Jump to content

Talk:Medical cannabis/Archive 1

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

Ed Rosenthal

Ed Rosenthal is an marijuana activist, a renowned horticulturist and grower of medicinal marijuana who was growing the marijuana legally (based on local laws), yet was just convicted of several counts. I added him as a proponent, and someone removed him, why?

Australia

I live in australia and although the law may be changed by now, im sure somewhere in western australia, medicinal marijuana is allowed, and not just in the act.


I just wanted to let everyone know the guidelines I used in writing this and why, after having finished, I'm not sure they're good. I only included links to scholarly reports or detailed summaries of scholarly reports (with citations). After investigating the first 100 links off google, and searching in vain specifically for it, I was unable to find anything that met the criteria arguing against it. There were quotes that purported to claim all sorts of things from various people, but the closest I could come were the various reports suggesting that marijuana may have medical value, but that the evidence is not conclusive enough to decide for certain. I didn't include links to advocacy groups on either side, except in that most of the scholarly reports were only available on these sites, in which case I linked directly to the scholarly report (unless it was a PFD, cuz I didn't know if that was legal/polite/possible to do so). The article reads extremely POV now, so I will be considering changing the criteria and would appreciate input from others. I really don't want to link to advocacy groups because there are much too many of them. Maybe if we only select an equal number of pro and con major sites, and clearly mark them as politics and advocacy, and not science.Tokerboy

The layout stinks too. I was expecting to find different information, so my plan didn't work out as well as I had hoped. I'll go tinker. Tokerboy


Very good work, Tokerboy! My name is Skywolf, aka Neal Smith. I'm with Indiana NORML and a long time Cannabis/Hemp researcher.

Someone in this forum said something about the U.S. gov't position. I think you should eschew them until they learn to speak the truth.

I just discovered Wikipedia a couple of weeks ago. I'm very impressed with the whole scheme. I tend to trust places that have good information on Cannabis.

Skywolf.

The UK is undertaking trials for medical marijuana. UK courts have already set a sort of precedent whereby people using, possessing or growing the stuff for medical purpose are not charged. try the Disability Now website for info, they may have archives of old issues -- Tarquin 23:04 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)


Hi Tokerboy, thanks for your work! You're right, it reads a bit one-sided (the US federal gov't position is missing, for one thing [1]), but it's a great start. As for which organizations and groups to cite, I'd say we should set a threshold at membership numbers or financial backing. Where this data is not available, we ignore the gruop. The historical background which is also mentioned in some of the studies should be directly referenced within the article, but needs to be double-checked first. One problem:

"In addition, Marinol was far more effective, costing upwards of several thousand dollars a year for the same effect as smoking a weed easily grown throughout most of the world. Many users felt Marinol was less effective,"

I presume you mean "expensive" in the first sentence. --Eloquence 23:22 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

Oops -- I'll go fix.

[1] I do not mean to imply that other governments' positions should be ignored, in fact, this article should provide as much international perspective as possible.

The reason I didn't include the US gov's position is that there was no scientific evidence that I could find evidence of to report on. I've gotta go for a little while, but I'm thinking now of a section that would look like:

Canada

Mention that court case there's a link to at the bottom that said a ban on medical pot is unconstitutional.

Medicinal cannabis strain list

Would it be alright to post a link in the external links section a page with a list of cannabis strains, their breeder, individual pages for each strain describing them as well as information as to what particular ailment they help with. Here is the link: http://www.cannabishq.com/forum/index.php?topic=612.0 Is it ok to post? Non-profit website with helpful information.

Tennessee Study

The text as it currently stands is contradictory. It reads: "90.4% success for smoked cannabis; 66.7% for oral THC. 'We found both marijuana smoking and THC capsules to be effective antiemetics. We found an approximate 23% higher success rate among those patients administered THC capsules....'" The success rates posted are higher for smoked cannabis, but the quoted text clearly states that oral THC has a higher success rate. Operating on the assumption that the success rates were mistakenly switched, I have edited to show 90.4% success for oral THC, 66.7% for smoked cannabis. If I have misunderstood, feel free to revert. Regardless, someone may want to check the study to confirm things.

