanistan/Bangladesh etc to restrict cannabis
  • Early decrim in the Netherlands
  • 1990s and early interest in medical cannabis
  • 2000s and wave of decrim and medical in Europe and US
  • 2010s and wave of partial legalization in US, legalization in Uruguay (and soon Canada), wide number of countries reconsidering cannabis policy

citation needed "decreased mental ability in those who started as teenagers"

I see someone has referred to a NHI (?) or similar study which suggested lower IQ for adults that had used heavily in teenage years when I searched that phrase - at least that study should be linked on the text. This is quite a bold claim, and certainly one I disagree with based on personal experience (a lot of it). A citation is mandatory or the text should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.159.169.87 (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 19 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. - Personally I would've reverted this telling the requestee to see prev discussions but anyway consensus is to move as per prev discussions. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 17:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Cannabis (drug) → Marijuana – The drug is undoubtedly better known as marijuana. 2600:387:A:9:0:0:0:90 (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

No, the drug is undoubtedly better known as weed. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hang on, it's undoubtedly better known as pot. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hold that, it is actually known best as green. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, it should be grass, actually. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey, Man, who cares !! -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Finally, see Marijuana. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cannabis (drug). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Marijuanalier

A Marijuanalier is defined as a steward of marijuana. Marijuanalier's professionally specialize in the assessment of cannabinoids. Marijuanalier's are sophisticated experts in the pairing and consumption of cannabis strains and products. A Marijuanalier is an equal equivalent to a wine sommelier. (SWMM) Scott W. Martin (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I would really be interested in sources for this. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 09:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I can't find even one, Google doesn't much like the word. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I can't say I'm surprised. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 13:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Misleading or inaccurate data

Under the History section, in the 7th paragraph, the article suggests that cannabis products have only been legally available in The Netherlands since 1976 and then only in coffee shops. In my own experience and undoubtedly that of others, they were legally available since at least 1970 in the large cities of Amsterdam and Rotterdam, and not only in coffee shops but also bars. Although that probably is disqualified because it counts as original research, it does not take away from the fact that the original statement in the article is inaccurate.
Under the section 9.1 Legal Status,in the second paragraph, the article talks about the Netherlands and then mentions Copenhagen. That suggests that Copenhagen is in the Netherlands when of course it is in Denmark. I think that needs a little edit to make it right.
Because I cannot edit the article I hope an authorized editor will make the changes to correct the misleading and inaccurate entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:ea01:1090:b10e:584e:bb3e:2af7 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2018

change This makes it the most commonly used illegal drug both in the world and the United States.

to This makes it the most commonly used illegal drug in the world.

Since when has the United States been separate from the world? 82.30.110.20 (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Islam is the largest religion in the world. Is it the largest religion in the United States? They are two different bits of info, and both do need to be stated to fully communicate the idea. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe an instance when the sentence would benefit by being made clearer that it is "two different bits of info" only because each has a separately cited source.82.30.110.20 (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Doesn't sound right, why not mention China, the US is no more relevant than any other country. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

change This makes it the most commonly used illegal drug both in the world and the United States.

to This makes it the most commonly used illicit drug in the U.S., Britain, Russia and Australia and the world as a whole.

[1]

  1. ^ "GDS: the world's biggest drug survey". globaldrugsurvey.com.

Rewrite of sentence for clarification and optional citation for global reference also for clarification 82.30.110.20 (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The US is the largest EN speaking country. China would hopefully be mentioned on Chinese WP in the lead (along with Taiwan and Hong Kong).
An online survey is not a reliable source. Would be reasonable to mention the UK aswell with a decent source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
"China would hopefully be mentioned on Chinese WP" is a flawed argument as we are an encyclopedia about the world, not about the English speaking world. India might be a better examplethan China. Or Jamaica. And plenty of other countries. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The article about HIV/AIDS on Persian WP gives more emphasis to HIV/AIDS in Iran, and IMO it definitely should do that.
I often try to mention both global stats and stats from major EN speaking countries in the leads of our articles.
Often stats are avaliable / easier to find for the US but less so for other countries.
Also happy to mention India and the UK in the lead BTW. I generally leave out smaller EN speaking countries including my own, Canada. But agree it is simple an editorial call. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

An entire section seems planted.

"Marijuana or marihuana (herbal cannabis),[140] consists of the dried flowers and subtending leaves and stems of the female Cannabis plant.[141][142][143][144] This is the most widely consumed form,[144] containing 3% to 20% THC,[145] with reports of up-to 33% THC.[146] This is the stock material from which all other preparations are derived. Although herbal cannabis and industrial hemp derive from the same species and contain the psychoactive component (THC), they are distinct strains with unique biochemical compositions and uses. Hemp has lower concentrations of THC and higher concentrations of CBD, which decreases the psychoactive effects[147][148]" This last entry 147 is missing and 148 contradicts the assertion of hemp being different from cannabis. The entire section seems incorrect and designed to confuse hemp/cannabis as separate when they are not. This entire page seems mostly false, actually. MoreCorrector (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You didn't even bother to read the source. Page 3 in source 148 states "In contrast to psychoactive cannabis plants, which contain 2% THC or more, industrial hemp often contains as little as 0.15%." It took me a whole of 20 seconds to find that.Petergstrom (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Citation for Cancer Section

Proposed citation for the section "Cancer", for the last sentence that requires a citation.

Combustion products are not present when using a vaporizer, consuming THC in pill form, or consuming cannabis foods.

https://www.budlab.ca/consuming-cannabis-without-smoking/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BFCanada (talk • contribs) 23:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Dating Atharva-veda

The figure given in this article is nonsense and taken from a source that itself deals with medical aspects of the plant, hence relies on (whatever) secondary sources for aspects of cultural history. In one encyclopaedia one article must not contradict another!

Also the wording "was written..." is inaccurate, as vedic texts were orally transmitted for very long periods of time, hence "date of composition (of some parts)" and "date of compilation" (i.e. of the WHOLE text in its form presently known) and "date of writing of preserved texts" will differ VERY much! --147.142.186.54 (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

JAMA. Meta-analysis: Cannabis Exposure Not Associated With Residual Adverse Impact On Cognitive Performance

Source: JAMA Psychiatry.

--Timeshifter (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


- I also love how obviously negatively slanted this page is. 

 "There are concerns that cannabis might cause heart disease. There is no evidence for this, but...there are concerns!"

 "Marijuana may make you stupid. There is no evidence for this, however." 

 This is an area of public policy where accurate writing is critical. All evidence points to Cannabis being neuroprotective and having zero proven adverse cognitive effects.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:C480:2844:399A:85ED:F49F:3FB (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2018

in the ‘history’ section it states: "Following Canada's 2015 election of Justin Trudeau and formation of a Liberal government, in 2017 the House of Commons passed a bill to legalize cannabis on 1 July 2018.[190].”

Lower down, in the ‘legal status section’ it says “In December 2015, it was reported that the Canadian government had committed to legalizing cannabis, but at that time no timeline for the legalization was set out.[208]”

the latter statement is now incomplete and potentially misleading, suggesting as it does that nothing has changed since December 2015, while the earlier statement suggests otherwise: that (and proposed addition to the later statement in the 'legal status' section, "since December 2015, a timeline has been set and marijuana legalisation is set to come into effect on 1 July 2018.” Persaudk (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: You're request is slightly confusing with your wording, I wasn't really grasping what you wanted the change to be, but I'm just declining this as an official date has been announced for the legalization so I'm just going to rewrite the sections.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2018

Change "addiction" to "dependence". There is a distinction between the two; cannabis falls into the latter. Jthill4 (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The word "addiction" is terminological quagmire, so it is generally best to use the same wording as the sources, which is the case in the two occurences of the word addiction in the article(i.e. excluding the 16 uses in source titles). Even if we were to deviate from the sources by applying strict definitions with regard to what the sources appear to be describing, which would likely extend to WP:OR, cannabis has been associated with compulsive use and is therefore addictive - so you happen to be wrong, but thats ok.Petergstrom (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 Not done ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 07:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"cannabis is used to increase appetite"

The intro says that cannabis is used to increase appetite.

Certainly, cannabis does increase appetite. But this is a side-effect, it is not used for this purpose, and the sources do not support this assertion.

I've removed that part of the sentence, but it's twice been reverted without explanation.

Please discuss if you want to revert again.

Cannabis clearly is used as an appetite stimulant, for people with HIV and cancer. Cannabis is not solely a recreational drug. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, those sources don't support your assertion that cannabis is "clearly" used for this purpose. They are both scientific studies of a select group of people, and not representative of use in the general population.
Yes they do, see WP:RS. What do you mean by the general population? Scientific studies are exactly what we want and people with HIV or cancer are part of the general population. This is not an article about the recreational use. You are STILL arguing nonsense, ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Please note that the second link above (www. medscape .com/ viewarticle/738014) took me to a warning page. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Curious, it didn't with me. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
This is basic stuff......is someone is not aware of basic usage they should not edit the article .--Moxy (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Moxy, Wikipedia is an inclusive platform that encourages people to edit whatever articles they want.
All Medscape pages are blocked. I suspect that this is to do with EU shite copyright misrules, and lazy Merkian webwallahs or something. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Mmm, I'm in the EU. I didn't add either as I agree with you this is very basic stuff. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
The latest edit by Bullrangifer looks good for me, as it removes the phrase "is used for" and simply states the effects of marijuana. I'm happy with it and am willing to move on.Newzild (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

"Cannabis" vs. "marijuana"

I do not want to submit a move request for this yet, I simply want to start a discussion on re-evaluating the use of the word "cannabis" in favor of "marijuana" when discussing the Cannabis plant prepared as a drug.

I have viewed previous move requests, and although a majority of editors have opposed the move, I have not seen sufficient reasoning for their opposition. "Marijuana" is in fact the more common name for the drug. Compare 5.3 million to 1.7 million search results for "marijuana" and "cannabis", respectively, on Google Books. "Marijuana" is not in fact a colloquialism, on the same level as "weed" or "pot", since it is used in extensive amounts of legislation (as well as its variant "marihuana", which returns 900,000 results in Google Books). Yes, it started out as a colloquialism, perhaps even a smear word, but it has gained significant prominence and is the more common term today for the drug, much more common than "cannabis". (Also, remember that the "cannabis" search results include all the uses of "Cannabis" in botanical literature that is describing the plant as a plant and is not necessarily in reference to the drug, whereas essentially all the "marijuana" and "marihuana" search results are in reference to the drug, whether directly or indirectly.

It seems to me that the only benefits to keeping "cannabis" as the title are (1) that "cannabis" is the widely used term on Wikipedia already so to change it would require a massive amount of overhauling that would not be a simple find and replace considering the appropriate use of the word "Cannabis" for the plant and (2) some marijuana/cannabis advocates seem to prefer the term "cannabis" because it has not developed the same degree of negative connotation that "marijuana" has.

Per WP:COMMONNAME, I think that Cannabis (drug) should be moved to Marijuana and that Cannabis should be moved to Cannabis. I think all references to the drug on Wikipedia should use "marijuana" and all references to the plant should use "cannabis" (non-italicized and non-capitalized, a simple anglicization of the botanical name), other than when the Latin name is being used for a specific reason (paralleling "bonobo" and "Pan paniscus").

Thoughts? Michipedian (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You lied in the first sentence. You are starting a move discussion. It is a complete waste of time. Jytdog (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
No, because I think the work involved might simply not be worth it, as I articulated in point (1). All I ask is that, if that is the reason, let us please be honest about it. "Marijuana" is so obviously the common name for this drug, it's a blatant violation of WP:COMMONNAME. Maybe you can point me to WP:INTERTIA or its equivalent. Michipedian (talk) 07:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Strongly oppose revisiting this issue. To claim that marijuana is the common name might be a valid argument if this were a US encyclopedia but it isn't and the common name is cannabis. You cannot move cannabis to cannabis either, it isn't a move. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
You're right haha, but you know what I meant. Michipedian (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I just don't see the US-vs-everybody dynamic going on here. If that's the case, should we clarify something about the American English usage in the lead? That would be helpful, because the vast majority of Americans visit this article thinking that it's funny that it's not just called "marijuana". A personal acquaintance of mine recently expressed how amateur and out-of-touch his therapist sounded when she referred to marijuana abuse as "Cannabis use disorder", finding her use of the word cannabis to be particularly funny. He and others around us laughed at that, how clinical and out-of-touch it sounded. That's significant, I think, albeit anecdotal. Michipedian (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
pls see Marijuana (word).--Moxy (talk) 11:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Don't you think some of that information should be explained alongside the term's instance in the lead of this article? This one gets way more traffic. < https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Cannabis_(drug)%7CMarijuana_(word) > Michipedian (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
What your friends think is irrelevant, what you think Americans think equally so. We aren't writing for an American audience. And, no, I don't know what you mean re cannabis, how would I? Can we close this time-wasting thread? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Please point to me where “marijuana” is evidenced as being an American English phenomenon, and I will let it go. Michipedian (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually, never mind, I found the information. My understanding is then that marijuana, although more common in American English than cannabis and more common in Google Books results, is not in fact the widely, globally used term for the drug, and thus it should not be the title of the article. Thank you for your explanation, I honestly did not mean to antagonize anyone. Michipedian (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, I inaccurately used the term "move" when referring to my belief that "Cannabis" should instead read as "cannabis". I should have used the term "reformat" instead. Thanks again for your explanation, and sorry for any trouble. Michipedian (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
'Support "Cannabis". I've written the "cannabis... in Foo" articles for literally 100+ countries, and similar articles in like 5+ languages, and the US is literally the only Anglophone place where "Marijuana" or its variants is clearly supreme. Canadians are mixed (and their recent legislation is entitled "Cannabis"). India has a large number of English speakers and uses ganja/cannabis, UK/Aus/NZ almost entirely say "Cannabis", Nigeria mostly says wee/cannabis and South Africa mostly says dagga/cannabis. And a large number of non-Anglophone countries say "Cannabis" or some cognate like "kanabo".
That said, I checked the inter-language links for this article, and indeed some like Russian/Croatian/Czech/Azerbaijani/etc have cognates with marijuana, many huge languages like Indonesian/Chinese/Japanese/Dutch/Spanish/Portuguese do not.
Re g-hits, I don't doubt that Google indexes a ton of "Marijuana" pages since the US is heavily over-represented in g-hits, but a large chunk of Americans recognize the word "Cannabis" and arguably the majority of Anglophones worldwide more recognize "Cannabis".
There is a fair rebuttal that there is a POV/activist tendency in the US to prefer the term "Cannabis" as non-derogatory, but I submit that "Cannabis" makes more sense for a global encyclopedia. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your insightful, detailed response. I agree. Michipedian (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why marijuana in the lead does not link to Marijuana (word)? That could be helpful. Michipedian (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I was just reading this page, led here because I was doing some research on hemp as a source of fibre for papermaking and I was struck by the weirdness of the first sentence in the page and think my thoughts should go here. The first sentence reads "Cannabis, also known as marijuana among other names,[n 1] is a psychoactive drug from the Cannabis plant intended" and so when I read sentences with two commas like that I remove the part between the commas to see if I understand the sentence meaning, hence "Cannabis is a psychoactive drug from the Cannabis plant intended". And I think the sentence probably makes little sense. I think the correction is probably to write "Marijuana is the psychoactive drug portion of the Cannabis plant intended". That seems to make more sense to me. 71.11.6.88 (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Adjusted the first sentence. And it is technically cannabis with a common slang being marijuana. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Marijuana isn't slang, it has been in common parlance since the seventies. AdA&D ★ 02:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Can you source your claim? Not outside the Americas at any right. In Jamaica and India, it is ganja. No reason to change the name anyway. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
​ Here ya go AdA&D ★ 21:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2018

Cannabis sativa is known by the more common name Marijuana. It also goes by the various, vast number of other slang terms such as weed, herb, pot, grass, bud, ganja and Mary Jane. It is a greenish-gray mixture of the dried flowers of Cannabis sativa. ref: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/what-marijuana Tonynesta (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2018

Under "Legal Status" It needs to say "US: Schedule I (legal in 10 states for recreational use + DC ,33 states medical)" "UK: Medical"

I'm trying to keep articles updated! :) PurpleMagi (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

As your request makes little sense, (your suggestion would look silly in the article), it has not been done. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 09:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sperm alteration due to cannabis use

Has anyone else read this study? That's the primary source, this is one third party that I found. Curious what people's thoughts are about including it. PcPrincipal (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting article about the potential epigenetic modification of sperm DNA from THC. I am not a geneticist, but to me this seems like a tiny sample (24 males), which the authors note as a significant limitation to the generalizability of the findings. There are some other issues with potential confounding factors not accounted for in their model, too. It seems more like an interesting preliminary study that should be replicated with a larger study, than something that is ready to be included in a WP entry.
For future reference, this is actually the article referenced, not the link you posted last month: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15592294.2018.1554521 Aroundthewayboy (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hindu?

We can't claim someone likely alive is Hindu with no source, I have removed the word Hindu from the image caption, it should not be returned unless a source can be found as the image description makes no mention. The fact that someone attends a Hindu festival, where the image was taken, is not sufficient as anybidy could attend such a festival, unless we had a source only Hindus can attend. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2019

Under "Legal status" for the US, "legal in 9 states for recreational use" should be replaced with "legal in 10 states for recreational use". Alternatively, that could also be changed to include DC for recreational use as well as the 33 who offer medical marijuana. (ie. "legal in 10 states and DC for recreational and in 33 for medical use.") http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/state-marijuana-laws-map-medical-recreational.html

 Done Roadguy2 (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Medical Marijuana Legalization

Marijuana is a prohibited substance. Since 1970’s, it has been labeled as a Schedule I substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) which is the highest classification for a controlled substance. Although some states allowed researchers to experiment on medical marijuana use, it didn’t go any further than that until the year 1996 when the Proposition 215 was passed in California. This is the ‘first real medicinal marijuana law’ because it allows medical marijuana use if a person experiences certain health complications that marijuana can address such as nausea, pain, and muscle spasm. Then by 2016, laws passed by 30 U.S. States allows a broader range of medical marijuana use but with still some conditions. These laws allow doctors to only recommend marijuana due to freedom of speech under the First Amendment but not allowed to prescribe it to patients since they are only allowed to prescribe FDA approved drugs. Marijuana is not an FDA approved drug since it is a Schedule I substance under the CSA. Same laws apply to pharmacies and why they could not dispense marijuana due to marijuana not being FDA approved.[1] Acjl19 (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2019

Please add this sub-section 'Medical Marijuana Legalization' under the 'Legal Status' section and add this

'Marijuana is a prohibited substance. Since 1970’s, it has been labeled as a Schedule I substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) which is the highest classification for a controlled substance. Although some states allowed researchers to experiment on medical marijuana use, it didn’t go any further than that until the year 1996 when the Proposition 215 was passed in California. This is the ‘first real medicinal marijuana law’ because it allows medical marijuana use if a person experiences certain health complications that marijuana can address such as nausea, pain, and muscle spasm. Then by 2016, laws passed by 30 U.S. States allows a broader range of medical marijuana use but with still some conditions. These laws allow doctors to only recommend marijuana due to freedom of speech under the First Amendment but not allowed to prescribe it to patients since they are only allowed to prescribe FDA approved drugs. Marijuana is not an FDA approved drug since it is a Schedule I substance under the CSA. Same laws apply to pharmacies and why they could not dispense marijuana due to marijuana not being FDA approved.[2]

  1. ^ Homel, Peter; Brown, Rick (30 June 2017). "Marijuana Legalisation in the United States: An Australian Perspective". Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. no. 535 (Criminal Justice Collection): p. 1+. Retrieved 27 February 2019. {{cite journal}}: |page= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)
  2. ^ Homel, Peter; Brown, Rick (30 June 2017). "Marijuana Legalisation in the United States: An Australian Perspective". Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. no. 535 (Criminal Justice Collection): 3. Retrieved 26 February 2019. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

because this describes more in detail the improvements in medical marijuana legalization but still with some conditions. Thank you! Acjl19 (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: You've focused on the United States, but such a section would need to discuss a global overview to appear in this article (see WP:NPOVFAQ#Anglo-American focus). For example - see the summary at Medical cannabis#Legal status. There are more narrowly-focused articles dealing with this topic, such as Medical cannabis in the United States. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should this epilepsy research be added to the Cannabidiol article?

Please weigh in if interested here. petrarchan47คุก 10:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

No, as the RfC debate stated, and with evidence here that the journal is suspected of poor editorial practices and possible predatory actions against authors. --Zefr (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
No. I agree with Zefr that there's a clear consensus in the RfC debate not to include it. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Request: Data inclusion

Article: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511706080.016; https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511706080.013

Edit 10.09.2019 - I wonder why this old, but significant study is not included: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-013-0259-0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.219.196.18 (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Canada's New Cannabis Policy

Starting October 17, 2018, recreational use of Marijuana will be legal across Canada. Although Marijuana will be legalized, there will be production regulations and minimum standards which are set by the Canadian federal government. Some of the regulations are as follows: 1) Must be at least eighteen(18) years of age 2) Thirty(30) grams is the maximum amount a person can posses 3) Providences decide how it is distributed to its customers [1]

  1. ^ "Canada plans a crazy quilt of cannabis retailing rules". The Economist. The Economist. Retrieved 17 September 2018.