USA

I question whether or not the article should cite the FDA claims, since it is a politically motivated organization. Tanman627 11:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

33 states technically allow medical marijuana, but only 7 enforce it. The federal government claims there is no use and a dozen heavily armed DEA agents recently arrested a crippled grandmother after pointing an AK47 to her head

Was the USA really the first country to ban the plant? From Prohibition - TheSite.org: The first country to prohibit cannabis was South Africa in 1923, in 1928 Britain followed suit and in 1937 America did too, in spite of the fact that it was not in widespread use as an intoxicant at that time. Ladysway1985 17:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice if there was some information or links to other sections on why the United States banned the plant.

  • Specific state laws:
States with partial decriminalization:
  • Alaska
  • California
  • Colorado
  • Maine
  • Minnesota
  • Mississippi
  • Nebraska
  • Nevada
  • New York
  • North Carolina
  • Oregon
  • Ohio
States with medical marijuana laws:
  • Alaska
  • California
  • Colorado
  • Nevada
  • Oregon
  • Hawaii
  • Maine
  • Maryland
  • Montana
  • Vermont
  • Washington
Should we move these in the article to a table beside the USA section for quicker reference? --Silverweed 04:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

UK

Medical users are not charged.

And etc as needed (I linked to a report from the Aussies, but I didn't actually read it and I don't know if the government did what the report advised anyway; I think it's legal for medical use in Norway, but I could be wrong.) Tokerboy

I'm norwegian and certain it is not legal for medical use. Norml's norwegian sibling, normal normal.no, have been advocating it for years. --85.165.147.247 (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I found this site which probably has a lot of good info on the status in many countries, but is badly translated from German by Google, so I gave up trying to figure it out (the entry on Greece is hilariously incoherent). Somebody who has even just an inkling of German might be able to parse it, or even read the original, which presumably makes sense. Tuf-Kat

Comment by anonymous user:

Jamaica

When I've been there I was told that is legal to own it under the religious freedom, that means for Rastafari people.

Probably, but I'm pretty sure he's wrong. My understanding is that cannabis is illegal in every UN member and this could not be changed without breaking an international treaty. Possibly the law is not enforced ever or under certain circumstances, such as for Rastafarians, people with certain medical problems or within coffee shops in one city, but I don't think any UN member has or could legalize it (without causing an international incident). Tuf-Kat
UN members are encouraged to keep cannabis illegal, but are not obligated to do so. --Thoric 22:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure he's wrong too. Your explanation seems accurate. -- goatasaur

I thought a lot of Rastas objected to the Rastafari Movement being called Rastafarianism. "The movement is called Rastafarianism by some non-Rastas, although Rastas themselves generally regard that term as improper and offensive, because of the saying that "isms" denote "schisms"." Ian 19:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Bias

I think that the "external links" section of this article is biased. While there are links to websites supporting medical marijuana usage, there are no links to websites or articles denouncing medical marijuana usage. --NoPetrol 01:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another sample of the bias is this statement: "No such bill has received enough votes in Congress to become law, possibly because the currently dominant Republican Party is opposed." The bills didn't get any support when Democrats controlled the House, Senate, or Executive Branch. And, of course most recently the liberal judges on the SCOTUS ruled against Raiche.

-The mention of the Republican controlled congress is biased and political and shortsighted, and should not be on wikipedia because this is an archive for all generations and all people. Plus it is true Democrats and Republicans are part of the same contingent who have not voted for Medical Marijuana: This is Not A Political Issue! The Raiche case was doomed from the beginning, anyone with any knowledge of the Constitution could have told them to go at it from a different angle. The statement "No such bill has received enough votes in Congress to become law, possibly because the currently dominant Republican Party is opposed." is not biased it is political. If you remove reference to the Republican Party being opposed this statement rings true for all people in all times.-

--The Pot Snob 22:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This is way too biased towards the legalization of cannabis. I wish that the arguments against this (and reasons why the federal government have prohibited cannabis in the first place) were a little more fleshed out than they are, because this IS a controversial issue.