Why is there no mention of decarboxylation?

Decarboxylation of the proto-cannabinoids in the raw or dried plant is essential to any drug effect, and the use of Cannabis as drug is the topic of the article.

History

I see in the history section mention to the US 1937 Marihuana Tax Act as if it "prohibited the production of hemp in addition to cannabis". I followed the link to the act text and see no mention of prohibition. As far as I understand, but I might be wrong, the act introduced a tax on parts of the plant with the exclusion of the stem, fibre, seed. I suppose the prohibition followed, but seems not a consequence of that act. I see that there's a page on that act [1] where the interpretation of the aim of that act is more articulated HumphUK (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by HumphUK (talk • contribs) 07:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937
Wikipedia isn't a ref. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

DNA altered, birth defects ... autism

https://www.parents.com/getting-pregnant/marijuana-does-affect-mens-sperm-and-heres-how/ marijuana is not good for sperm.

Besides the impact on sperm count and mobility, it was also found to fundamentally change the sperm itself.

And a study published in the journal Epigenetics found that marijuana actually mutates DNA in sperm.

cannabis use has also been found to decrease men's ability to orgasm

HTTPS://WWW.LONGDOM.ORG/OPEN-ACCESS/EFFECT-OF-CANNABIS-LEGALIZATION-ON-US-AUTISM-INCIDENCE-AND-MEDIUM-TERM-PROJECTIONS-25624.HTML projections AS Reece, GK Hulse - Clinical Pediatrics: Open Access, 2019 - longdom.org Objective: In that cannabis use has been linked with the development of autism spectrum disorder like conditions in gestationally exposed children, we set out to explore the extent to which rising cannabis use might contribute to the rising autism epidemic. Methods: Datasets …

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15592294.2019.1656158 Cannabis use is associated with potentially heritable widespread changes in autism candidate gene DLGAP2 DNA methylation in sperm R Schrott, K Acharya, N Itchon-Ramos, AB Hawkey… - Epigenetics, 2019 - Taylor & Francis Parental cannabis use has been associated with adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes in offspring, but how such phenotypes are transmitted is largely unknown. Using reduced representation bisulphite sequencing (RRBS), we recently demonstrated that cannabis use …


HTTPS://WWW.TANDFONLINE.COM/DOI/ABS/10.1080/15592294.2018.1554521 Cannabinoid exposure and altered DNA methylation in rat and human sperm SK Murphy, N Itchon-Ramos, Z Visco, Z Huang… - Epigenetics, 2018 - Taylor & Francis … (e) Correlations between urinary THC concentration in the human cannabis user group and sperm DNA methylation levels for CpGs identified as differentially methylated in PTGIR (top) and CSNK1E (bottom), analyzed by linear regression … Altered DNA in human sperm



Not sure this fit in the way it is as we don't discuss genetic changes in the article just pops up here out of the blue and tells us that there is nothing to report. --Moxy 🍁 17:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Whether genetic changes can be reversed or are passed on to children is still unknown. Stop using cannabis for at least 6 months before conception.[1]

  1. ^ Exposure to cannabis alters the genetic profile of sperm | December 19, 2018 | Duke University Medical Center

And the following needs a much better sources as this is not at all what we say in the main article that discusses low birth rates.--Moxy 🍁 17:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Cannabis use was associated with gastroschisis- diaphragmatic hernia 'cleft lip alon, hypoplastic left heart syndrome[1], [2]

References

  1. ^ [ https://search.proquest.com/openview/a131245cfaf83d76347e123944cde4a7/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y CANNABIS USE AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH: AN INVESTIGATION OF TIME TRENDS AND ADVERSE BIRTH OUTCOMES | Devika Chawla | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  2. ^ [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2938757/ Explaining Odds Ratios |National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine
  • So far as I can see there are no reliable sources (for the intended purpose) in play here, and in any case Wikipedia must not give medical advice. Alexbrn (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Comparing marijuana and tobacco groups, the [marijuana] first had worst overall semen parameters including: sperm concentration, total sperm count, total progressive sperm count, progressive motility, and sperm morphology by both WHO and strict criteria (all P0.01).[1]

References

  1. ^ MP75-09 MARIJUANA CONSUMPTION HAS A DIRECT DELETERIOUS EFFECT ON SPERMATOZOA BY INCREASING INTRACELLULAR REACTIVE OXYGEN SPECIES LEVELS 20 TIMES MORE THAN TOBACCO SMOKING: REASONS FOR CONCERN ON WIDESPREAD USE Jorge Hallak*, Thiago Afonso Teixeira, Juliana Risso Pariz, Sao Paulo, Brazil; Ivan Iori, Campinas, Brazil; Elaine Costa, Paulo Hilario Saldiva, Sao Paulo, Brazil | THE JOURNAL OF UROLOGY | Vol. 201, No. 4S, Supplement, Monday, May 6, 2019 
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017Page 18 THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF CANNABIS AND CANNABINOIDS Chapter 10 

Conclusions—Prenatal, Perinatal, and Neonatal Exposure 

There is substantial evidence of a statistical association between maternal cannabis smoking and:  
• Lower birth weight of the offspring (10-2) 

There is limited evidence of a statistical association between maternal cannabis smoking and: 
• Pregnancy complications for the mother (10-1) 
• Admission of the infant to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (10-3)

Page 253 

 PRENATAL, PERINATAL, AND NEONATAL EXPOSURE TO CANNABIS

CONCLUSION 10-2 There is substantial evidence of a statistical association between maternal cannabis smoking and lower birth weight of the offspring. 

Page 254
CONCLUSION 10-3 There is limited evidence of a statistical association between maternal cannabis smoking and admission of the infant to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).[1]

References

  1. ^ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: The current state of evidence and recommendations for research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24625. 487 pages

Misrepresented source information

Essentially the same as the #Rationale for disputation thread below, continuing there. Alexbrn (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The comment from the first paragraphs of the article "There is a strong relation between cannabis use and the risk of psychosis,[28]" Is both opinionated, with the addition of the word "Strong", and also completely misrepresents the source quoted, which even in it's summary, states the exact opposite of the wiki comment. A review of the paper, and it's sources finds that the original was submitted to the Society of Biological Psychiatry, which appears to be from further research a fairly well respected and peer reviewed publication and organization, without bias in regard to cannabis use and the study thereof. Therefore I submit that this part of the Wiki page is in violation of the Wiki policies of neutrality, WP:NPV in regards to the use of the words "Strong relation" and "Risk of" in this paragraph. Also a violation of the policy of WP:CS in that the comment made is in direct contrast to the referenced source. I would have used the "Irrelevant citation" template on the article itself but as there were several problems with this comment, and as the article is semi-protected I felt it best to add this on the talk page. 2600:8801:1E83:BE44:18EA:231B:8FDF:748D (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I made a mild chante in wording to correct the biased POV pushing of the lead.This article has difficulty maintaining a NPOV, because there are financially (e.g. PhARMA) and religious entities who are threatened by legalization of cannabisOldperson (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
It was a bad change because it made out text adrift of the source. By repeating it, you are edit-warring. Maybe try WP:BRD? Alexbrn (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
(Alexbrn I don't understand what you mean by it made out text adrift of the source.The lede is contradicted by the citations here and here The first citation mentions its use as an anti-psychotic, the second that there is no evidence that it causes psychosis, but is used early and often by persons with a propensity for psychosis. Considering that then the problem is with the article itself. I need to review. In full disclosure I do not do drugs legal or illegal, except Keytruda. Tried a cookie once to help me sleep, but did not like the physical effects, made me feel like I had vertigo, that was enough for me But I am convinced of its efficaciousness for those that need it, but I am also quite aware that it is anathema to PhARMA (lost profits)and to some religions and their devotees As it stands that part of the lede is a fraud,as it misrepresents the very articles it cites..Oldperson (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Alexbrn Do not archive, hat or cot this conversation until you answer the question I asked above. Archiving is an evasion.

I will restate my positions as follows: citation 28 states:" However, there is first evidence that cannabidiol may ameliorate psychotic symptoms with a superior side-effect profile compared with established antipsychotics."

Which is the exact opposite of the statement in the existing citation which claims there is strong relationship between psychosis" Where the editor got his wording is questionable, it does not exist in the citation offered.

The lead which states "here is a strong relation between cannabis use and the risk of psychosis" is misleading.

The sentence in the lead needs to be corrected to conform to the citation, which states that cannabis ameliorates psychosis. Now please respondOldperson (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I responded in the section below. Alexbrn (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
AlexbrnActually you haven't. Below is a secon on DNA altered, birth defects. There is no response of yours in that section. The section which you archived above has a response from you, but you did not answer the question, you just archived the whole discussion. Please answer the question. The text in the lead is contradicted by the text in the citations, you and Doc James either ignore that fact or insist the opposite. The text in the citation states that cannabis ameliorates psychosis, not that there is a strong connection between psychosis and cannabis. I want to resolve this outside of ANI.Oldperson (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I responded in the #Rationale for disputation section (below). Alexbrn (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
{{u|Alexbrn}Doc JamesThat "response" did not address the issue I raise, neither you or Doc James. You keep quoting something that says "strong relation". Problem is that the very citation in that sentence here is titled:

Therepeutic Potential of Cannabis and says"However, there is first evidence that cannabidiol may ameliorate psychotic symptoms with a superior side-effect profile compared with established antipsychotics" This is the exact opposite of what you and Doc James quote and which is in the lead.((pb))Now lets go to the next citation in that part of the lead (#29) it is etitled Cannabis and Psychosis: a Critical Overview of the Relationship. and it says Interest in the relationship between cannabis use and psychosis has increased dramatically in recent years, in part because of concerns related to the growing availability of cannabis and potential risks to health and human functioning. There now exists a plethora of scientific articles addressing this issue, but few provide a clear verdict about the causal nature of the cannabis-psychosis association. Here, we review recent research reports on cannabis and psychosisboth of these sources state the exact opposite of what you and Doc and the lead claim. And after continuously bringing this to your attention, you continuously ignore these facts and the inconsistency of the lead and your claims with the article itself. And neither of you have answered my disputation, and your reverts are unjustified. I am left with the option of editing the citations to reflect their actual findings.Oldperson (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2019

Some sceptics argue cannabis is a more dangerous substance compared to legal options like alcohol and tobacco. However, a recent comparative risk assessment proves cannabis to be a much safer alternative to the two substances. The research examines more than a dozen drugs by using a margin of exposure determination. The margin of exposure is classified as the ratio of individual consumption compared to the established level of exposure to present health risks. Drugs with a lower MOE present a larger quantity of health risks compared to those with a higher MOE. The article further expands on the potential negative effects of each dug, listing addictiveness, toxicity, and social damage. Lastly, the article discusses how risks of certain drugs, including cannabis, have been vastly overstated to society, while more common drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco, have been understated. Ultimately, the data concludes that of the numerous recreational drugs assessed, cannabis presents the least amount of risks when using the margin of exposure approach. (Lachenmeier & Rehm, 2015). More than 2,000 Americans die each year due to alcohol poisoning, whereas zero deaths have ever been reported for overconsuming cannabis. A recent study concluded that the median fatal dose of THC is between 15 and 70 grams, which varies greatly due to differences in human body weight and composition. When applying this data to real-world scenarios, an individual would need to smoke between 230 and 1100 average-grade joints in a sitting to reach the median fatal dose of THC. An additional study noted alcohol to cause the most violence in intimate relationships, whereas users of cannabis were found to be least likely to commit violence (Villa, 2019).

References: Lachenmeier, D. W., & Rehm, J. (2015). Comparative risk assessment of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and other illicit drugs using the margin of exposure approach. Scientific Reports, 5(1). doi:10.1038/srep08126

Villa, L. (2019). Marijuana vs Alcohol: Is Marijuana Safer Than Alcohol? Retrieved from https://drugabuse.com/marijuana-vs-alcohol/ Cheese8492 (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done These are weak sources. Please use this template to request edits for which consensus has been reached. Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus on swedish wikipedia is that hasch is resin from conifer plants. This truly un-scientific approach called consensus is weak. Skalle-Per Hedenhös (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to read on a larger sample of research, someone did it for you. Here, a research paper analyzing 68 reviews on the effects of marijuana found 62 returning harmful. Cannabis has mental and physical effects, such as creating a "high" or "stoned" feeling, a general change in perception, heightened mood, and an increase in appetite. K. Ally Memedovich, BHSc, Laura E. Dowsett, MSc, Eldon Spackman, PhD, Tom Noseworthy, MD MSc, and Fiona Clement, PhDcorresponding author.

The article has a very pro-cannabis bias. There is no highlighting of the negative effects of consuming cannabis products, and the summary "Long-term side effects may include addiction, decreased mental ability in those who started regular use as teenagers, and behavioral problems in children whose mothers used cannabis during pregnancy." is not accurate at all, if what we are referencing is the wiki-page "Long term effects of cannabis." In the first paragraph, the summary "Cannabis has mental and physical effects, such as creating a "high" or "stoned" feeling, a general change in perception, heightened mood, and an increase in appetite" paints cannabis as a relatively harmless drug. Contrast this to the Tobacco wikipage which describes tobacco as "a risk factor for many diseases" with no dressed up summary of its pleasurable, relaxing, and stimulating effects. In fact I think this page would spark curiosity for the average reader to use this drug because the bias is so strong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.161.157 (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2020

Cannabis (drug) --> Cannabis (it's not a drug). 213.233.85.121 (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Stop wasting our time. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Rationale for disputation

The sentence which declares that there is strong evidence of a link between cannabis and psychosis is actually contradicted by the citations used. There is amble evidence that cannabis is anti-psychotic and ameliorative.Oldperson (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah the ref says "Epidemiological data indicate a strong relationship between cannabis use and psychosis and schizophrenia beyond transient intoxication with an increased risk of any psychotic outcome in individuals who had ever used cannabis"
Review in a decent journal. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26852073 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
First order of business Doc James you don't remove a tag after one response, as you did, it takes a discussion and assent, both absent when you removed the tag. Second citation 28 is to an abstract titled: "Therapeutic Potential of Cannabinoids in Psychosis". This is the exact opposite of"Epidemiological data indicate a strong relationship between cannabis use and psychosis and schizophrenia beyond transient intoxication with an increased risk of any psychotic outcome in individuals who had ever used cannabis" citation 29 states. "Evidence reviewed here suggests that cannabis does not in itself cause a psychosis disorder. Rather, the evidence leads us to conclude that both early use and heavy use of cannabis are more likely in individuals with a vulnerability to psychosis'
Ergo both citations quoted in the article refute your statement. So from whence your quotation cometh? Please restore the disputation until this is resolved.Oldperson (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Sure there are people who thing this is controversial. But it really isn't. Unless you come with high quality literature the tag was inappropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
The review "In conclusion, several clinical trials targeting the ECS in acute schizophrenia have either been completed or are underway. Although publicly available results are currently limited, preliminary data indicate that selected compounds modulating the ECS may be effective in acute schizophrenia. Nevertheless, so far, sample sizes of patients investigated are not sufficient to come to a final judgment, and no maintenance studies are available to ensure long-term efficacy and safety."
We already include "though the cause-and-effect is debated" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Doc James Yet none of your response justifies the following sentence:"There is a strong relation between cannabis use and the risk of psychosis". I altered that sentence to reflect the references, it was reverted. I posted a disputation, then this section on the talk page. You have come back with quotes, none of which support the sentence which I changed. In fact, and this is the kicker, the references cited are (in your terms)high quality, and they say exactly the opposite of the sentence "There is a strong relation between cannabis use and the risk of psychosis" The references used to support that sentence state the opposite, and to date there is nothing to substantiate the claim that marijuana causes pyschosis or schizophrenia, on the contrary according to your own post, cannabis has shown some efficacy in treating schizophrenia. FYI, full disclosure the only drug, legal or illegal, I use is Keytruda and the oncologist terminated my triweekly infusions last week after two years and no signs of regrowth. I ate one THC cookie once, to help with sleep after I started Keytruda, it gave me vertigo and I never had a second. I did get authorization for medical marijuana, but no thanks, I don't need or do any drug, legal or illegal, but I can small b.s. and agendas a mile off01:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree with James. The cited source says:

Epidemiological data indicate a strong relationship between cannabis use and psychosis and schizophrenia beyond transient intoxication with an increased risk of any psychotic outcome in individuals who had ever used cannabis

We accurately reflect this. The use of cannabis as an anti-psychotic is a topic for our Medical cannabis article, not this one – and in any case the up-to-date science on that use does not support it (see PMID 31672337). Alexbrn (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: you are now trying to edit-war in your change, despite the obvious lack of consensus (above). You have been warned for edit-warring. Alexbrn (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Horse puckey. I have pointed out and proved time and again that the sentence is contradicted by the citations. All I have done is to make the sentence compliant with the citations. Ihave, to no avail, tried time and again, to get you to resolve the issue, and you keep falling back on a farcial excuse, and one that does not address the issue. So let's take this to ANI.Oldperson (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
We have lots of reviews that support the association "Cannabis use doubles the risk of developing psychosis in vulnerable people. There even exists a relationship regarding the dose used and the age of first use."[1]
"Higher levels of cannabis use were associated with increased risk for psychosis in all the included studies."[2]
The question is only regarding if it is causal or not. Some say yes some say no. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

A sentence in the lead is contradicted by the very three references it uses.

I am posting this here because {{u|Alexbrn's insistence. He claims that he has answered the following question, but obviously not. As it is patently clear that the sentence in the lead is contradicted by it's own references. I am talking about "the lead summaries the body", but lead citations contradicting the statement.

AlexbrnHave you even read the citations in that sentence? Have you even read my comments on the talk page? I have gone so far as to actually quote from the references in that sentence. I may be a lot of things, but I am not illiterate and Ican read. That sentence says There is a strong relation between cannabis use and the risk of psychosis,[28][29] though the cause-and-effect is debated.[30] If you read those references (28)(29)(30) they say just the opposite. What they say ranges from cannabis has an ameliorative effect on psychosis or that (ref #30)Evidence reviewed here suggests that cannabis does not in itself cause a psychosis disorder. Rather, the evidence leads us to conclude that both early use and heavy use of cannabis are more likely in individuals with a vulnerability to psychosisAllow me to translate. Cannabis does not cause psychosis (hence there is not a strong relationship, and individuals with a vulnerability to pyschosis are prone to early and heavy use. The citations do in fact contradict the sentence. How you can assert the opposite is beyond me. I assume that you are of above average intelligence and have developed reading skills, so how do you read three citations and come to an opposite conclusion? The argument, being used, that the lead summarizes the body does not apply, because there is an internal contradiction in the lead.Oldperson (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Whether cannabis causes psychosis is debated in RS. Whether there is a strong association is in no doubt in RS. Whether cannabis acts as an anti-psychotic is off-topic for this article (and, in strong doubt in RS). I have quoted the exact wording in the section above. You have either not read the source, or not understood it. WP:CIR. You also seem to be confining yourself to the abstract: WP:NOABSTRACT. It is time to drop the WP:STICK methinks Alexbrn (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
As far as I see it (from my brief review of the matter), source 28 doesn't seem to say anything about the matter, 29 and 30 back up a possible link. Especially considering the details are highly disputed in research, that's good enough for me.--Yhdwww (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Ancient Origins of Cannabis misleading and partly incorrect

While both Indica and sativa strains are indigenous to South Asia, the only cannabis indigenous to Central Asia are Landrace strains, from Afghanistan to Russia and even Eastern China, only landrace strains are mentioned in text, whereas Indica is shown to grow all along the Indus River and partly among all its tributaries as it is named after the indus, as Sativa is also found sometime along the Indus and its tributaries as well as deeper into India according to the 1894 British India Cannabis Plant Study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:DE0:2F98:D843:F8:6B17:6AA1 (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Major Revisions

The opening lines were poorly written, almost in a negative propagsnfa fashion ( podsibly why this is uneditable)! Cannabis is by definition a medicinal herb not a drug! This is the tip of the iceberg here. I am an expert on this subject and would like to contribute to the information in this post please. Therealbrothergreen (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Drug is defined as
1) A medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.
or
2) A substance taken for its narcotic or stimulant effects, often illegally. [1]
It is commonly consumed around the world for its psychoactive effects, often illegally, as well as being a medicine. As such, it actually fulfils both definitions of a 'drug' given above. The article is carefully worded so that it fully represents reality and established definitions. Medicinal herb and drug are not mutually exclusive categories. Revanchist317 (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/drug

Low quality contributions

I reverted a number of low quality additions to the article. I will explain each here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis_(drug)&oldid=964651391 I reverted UpdateNerd's edit here because the source cited refers to hallucinations, not pseudohallucinations. UpdateNerd's edit summary seemed to suggest that they consider "hallucination" inaccurate when applied to cannabis. However, they did not cite this position, and the wiki page for pseudohallucination makes clear that it is not a term used in the medical or scientific communities. Considering that this is an article about a drug, written from a medical perspective, we should go with the language most commonly used in that field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis_(drug)&oldid=964652348 I deleted the Metabolism section that Machinexa added. Considering that cannabis itself is not metabolized—its constituent chemicals are—and information about the metabolism of constituent chemicals can be found on those chemicals' own pages, there's no reason to have this information here. Also, if it is to be kept, the writing needs significant improvement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis_(drug)&oldid=964653995 Finally, here I deleted some information that Machinexa added to the top of the Uses section. I had previously tagged some of this info as Verification failed and other as Dubious. The claims made in this paragraph were not found in the source or the sources themselves were not reliable. You can see which were which here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis_(drug)&oldid=964650098.