The problem is that there is not really a very good argument against cannibis use for medical usage, except of course the economic argument of keeping lawyers and other criminal justice types employed to enforce the marijuana laws.01001 02:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
"reasons why the federal government have prohibited cannabis in the first place"
1. It makes a Negro disrespectful of white men.
2. It drives Mexicans into an uncontrollable killing rage.
3. Negros seduce wholesome white women with Pot and Demon Voodoo Music, Jazz.
4. It Causes a Negro to "step on a White mans shadow.
5. It drives a casual smoker insane and homicidal.
6. It makes a casual smoker docile and turns US solders into Pacifists.
If you want to put these in the article go ahead but I don't think it will help the Bias issue because every one of these bigoted and ignorant remarks are part of public record and were used by Harry J. Anslinger.
Quotes by Anslinger:
"Colored students at the Univ. of Minn. partying with female students (white), smoking [marijuana] and getting their sympathy with stories of racial persecution. Result pregnancy"
"Two Negros took a girl fourteen years old and kept her for two days under the influence of marijuana. Upon recovery she was found to be suffering from syphilis."
"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."
"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races." Billyjoekoepsel 16:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed drug prohibition is a form of racism. As a person from minority I am obliged to denounce this racism. Wooyi 20:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
That's an extremely ignorant remark that has no support of factual basis to it whatsoever. It's simply not true, not to mention that it makes no sense. - hmwithtalk 04:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Fact is Marijuana being Illegal is Racist and Ignorant. Mentioning the actual history, including the actual words of the senators and people involved in the illegalization of Marijuana is exactly what Wikipedia needs. The facts lay in the records of Congress. Everything done to pass the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937-with all its bigotry- should be made publically available to all people for all time. I intend to make all this information widely available for all to see-

All The Prejudice Will Be Seen And Heard - For all People To See and Make Judgement for themselves about Marijuana--The Pot Snob 22:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Actually, there is factual basis to proove that medicinal marijuana has serious health hazards. I have discovered some links to some medical studies that discuss the risks of its usage, especially the update in regards to the initial Canadian study that declared tha medicinal marijuana promoted brain cell growth. Could someone please tell me how to upload the links? --EmilyGreene1984 3:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed article split

This article is overweight and needs to be split in 2, otherwise it cannot be freely edited. I propose splitting it into Medical marijuan (history) and medical marijuana (research). I really want to read here what other people want. I propose to split the article next sunday. Squiquifox 19:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would rather split out a section on legal status of medical marijuana with all the by-country info. I think the history and research sections are what the reader is most likely looking for. Trying to keep those two subjects separate would be diffcult; I worry that having a history of medical marijuana article would be seen as bias in favor of MM. Tuf-Kat 22:55, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
I'm confused what you mean by that. Cannabis has been used medicinally for thousands of years, right up until it was prohibited. --Thoric 20:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have brought the issue of whether articles should be split/slimmed or not to Village pump (policy).Squiquifox 02:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the article should be slimmed down, and much more brief. Then at the begining of some of the sections, it should say Main article: History of Medical Cannabis or Main article: Political standpoints ect... --74.70.39.154 02:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is enough information about the History and wide use of Medical Marijuana on this article at all. I intend to add more sources and more information about Medical Cannabis before the Drug Companies came along.