Specifically, DocMJ, a business that provides use authorizations for medical cannabis users, is a promotional source. WebMD is not a great source, and here it actually contradicts the information it's cited to support: WebMD says medical cannabis is "basically the same product as recreational marijuana, but it's taken for medical purposes."

With respect to the sleep claim: "Medical cannabis could enhance sleep quality while recreational could decrease sleep quality over long term."

Neither of the two academic sources cited makes the distinction between recreational and medical cannabis.

Wallnot (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, I have not reverted it yet, but the source for this sentence, thcphysicians.com is not a reliable one: “The impact of cannabis on sleep is controversial.” Wallnot (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I deleted a second set of edits by Machinexa that were either repeats of the first set, or new, as references provided in support of the additions die not meet WP:MEDRS (the references were a mix of in vitro work, animal studies, individual clinical trials and content from non-reliable sources such as thcphysicians. David notMD (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Most commonly used illegal drug in the United States

Three editors have now removed the fact that cannabis is the most commonly used illegal drug in the United States. All seemed to claim that this fact is redundant, because the same sentence states that cannabis is also the most commonly used illegal drug in the world. Obviously, something being the most common of its kind in the world has no bearing on whether it is the most common of its kind in any constituent part of the world, so the one fact does not make the other redundant. If anyone has any other reason we should not include this information, please discuss here so we can reach a consensus and so other editors can chime in. Wallnot (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Why single out the USA?--Moxy 🍁 13:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
There's no particular reason to single out the US, but that's also not a great reason to remove a useful piece of information. Better, I think, to modify the language ("most commonly used drug other than alcohol") and research other places that might fit the description, e.g., where you're from. Wallnot (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
They dont consume the most nor are their laws progressive compared to other countries. So I dont see why they would be listed in the lead over the 200 other countries with cannabis laws.--Moxy 🍁 13:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what statistic you're going by to determine which country "consumes the most." The US's annual prevalence is lower than e.g. Canada's, but the US has the most users, and the highest adult lifetime use.
I do see your point in general though, which is why I'm suggesting we take this opportunity to rephrase the sentence so that it indicates where use is prevalent throughout the world. So something like, for example, "Cannabis is the most commonly used drug other than alcohol in North America, South America and Western Europe [no idea if these are true, just using as examples]. It is also commonly used in South Asia and the Middle East". Would that resolve the issue in your view? Wallnot (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
As you have already stated, there is no reason to single out the US. There is no reason to single out any country. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Did you read the post you replied to? The new language I suggested doesn't even mention the US. Information about where a custom is prevalent is obviously relevant to any article, and taking a global view of the issue certainly does not "single out any country". Wallnot (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
We simply say the world in the lead because its how sources say it in academic publications because the fact is that rates change with law changes and that stats are not all calculated in the same manner all over the world. Ivan D. Montoya; Susan R. B. Weiss (24 November 2018). Cannabis Use Disorders. Springer. pp. 256–. ISBN 978-3-319-90365-1. .. Top Cannabis Usage by Country\--Moxy 🍁 14:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Differences in the method used to determine rates of use and changes over time due to reform of cannabis laws might be important if we were making a very granular comparison (e.g., comparing Israel's and Canada's annual prevalence of use in 2017 and 2016 respectively). But those concerns don't apply to a broad statement about where in the world the drug tends to be common, and such a statement is both relevant and informative (a reader could learn, for example, that the drug tends to be much less common in East Asia than elsewhere). Wallnot (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Ok not sure your reading the whole lead...as we do mention this ...just not needed in the first paragraph. Simply no need to signal out any place in the first few sentences when we have it in the 3rd paragraph of the lead and its own section in the article all as per MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH. "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic".--Moxy 🍁 14:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Where are you seeing that in the first paragraph? The text we're discussing is in the third graf, so the policy in MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH does not apply. Moreover, "countries with the highest use among adults" (most compared to other countries) is not the same as countries where it is the most commonly used drug (most compared to other drugs within the same country), which is the false equivalency I was pointing out with my original revert. Wallnot (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't the following be in the body of this article rather than the lede?

In 2016, 51% of people in the United States had used cannabis in their lifetimes. About 12% had used it in the past year, and 7.3% had used it in the past month.

Rwood128 (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Re your comment Wallnot on my Talk page, sorry but I have exhausted my interest in this topic. Rwood128 (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
huh. Rwood128, I thought by suggesting that we move the conversation that you intended to stay involved. We can’t reach a consensus if editors refuse to engage substantively. Wallnot (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry. Rwood128 (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

toxicity of terpenes and thair thermaly formed products

I would like to suggest adding a sub-section under the adverse effects section especially devoted to terpenes.

in nature terpenes are known to be a biocide (they are even toxic to the plants that produce them, autotoxic) and are a natural deterrent to animals fungi and bacteria causing toxicity

and even death at a high enough dose.

in cannabis, it's known that some of the linear terpenes can cyclize upon exposure to heat or light. producing aromatic products that are carcinogenic. (benzene toluene etc.)

it seems that this subject is no heavily studied as the conclusions are not clear but its worth looking it

some sources to get you started thare are many articles online:


a lab group dedicated to studying this. 

 http://www.life.illinois.edu/berenbaum/terpene.htm

thermal degradation study, see Scheme 1 for summary of products formed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5623941/

another good article:

https://terpenesandtesting.com/category/science/terpene-toxicity/


So what do you all think? Id like to get a consensus before moving forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJJ4y7 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Cannabis (drug) even a drug?

I believe the title of this article is misleading, as I don't believe cannabis its self is a "drug". A drug is any https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_substance that causes a change in an organism's physiology or psychology when consumed. By this definition, a drug is specifically a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_substance. This article its self even states "the main psychoactive component" is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol, which IS indeed a substance. 81.226.218.253 (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately, we go by WP:RS (reliable sources) not what stoners on the internetz say. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

But he is referencing Wikipedia its self, I think there’s some truth to it 49.196.9.135 (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately, we go by WP:RS (reliable sources) not what stoners on the internetz say. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 19:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is full on Reefer Madness propaganda

I remember when Wikipedia used to be helpful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:281:300:9522:B6D2:63A4:DF43 (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Edibles with high THC concentration

Edibles contain relatively high concentrations of THC because THC is available to 100 percent, but only 10 % in joints, nearly 90 % of the THC is destroyed in the heat of a joint. CrisssCrosss (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Effects of Cannabis

Perhaps you can discuss this with hemp consumeing people?!

Effects of Cannabis

The effects vary from person to person. For me it's impossible to eat a hash cookie in the afternoon, because the drug prevents me from sleeping. Other people experience the contrary. Often people told me that they smoke a joint in the evening for falling asleep easily.

physiologic :

It widens the blood vessels, more blood flows through our body. We have more power for e.g. jogging. For that reason it is a forbidden doping agent. With the widening of the blood vessels the blood pressure decreases and the eyes become red.

psychologic :

- Big head cinema in which you play the leading role. - Slightly impaired orientation. - Susceptibility to paranoia. - Increased sentimentality. - Sometimes I feel my testicles more intensely - You love to eat. - Reinforcement of enjoyment of all kinds - Reluctance to work and a desire for fun - Decreased concentration, cause you get a lot of thoughts in your brain. - Time is stretched out because a lot happens in the head - Mental stress is alleviated - Strongly stimulating effect, like after drinking 2 liters of coffee - For some people it works as a sleep aid - Mood enhancers - You think about many things. - Increased awareness CrisssCrosss (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Per our Verifiability policy, we require reliable sources, not personal anecdotes. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Introduction has to much information/Suggest merge?

I feel that the introduction has to much information, adverse effects should be listed under adverse effects

I feel that it should just be a basic description eg, Cannabis, also known as marijuana (Spanish pronunciation: [maɾiˈhwana]) among other names,[a] is a psychoactive drug from the Cannabis plant used primarily for medical or recreational purposes. With all other information following under relevant tabs?

I also wonder how is cannabis drug any different to cannabis and should the two articles be merged? Politically Minded Stoner (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

No merger...one article is about a plant like Papaver somniferum - Coca (organisms) the other is a drug like Opiate - Cocaine (pharmacology).--Moxy 🍁 11:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I see thanks, I can see my initial confusion has actually been brought up in a previous talk, I support the no merge

Thoughts on introduction? Politically Minded Stoner (talk) 06:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2020

Changes in the United Nations legal Status for Cannabis : https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/02/health/un-reclassifies-cannabis-scn-trnd/index.html https://mjbizdaily.com/united-nations-approves-who-recommendation-to-reschedule-cannabis-in-historic-vote/ https://reason.com/2020/12/02/medical-marijuana-gets-the-greenlight-from-the-united-nations/ https://www.marijuanamoment.net/united-nations-removes-marijuana-from-most-strict-global-drug-category-with-u-s-support/ Anon12122020 (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.
SSSB (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Extra available form

As you can read here this is the original part of the article, but in my opinion there is missing one thing. Cannabis nowadays is used pretty often in topicals such as a body lotion, creme, etc. I think this is worth at least a mention since its use is relatively new and only growing. See here a complete explanation of cannabis topicals; https://www.zamnesia.com/blog-going-skin-deep-how-cannabis-topicals-work-n1176 Available forms Main article: Cannabis consumption

A joint prior to rolling, with a paper handmade filter on the left Cannabis is consumed in many different ways,[61] all of which involve heating to decarboxylate THCA in the plant into THC.[62]

Smoking, which typically involves burning and inhaling vaporized cannabinoids ("smoke") from small pipes, bongs (portable versions of hookahs with a water chamber), paper-wrapped joints or tobacco-leaf-wrapped blunts, and other items.[63] Vaporizer, which heats any form of cannabis to 165–190 °C (329–374 °F),[64] causing the active ingredients to evaporate into vapor without burning the plant material (the boiling point of THC is 157 °C (315 °F) at atmospheric pressure).[65] Cannabis tea, which contains relatively small concentrations of THC because THC is an oil (lipophilic) and is only slightly water-soluble (with a solubility of 2.8 mg per liter).[66] Cannabis tea is made by first adding a saturated fat to hot water (e.g. cream or any milk except skim) with a small amount of cannabis.[67] Edibles, where cannabis is added as an ingredient to one of a variety of foods, including butter and baked goods. In India it is commonly made into a beverage, bhang. Capsules, typically containing cannabis oil, and other dietary supplement products, for which some 220 were approved in Canada in 2018.[68] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamNistelrooij (talk • contribs) 07:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Memory loss from smoking pot is true

I am sure that smoking pot causes memory loss. When I added this claim to the article years ago it was removed, and I disagree with those who did so. Here is one of the sources that I used: Solved: Why pot smoking causes memory loss Please check out this medical source here: How marijuana causes memory loss as medicalnewstoday is a good source to use, which proves that I am right that smoking pot does make people lose their memory. Davidgoodheart (talk) 08:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I used to know the answer to this, but I've forgotten;) -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Believe me that I am NOT wrong about this. It DOES cause memory loss. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it can cause memory loss in large amounts of use, but in the small amounts that most people use, it does not usually cause memory loss, although it can. Aiden LaBonne (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I swear I've seen this question before, not sure, but find a WP:MEDRS and we could discuss suitable phrasing. -Roxy . wooF 16:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
This is the most focused source I could quickly find on this; an editorial about a single study that references multiple studies, from 1991. It's not a meta-analysis, by any means, it's not recent, and (as an editorial) it's not peer-reviewed, but it's published, secondary and written by an expert.
This one is far more recent and peer-reviewed, but it's a primary source (a secondary analysis of results from a previous study) and not exactly on topic: it's about the perception of memory loss in cannabis users.
This is better focused and also peer-reviewed, but less recent than the last. It's a comparison of primary studies on cognitive impacts of multiple recreational drugs, with a focus on comparing them to cannabis. It's still not the exact focus we want.
All of those have the full text available online (do a google scholar search to find each one), though the last one has the pre-publication version available, so you might want to skip the conclusions (the part most likely to have suggested changes that would impact our ability to cite it through the peer-review process). Note that the source given by the OP is certainly not MEDRS for the claim that cannabis impairs memory in humans: it's only usable for the claim that cannabis caused cognitive difficulties in rats. The claim about human memory impairment comes from the writer, not the study itself. It's a fairly obvious take-off from that study, but still not MEDRS level. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

too much references to Tobacco in the article

There are way too many references to Tobacco. This Is supposed to be an article about Marijuana, not Tobacco. The references reveal a hidden bias: It Is as if the article could be titled "not as bad as Tobacco". That Is not what one expects from an Encyclopedia. 190.229.139.89 (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I assume you mean the comparisons made between the 2 when talking about research ..... all we can do is regurgitate what the sources say.--Moxy- 12:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Tobacco and Marijuana are the two most smoked drugs of all time. It makes sense to talk about them in contrast, and doing so is not undue weight. ––FORMALDUDE(talk)

I would disagree with the idea that there are "too many references to tobacco" for the simple point that it is useful to compare something that we don't have as much extensive research and knowledge about, such as marijuana, to something that we have both extensive research on and which most people have a fair amount of knowledge about, such as tobacco. Rather, it frames a good "reference point" for most people. Otherwise, we are left with essentially meaningless information for the mass majority of people whom don't have an intimate understanding of the subject material. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Cannabis is a plant. THC is a drug

It makes no sense to me that there is an article called "Cannabis (drug)". Cannabis is well known to be a plant. There must be a more appropriate name for this article. At any rate, should "marijuana" redirect to Cannabis, not "Cannabis (drug)". Reactions? Zaslav (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC) 

   No,a drug is a plant that can be smoked injected,eaten, and or snorted to give a high like feeling, but I agree we should change the name from cannabis(drug) to marijuana (drug) as cannabis is typically associated with hemp,there is a chemical within marijuana that gives you the “high” and is known as THC, there is also CBD in cannabis, which is typically used in essential oils  (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Use of the term "marijuana" is limited to the US, and we use the more common "cannabis". Note that despite the odd note above, cannabis is not commonly snorted or injected. Our article Cannabis is about the plant, and this one, about the drug. It makes sense to me to have two articles. The redirect is correct, it should link here, not to the plant. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
It is also used in Mexico, and originated there (I think; it might have originated in the southwest border states, among Mexicans; the origin of the term is not well documented). In Mexico, though, it is spelled 'marihuana' (as it was spelled in the earlier part of the 20th century in the states. Even in the US, though, cannabis has largely overtaken 'marijuana' as the dominant term. (the latter is sometimes used fashionably in marketing products too, though: there are packs sold that are labeled "Marijuana Cigarettes") Firejuggler86 (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Please notice that I wasn’t talking purely about marijuana, but also about other drugs, hence the injected and snorting comments I made. Aiden LaBonne (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
THC is the psychoactive component of the drug, but cannabis is what people smoke, so cannabis is the drug. However, the name "Cannabis (drug)" seems a bit misleading because it suggests that there's a plant called cannabis and a drug called cannabis and that they are completely different things. I'd recommend calling the page "Cannabis as a psychoactive drug" or the like. VIVIT-r (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Very good points. I could get on board with that retitle. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 03:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I would be more apt to rename Cannabis (drug) to Cannabis (pharmacology), for the simple fact that "Cannabis" properly speaking is a plant, not a drug by generally accepted scientific definition. Rather the "Drug" would be the compounds in the plant such as "THC" or "CBD". Rather the scientific definition of a "drug" is "any chemical substance that affects the functioning of living things and the organisms". The entire plant is NOT a "chemical substance" and therefore isn't a drug scientifically speaking. For example, the drug digitalis is derrived from the foxglove plant, but we wouldn't call the foxglove plant a "drug". Therefore the appropriate options, in my opinion, would be to either rename Cannabis (drug) to Cannabis (Pharmacology) OR to Delete Cannabis (drug) and restructure the information into articles like THC (drug), CBD (drug), etc. - though for sake of simplicity personally speaking I would opt for Cannabis (pharmacology) 98.178.191.34 (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

In the US, "marijuana" is the drug (or used to be), and since Wikipedia articles can be somewhat country specific (e.g., some use British spelling, some use American spelling), that actually strikes me as a reasonable title. Since marijuana and hashish contain multiple chemicals with individual or interactive effects (THC, CBD, THCV, possibly terpenes; more research is needed), and that mix of chemicals is often consumed as a whole, breaking it down into individual substances would still require a "Cannabis(drug)" article. And "Cannabis(pharmacology)" wouldn't allow discussion of its various current and historical and cultural uses as a drug. So "Cannabis as a psychoactive drug" would work, but most US readers are actually going to look up "Marijuana" (which, fortunately, redirects to this article) (OK, older folks like me will look up "marijuana". Maybe younger folks won't). I forget what terms were used in Amsterdam coffee shops a few decades ago. Finney1234 (talk) 06:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Primary Sources

The following two links (the first one is an official Wikipedia guideline, the second is an unofficial essay) are excellent guides to the use of primary sources (e.g., research articles) in Wikipedia. Conveniently, this pretty much matches what I've been doing recently in this article :-). Many recent primary sources involving cannabis research are publicly available on the internet.Finney1234 (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:Primary

WP:How_to_use_primary_sources_(biological_sciences)

References and Page Numbers

It is good/recommended to have page numbers cited in references, but it's also messy to have multiple/many separate bibliography listings for a single published reference (and this will start increasing). I am choosing to switch to "{ {rp|p#} }" as a (not-ideal) compromise (see Help:References_and_page_numbers); I have added the 'p' because I think it makes it more clear to the reader. If you have a better approach, please suggest it here. The "{ {sfn} }" approach is painful (see, e.g., the complexity of the edited references in Quintuple meter).Finney1234 (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Possibly invalid article claims

I'm renaming this section so that it can be used to report any factual errors noticed by someone who chooses not to actually edit the article themselves.Finney1234 (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Cannabis_(drug)#Pregnancy_and_children: "Mothers who used marijuana during pregnancy have children with elevated levels of depression, hyperactivity, impulsivity and inattention.[139] "

Having read the paper quoted, cannabis or any other term for this substance is not even mentioned. The paper refers to the effects only of cigarette smoking and nicotine. The paragraph is not supported by the evidence quoted and is very misleading. 217.39.51.26 (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, anonymous user, you are correct and I have removed the sentence (the reference is publically available). I've previously corrected a number of similar non-supported claims in this article, so let me know if you find others. Finney1234 (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Stuff to be done

I've been doing a bunch of stuff to improve this article over the last few weeks, getting rid of a bunch of non-fact-based claims, and reorganizing the article so it's more balanced and clear. I'm going to continue working on it on and off, but here's some things that (I think) need to be done; it'd be great if someone else got to some of them before I did. Editing this semi-protected article requires that you be a confirmed editor, which simply means that you have a registered account (you can still be completely anonymous) and that you've been a registered editor for four(4) days, and have done 10 edits.

1. A reasonable description of the positive/desirable effects of getting "high" or "stoned" needs to be added to the "Psychological effects while 'high'" section. It needs to have a *reliable source* (see WP:Verifiability). Earlywine's "Understanding Marijuana" or Holland's "The Pot Book" might be good reliable sources, but there should be many others (even literary might be relevant). But look at WP:Verifiability if you have never done so; e.g., a cannabis dispensary's web site would not be a "reliable source".

2.Most of the subsections in the "Effects of Cannabis" section still need cleanup. E.g. due to my combining of text from various existing sections, there may be some duplication, or incoherent flow in each subsection. Also, there are probably still a bunch of mistaken (usually negatively-biased) claims (e.g., see the reference-based edits I've done in the last 2 weeks, and the preceding section on Invalid Article Claims in this talk page).

3. "Available forms", "Preparations", and "Varieties and Strains" should be combined into a single (and slightly reduced) section.

If you've never edited Wikipedia before, I wrote an article to help people get started ("Ask Mr Wikipedia Person"). It's on an http: site, not an https: site, but downloading the .pdf should be OK. See http://sfinney.com/articles.