--The Pot Snob 23:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

proposed name change

Why medical marijuana? High grade pure quality hashish will clearly have the same effect, so why not call the article medical cannabis. Google gives exactly same number of hits to both, 1,530,000. Medical hash gets 115,000. --SqueakBox 01:18, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree "marijuana" is a name fraught with POV connatations. Cannabis is the proper terminaology so it should be used. Dainamo 00:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I second the motion of the name change along with the article split -- do both at the same time. The "Medical marijuana" title makes about as much sense as a term like "medicinal hootch" does for medicinal use of alcohol. We should encourage the proper name of the plant over a slang term. As for the article split, this article contains little more than history, and we really could use an article summarizing all the recent medical discoveries, and how effective is has been treating pain that has not been effectively treated via other means. --Thoric 19:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I second thoric's seconding, split and rename.

I first went here to look for some spesific info and found the info confusingly layed out. A list by symptoms/illness connected to what researchpapers would be very nice.--PetterBudt 21:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

ry-va 2727 bc ?

i removed this:

" The earliest recorded reference to medicinal marijuana is in the Ry-Va (ancient Chinese Pharmacopeia), believed to have been written in 2727 BC. These ancient uses are well documented, but are not proof that cannabis is a useful medicine."

that date, at the very least, is certainly bogus; there are no chinese texts that old. some web sites say "15th century bc", which is possible; but i can find no evidence that this text even exists at all.

Benwing 03:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

New Pro-cannabis userbox

This user is pro-cannabis.

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

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

Stand up and be counted while you still can,

StrangerInParadise 20:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Stuart Hoffman

There are a couple of issues with the criticism by Dr. Stuart Hoffman in the lead. Before I argue for the removal of this content, I would like to know if anyone thinks Hoffman is a notable person in this field. I would very much like to include criticism from both sides, but as far as I can tell, Hoffman is not notable and has a conflict of interest pertaining to this issue. Any suggestions would be helpful. —Viriditas | Talk 08:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Biased

I agree with the aformentioned section "Bias". This article seems to overly push medical usage of cannabis, both in how it is written and its supporting links. I also wonder at opinions behind this phrase and why its included in the article (under the Canada section): "There is some belief that American egotism or desire to be "the world's policeman" is a factor in its attitudes."

It isn't a bias -- we've been mislead:

"Neuropathic pain is notoriously resistant to treatment with conventional pain drugs. Even powerful and addictive narcotics like morphine and OxyContin often provide little relief. This study leaves no doubt that marijuana can safely ease this type of pain." --Lester Grinspoon, an emeritus professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, is the coauthor of "Marijuana, the Forbidden Medicine.".