Finney1234 (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

"Adverse Effects" restructuring

I plan to (real soon) restructure the "Adverse Effects" section by renaming it "Effects of Cannabis" and breaking it into a different set of logical (and fewer) top-level subsections. Among other things, this will leave a good location for relevant non-adverse effects while not removing any of the current useful data. For this first pass, the intent is just to move things around, not to add or remove any text or references, but if I messed something up, please fix it. For now, this section will be independent of the Effects of cannabis article, but the two of them should be coordinated at some point to reduce duplication.Finney1234 (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

An "Adverse effects" sections is necessary for adverse effects. Alexbrn (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

"Inappropriate" source

User:Alexbrn Please provide a basis for your claim that the Kirkpatrick and Hart secondary source is "inappropriate" and "junk". Hart, the Columbia University psych professor and the (then) graduate student (Kirkpatrick) might argue with you (as am I). There are also many other sources for this factual information, but I think this is a fine reference.

Your move :-) Finney1234 (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Further details: "Dr. Hart is [currently] the Chair of the Department of Psychology and the Dirk Ziff Professor of Psychology (in Psychiatry) [at Columbia University]". Matthew Kirkpatrick is currently a professor of research at the Keck School of Medicine at USC. And this is a review article, not primary research. (There are some articles in Julie Holland's (MD and psychiatrist) book that I would *not* cite, but this one is quite legit). Finney1234 (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

In case anyone else wants to chip in on this topic, see the User:Alexbrn article changes for today, and also User_talk:Alexbrn#Reversions Finney1234 (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

One more observation: the info deleted by User:Alexbrn is quite arguably not WP:Biomedical_information; it has nothing to do with human health. Rather, it is an accurate and well-documented observation of the time course of effects of a common recreational drug. As such, WP:MEDRS does not clearly apply. The text that was deleted (and that I expect will be restored): "Smoking or vaporizing cannabis leads to a rapid onset of psychoactive effects, which allows experienced users to titrate the effects. Consuming cannabis orally (e.g., edibles or capsules) takes much longer to have an effect (peak effects occur about 1 1/2 hours after ingestion), making titration much more difficult. Inexperienced users may choose to ingest more because of the lack of any initial effect, sometimes leading to an unpleasant experience." Finney1234 (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Information about the timing and intensity of psychoactive effects onset is WP:BMI. A lay book is not WP:MEDRS. When we have plenty of excellent sources, no need for stuff like "The Pot Book". For a serious look at edible cannabis effects a recent review is pmid:30694824. Alexbrn (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Alexbrn Please provide a specific basis from WP:BMI (or other Wikipedia guidelines) that this statement is "Biomedical"; your personal opinion is not a Wikipedia guideline. And please actually *look at the cited article* before claiming that is an inappropriate source; I provided specific information above about the authors (and the editor), who are clearly legitimate. Finney1234 (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Alex is quite correct. Your ref, a book, is Not a medically reliable source. Roxy the dog. wooF 12:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
@Finney1234: The effect of a drug on the body is in the realm of biomedicine. Some stuff in the statement (about what "experienced users" do e.g.) is not, but is problematic in other ways - like verging on WP:NOTHOWTO and being more in the field of stoners' anecdotes rather than serious commentary, such as Wikipedia likes to reflect. Alexbrn (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Alexbrn My particular question is, what text is there in WP:BMI (or elsewhere) that specifically supports the claim that "The effect of a [recreational] drug on a human is in the realm of biomedicine"; as noted earlier, it does not relate to human health. It is not clear to me that a recreational and non-prescribed drug falls into the "treatment or drug" description there. (You probably noted that I raised this as a discussion topic in Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information so it will be interesting to see what pops up there as informal consensus). E.g., there appears to be no reference to WP:MEDRS in the Talk page archives on Tobacco. However, based on WP:MEDRS, I do accept that the reference I used does not strictly meet those standards (but it's also significantly above a "lay" book; see authors above).
I do not consider this WP:NOTHOWTO: again, it's extracted as a description from a close-to-academic article by respected academic researchers. Rather, it is important descriptive information. Although possibly the phrasing should be tweaked. Finney1234 (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Don't know about this WP:WL-ish demand for exact text: but if you think the effect of a drug on a person is not biomedical, then probably WP:CIR is an issue. It's one of the things Wikipedia is most concerned to report accurately, whether the drug is recreational of medicinal. When we have a vast array of absolutely superb sources on cannabis, I fail to see any reason why we should use The Pot Book, an old lay source from a publisher apparently specializing in woo. If in doubt, ask at WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I have a problem with folks reverting sourced material (even for a weak source) and saying things like "For a serious look at {blah} look at {blah}" instead of just fixing it. I also think that this is a case where BMI guidelines are especially weak. Due to governmental obstacles, there is precious little MEDRS that gets into the specific, experiential effects of cannabis and various cannabinoids whilst there are three generations of what you'd call anecdotal evidence that science was never allowed to evaluate. Throwing out that very mature baby with a teaspoon of bathwater seems unwise and unhelpful. A weak source it still better than a blank space, and might prod a user to cite new sources as they become legal -- I mean reliable. I am with Finney on this one. Last1in (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Totally wrong: silence is better than misinformation. Also your argument is obtuse; by its logic we'd ignore modern research showing blood-letting was largely useless in deference to centuries of "alternative knowledge" from doctors who "knew" from experience that it worked. Alexbrn (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, misinformation is worse than silence, but your argument was not that the info was wrong, simply that you don't like the source that supports a statement that is largely agreed as true among millions of horribly unqualified actual users of the products in question. Science was not allowed to evaluate the data in most countries, or even collect it since the sixties, so MEDRS will remain weak for a decade or more.
And you might want to be a smidgeon more careful with your metaphors: Reliable sources at one time said bloodletting was the right way to go until science was able to reevaluate it and prove the practise unwise. People without advanced degrees but with some battlefield expertise suggested that blood was better off stayin' on the inside and, when medicine caught up, we (had Wiki existed) updated our knowledgebase. I'd also like to better understand your argument that Kirkpatrick and Hart are incompetent, since that is the only reason that CIR would enter the conversation. One last note: WL is important; the arguments for reverting are far more lawyeristic than than supporting a published, reliable source that doesn't happen to be in your preferred BMI arena, so let's put it back and let folks improve the article instead of censoring it. Last1in (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The article has now been updated with reliable, high-quality sources. Since a lot of the sourcing is outdated, much such improvements would be welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. @Last1in and Alexbrn: I've checked the book (The Pot Book). Generally speaking the source in question (added on [21:05, December 1, 2021]) in fact cites some primary studies (like [3]). However, the attibuted text (worded a bit differently), which is mentioned on the page 28 under the SUBJECTIVE EFFECTS IN THE LABORATORY subtitle, does not contain any specific attributions... The same goes for the phrase rapid onset in a context of use of Sativex on the page 219 (NEUROPATHIC PAIN subtitle) - no attribution given. I conclude that claim is mostly speculative. On the other side I don't see how WP:BMI/WP:MEDRES applies here... It's certainly not a curative effect. But I would propose to bring a better sources on that anyway... AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 22:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    The source in question is reliable and well-written. It does not make the bar Alexbrn has set because it has been illegal to study smokable cannabis in the UK and US for three generations. MEDRS is an utterly irresponsible rule to apply in this case. Last1in (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    I agree with Alexbrn. The disputed text - "Smoking or vaporizing cannabis leads to a rapid onset of psychoactive effects, which allows experienced users to titrate the effects. Consuming cannabis orally (e.g., edibles or capsules) takes much longer to have an effect (peak effects occur about 1 1/2 hours after ingestion), making titration much more difficult. Inexperienced users may choose to ingest more because of the lack of any initial effect, sometimes leading to an unpleasant experience" - contains language requiring better scientific support than the anecdotes of a source that has not been peer-reviewed, such as the terms edibles, titrate, peak effects, initial effect. MEDRS is implied because these observations are within the scope of definition by medical research, and so deserve our best sources, if they existed (which appear to not yet be rigorously studied and published). For reference, Alexbrn participated in a similar discussion in 2013 during development of the Medical cannabis article, here. The current article correctly omits use of 'The Pot Book' as a WP:RS (or MEDRS) source because some authors contributing chapters, such as Weil and Pollan, are not medical scientists publishing in current peer-reviewed literature (Andrew Weil has a controversial history on cannabis publishing from 50 years ago). The 12-year old book (viewable here by Google) may have value for other cannabis topics, but is inadequate as a source for the disputed text. Further dispute about the questionable text and source should be introduced for assessment at WT:MED. Zefr (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Zefr: Well, you can't preview the whole book. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Last1in: The words [21:05, December 1, 2021] aren't attributed by anything in that book. The "psychoactive effects" phrasing doesn't have any attribution either. Search it by yourself: [4]]. Don't forget to include quotation marks. Look at the 4th hit in the list. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Since I'm the one who started this topic, I'm going to put myself back at the top level with a summary of sorts.

Here, and in WP:BMI, I totally get now that the consensus is that text in Wikipedia stating "facts" about cannabis needs to have a WP:MEDRS quality reference. Although I don't totally agree, I have no trouble adhering to that.

However (and this is explicitly a *personal opinion*), a whole bunch of scientific secondary references (including ones meeting WP:MEDRS) are in fact shit. E.g., they may cite a lame and invalid primary study without any actual evaluation (thus propagating false material). They may take speculative conclusions ("possible relationship" or "potential link") in a primary source and state it as a fact. Now, as a semi-professional I can find stuff in WP:MEDRS secondary sources that are blatently inaccurate, but Wikipedia requires them to be taken as absolute encyclopedia truth (note that I am *not* arguing against WP:NOR; I totally approve of it).

Also: although "The Pot Book" is a lay-oriented book and doesn't technically meet WP:MEDRS, it was edited by an MD/psychiatrist, Julie Holland. Some of the articles are solid articles by academic writers ( e.g., the Kirkpatrick and Hart chapter I originally cited), and some are not "science" (e.g., Julie Holland's interview with Tommy Chong). However, the Kirkpatrick and Hart article (*read the entire article* before you criticize it) does meet WP:Verifiability by my standards, and, IMO, ought to qualify for WP:MEDRS (but doesn't). I believe there was a comment above that stated the the Kirkpatrick article was problematic because some sentences didn't cite references. That is also frequently true of WP:MEDRS qualifying secondary sources.

The above is not an attempt to argue against WP:MEDRS, but just a description of some of its weaknesses. And I'd be interested in people's opinions about whether there are any ways to address these problems.

Just to provide entertainment (and get my ass kicked again :-) ), feel free to look at the WP:MEDRS in-process changes to Cannabis_(drug)#Immediate_effects_of_cannabis_consumption. Make sure any criticisms are based on Wikipedia guidelines and not just personal opinion.Finney1234 (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The answer is not to use "shit" sources. What source is it that cites "a lame and invalid primary study without any actual evaluation"? As to the current changes, the two problems are (1) that they are making the section disjointed, with overlapping restatements of similar material, and (2) that this section has a main template, so should only be a summary of the main article pointed-to, and in WP:SYNC with it. Alexbrn (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I will provide examples of lame academic secondary sources in the next day or two at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Secondary/Review_Scientific_Sources, it's a better place for this general topic.Finney1234 (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Re the Cannabis article: it has been poorly edited over many years, so in many respects it's a lousy article. I have been working on removing duplications, trying to condense sections, but there's a shitload of work to be done and it will take time. The duplications/restatements have been in the article for *years*; it is simply more obvious now because I've been restructuring the article into what are (IMO, and which have not been objected to) more concise and logical sections (as noted in the Talk page, I wanted to do the reorganization without engaging in controversial removal of material *until a later pass*, as a result, repeated text that improperly existed in different sections of the article now improperly exists in the same section. A *lot* of duplication cleanup needs to be done; feel free to help clean it up. (But the new opening paragraph of the "Effects of Cannabis" section does not suffer from this problem).
Re Effects of cannabis: "Effects of Cannabis" as a *section name* in this article was one of my recent changes (it used to be named "Adverse Effects", which was negatively biased as a section header because no place was provided for perceived positive effects). This section has been developed (not by me, I just reorganized it some) *completely independently* of the article Effects of cannabis. It will take time to properly integrate the two, because the 10 years work on the (former) Adverse Effects section cannot simply be removed until it is coordinated with the main article. Again, this task will take some time, anyone should feel free to jump in and assist! (Following Wikipedia guidelines, of course).
Much of this would be obvious from a "View History" (back over 10 years or so!!).Finney1234 (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the articles in the cannabis "suite" are mostly poor. They were even worse prior to 2013 when they were crammed full of medical misinformation. "Adverse effects" is a usual section title per MOS:MED and should be not have ben removed. Alexbrn (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I would claim that Marijuana is not a medical article, since it contains much non-medical material (culture, history)...but that's actually not relevant here. Some sections of the article ("e.g., "Effects of Cannabis") are (by consensus) largely medical (that is, requiring WP:MEDRS source material). I guess I could have added a "Desired Effects" section before the "Adverse Effects" section, but I probably would have gotten shit for *that*, so just making an "Effects of Cannabis" section made more sense to me (and it was explicitly mentioned on the article Talk page for discussion, and *no-one* made any comments). Finney1234 (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
There should be an "Adverse effects" section for the adverse effects; how is this not obvious? Is your argument really that we can't cover adverse effects without covering (what you call) "positive effects". Really? You going to argue that for heroin and crystal meth too? Alexbrn (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
As noted earlier, all of the text from "Adverse Effects" is still present in the "Effects of Cannabis" section (it is responsible for much of the duplication).
Any article on a recreational drug needs, IMO, to provide a factual explanation of why people choose to use that drug. For Cannabis, with tens or hundreds of millions of users, just listing vomiting, dry mouth, anxiety, etc does not provide that explanation. The "euphoria" mention from the WP:MEDRS-qualifying article is at least a start.
The header changes were mentioned on the article Talk page two weeks ago for discussion, and nobody made any comments: I believe that classifies as WP:Consensus for the change.Finney1234 (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I object. I will return things to the sensible structure and discussion can continue. Alexbrn (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Interesting: an editor (USER:Alexbrn) insisting that their personal opinion takes precedence over default WP:Consensus, while providing no valid Wikipedia guidelines in support of their opinion. "Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change. Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." Finney1234 (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
You'd better be careful when going on personal attacks, especially when you are wrong on the facts. In any event, your assumption was justifiable at the time but turns out to have been premature. We're not going to have an article on cannabis without an adverse effects section at all. Alexbrn (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
@Finney1234: This discussion can continue virtually forever. How about to look for something like this?: [5] . I bet there are plentyof sources like that. My best. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Being "stoned"

Finney1234 recently added some material about being "stoned" and what it's like. This is essentially duplicative of material we already had in the "Recreational" section. I have moved all the new material to that place, but it really needs to be reconciled. Finney1234 could you do that, since you have access to the source(s)? Alexbrn (talk) 07:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Finney1234? Have you noticed this? The current "Recreational" section has a lot of duplication from your new additions. If you're not minded to reconcile, shall I just delete the redundant stuff? Alexbrn (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn I noticed it, but I was putting it off because I'm working on other stuff. I will do a quick fix on it today (and do many more extensive WP:MEDRS revisions on it in the future). BTW, did you work on getting rid of the many duplications in the (now) "Adverse Effects" section? It's pretty horrible in that respect, and cleaning up the duplication and poorly sourced examples there seems to fit your interest and expertise. I haven't yet looked in detail at your changes.
It is unfortunate that the MOS is strongly oriented to medicine, and is really not set up for important non-adverse effects of not-necessarily-recreational use of cannabis. I plan to add a "non-adverse" effects section, since you removed my section name change to "Effects of Cannabis", which would have addressed this. Note that the MOS provides "suggested" headings, not required headings.Finney1234 (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd be very happy to work on cleaning up the adverse effects. Was there anything particularly worrying you noticed? The "non-adverse" effects at the moment are in the "Recreational" section. Do you think there are non-adverse effects that are of another type? Alexbrn (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
There are many. Medicinal users are going to experience them as well as recreational users (which is why I tried to change to an "Effects of Cannabis" section).
Possibly the physiological effects currently in the recreational section should be moved to "Adverse effects"; increase in pulse rate is not restricted to recreational users, and there is currently no section where this material really belongs (my proposed "Effects of cannabis". I do not currently have specific comments on "Adverse effects", but when I tried to combine all of the "Adverse effects" examples spread out over many places in the article a few weeks ago, I pointedly did *not* remove or change text, and I believe there was some definite duplication. I also would suspect that some of the "Adverse effects" references don't meet WP:MEDRS criteria, but perhaps you've already addressed that. See postings above on this page. Finney1234 (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
As a bit of history - about eight years ago there was a big effort to clean up the cannabis "suite" of articles after it came to light they were crammed full of misinformation. A lot of the sourcing was improved then so the main problem would likely be that some is now outdated. The articles were never polished or made particularly great but the basic sourcing was improved and the cruft taken out. Alexbrn (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Cannabis "overdose"

User:Alexbrn: Can you clarify your reason for the removal of my recent re-addition about lack of evidence for cannabis overdose fatalities?

1. WP:MEDRS sources from 2010 and 2012 are not "outdated" unless the material has been shown to be wrong.

2. The Drummond source you cite in the Fatality section you created does not reference the term "overdose" at all; it refers primarily to cardiac issues (including some fatalities) that were reported to occur in people who were cannabis users. However, the Drummond article states that "most of the cases and series reporting a possible link between cannabis use and a cardiovascular event have not had a blood measurement positive for THC", that is, there is little evidence for immediately preceding cannabis use (required for an "overdose" fatality). Moreover, the article also states that "the evidence for a link between cannabis use and increased risk of cardiovascular disorder is not clear".

Given the weakness of the article's claims, the following WP:MEDRS based claim that I made does not appear to be contradicted by the article you cited, and strikes me as valid.Finney1234 (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

______________________________________________

"There is no evidence of death from cannabis overdose.[1] The low toxicity of cannabinoids has been attributed to the relative lack of CB1 receptors in the brainstem.[2]: p7 "

____________________________________________ ~ ~

References

  1. ^ Calabria B, Degenhardt L, Hall W, Lynskey M (May 2010). "Does cannabis use increase the risk of death? Systematic review of epidemiological evidence on adverse effects of cannabis use". Drug and Alcohol Review. 29 (3): 318–30. doi:10.1111/j.1465-3362.2009.00149.x. PMID 20565525.
  2. ^ Iversen, Leslie (2012). "How Cannabis Works in the Brain". In Castle, David; Murray, Robin M.; Cyril D'Souza, Deepak (eds.). Marijuana and Madness (Second Edition). Cambridge University Press.
Your source is ten years old. The science on cannabis fatality has moved on since then. WP:MEDRS says to avoid sources over five-years old in areas under active research (as this is). Using out-of-date research to undercut current knowledge is very bad. Alexbrn (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Alexbrn: MEDRS is concerned about studies over five years old that have been superseded by more up-to-date ones. You have provided no evidence that the overdose claims has been superseded by newer research; your cardiac data in the Fatality section (in which you are exceedingly speculative ("is suspected"), rather than providing appropriate encylopedia material) does not supersede or address the findings from the 2010 and 2012 WP:MEDRS sources (see above). You still have provided no valid basis for removal of the overdose statement.
Also, your claimed concern about studies over 5 years old seems to be somewhat biased, as you did *not* choose to address the many older studies in the "Adverse Effects" section that you edited recently. This is also an area of active research.Finney1234 (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The section is on "Fatality". We're not going to use a statement from 2010/12 to undercut knowledge from 2019. My summary was good, and the word "suspected" is a fine word for medical writing, and in line with the paper concluding there is evidence cannabis has the potential to contribute to or cause sudden death. I came across this source while looking at CHS material, but as for other sources in the article: yes, they should be updated where possible, as this was. You know what to do. Alexbrn (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 18 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eharps15. Peer reviewers: Joker12346, Katelynn.parker, Isaiahskeete.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Need to have a Cannabis by country article

Need to have a Cannabis by country article. There is lots of country specific stuff.101.98.39.246 (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

See Legality of cannabis and the many articles linked from there. Alexbrn (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
That is not enough. 101.98.39.246 (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Then you might like Annual cannabis use by country and Adult lifetime cannabis use by country. Alexbrn (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Still not enough. There needs to be an overveiw page. Don't yo get it? 17:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.39.246 (talk)
That would be this template then:

18:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

A template is not an article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.39.246 (talk) 08:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I give up. YUou obviously don't kn ow how to srite articles! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.39.246 (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, that explains a lot. Shame on you, Alexbrn, for bringing logic into this when you should be sriting. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
You a a fool. "sriting" is obviously a typo and there is no logic here. Alexbrn put forward an opinion which is a poor one. See LGBT rights by country or territory as one of probably many "by country" articles. 101.98.39.246 (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
That's apt because LGBT rights vary by country, but the biomedical effects/chemistry etc. of cannabis do not. The legality varies by country which is why we have an over-arching Legality of cannabis article. Anyway, IP, nobody is going to make an article for you so if you want it you'll have to make the sense yourself. Alexbrn (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cannabis_(drug)/Archive_12&oldid=1136590324"