From http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/01/opinion/edgrinspoon.php -- Renice 06:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree it is not that biased. The fact that it seems too pro-medical cannabis is not because we don't want to put opposition opinion there, but rather is because that those opinions are so absurd, callous, and laughable. If those opinions are posted people would be so repulsed. Only people who don't care about those patients' life would agree with the government to arrest them. Wooyi 15:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree. If the government's view was as absurd etc as you say they would have no backing for them (even dictatorships dont work ion a vacuum let alone democracies). It may appear callous etc to you but clearly not to everyone. We need to present both sides of the argument and let our readers (who will be from a wide range of backgrounds) make their own minds up, SqueakBox 16:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, SqueakBox, your logic doesn't hold up either. If the government's motives (or rather those of agents of the government) are wrong, say greed for example, then it/they could easily be supporting a callous disregard for patients in chronic pain.
Grinspoon writes, "The pharmaceutical industry is scrambling to isolate cannabinoids and synthesize analogs and to package them in non-smokable forms." Each analog that pharmaceutical corporations isolate is another expensive (and incomplete) drug.
That prospective product line is a powerful motive for forces of darkness -- i.e., all those who will profit from packaging a natural, God-given product. Who said 'You will know them by their works'? The apostle Paul said, 'Test everything.' How? By their works/fruits. The fact is some people have a hard time letting loose of power... and its resulting money.
[Btw, the endocannabinoid system is precisely how we are 'wired' for faith (not religion, faith -- religion=rules, faith=trust), and C is a way to learn how it feels to fill your CB-system receptors and Trust. Ever wonder why negative thoughts kill the buzz? It's a lesson to Trust, and an exercise so you can recognize when your own thoughts are 'sinful', i.e., negative. C = "training wheels" for Trust and walking in the light. /end sermon, PSA, pep_talk ;> ]
--Renice 17:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My logic doesnt hold up? All I am saying is we are encyclopedia writers and we must be neutral and unbiased in our approach to this subject. I personally think all cannabis should be legalised everywhere forthwith but I am not trying to use wikipedia to promote my personal views. We cannot satanise the US governemnmt who have, from wikipedia's POV, an equally legitimate POV to that of we who say legalise it now, SqueakBox 17:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that WP should be unbiased (and I agree that the statement mentioned in the starting post of this thread is an example of bias (even though I believe Dub is benighted)), but I think that will mean exposing greed (or uncharitability) as a motivation for keeping cannabis illegal -- and that entails challenging the common wisdom that governmental rules are always created in the best interests of the governed. (Sometimes they are created to support campaign contributors.)
I think this can be done simply and fairly by publishing recent cannabis research by pharmaceutical corps. As Grinspoon, a reasonable authority, writes, the pharmaceutical analogs have NOT "shown any improvement over the plant nature gave us to take orally or to smoke." So why else would analogs be developed but for greed? I'm trying to be open-minded, really ;>
However, if all you're saying is that all the reasons for illegality, including those by the benighted and uncharitable, should be presented in the article, then we are in agreement. --Renice 15:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
This article isn't really that biased. In reality, good science is never biased, while politics are always biased. If there are going to be sections in this article arguing the usage of medical cannibis, they should be coming from a scientist's viewpoint, not someone with religious or moral motives for being biased. A separate section in this article should be created for political standpoints, or it should be included in criticism. 74.70.39.154 01:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Added Criticism section

In order to balance this article out, I added a "Criticism" section. Basically it's a series of footnoted points showing that smoked marijuana is not an effective medicine and that it's more harmful than not. I think it's important to have this in the article because as of now it's completely skewed to the concept that there is such a thing as "medical cannabis".Okaythere 08:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how misrepresenting data, manufacturing opinion, and citing selected isolated studies "balances" anything. I've reverted your additions as a result. The therapeutic use of cannabinoids is recognized by physicians and established by reliable research. —Viriditas | Talk 09:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Okaythere's edit was full of propaganda, much of it patently false.Anarchist42 18:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's "patently false" then please tell me which of it is false and then point it out. There are clearly and obviously doctors that disagree that SMOKED cannabis is an effective medicine. I'm putting the criticism section back in to balance out the obvious bias in the article.

Okaythere 01:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please dont call cannabis the US centric term marijuana. The article is called cannabis, and marijuana is meaningless slang to most of our readers. I suggest if you want to put all this stuff somewhere it belongs in cannabis and definitely not here. Though I would probably revert it there too as a political rant, whereas all the issues you treat are dealt with at Cannabis (drug) but in an WP:NPOV way, so not here please, SqueakBox 01:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll change all references "marijuana" to "cannabis". There are specific health issues, footnoted and referenced, that show that legitimate medical organizations see problems with SMOKED cannabis as a medicine. Therefore this is the appropriate place for it. Putting it back in.

Okaythere 01:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of Okaythere's proposed edit concerns opposition to medical cannabis, much of it concerns health effecs. So some of the information belongs either in this article, and some probably belongs in Health issues and the effects of cannabis. The two are related, particularly where medical professionals obejct to medical use of cannabis on the basis of health issues. There's nothing wrong with a criticism section in this article, as long as it is well-sourced (like everything else on Wikipedia). Please be as specific as possible when citing sources. -- Chondrite 01:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
OK I took a first pass at copyedit and reviewing sourced and unsourced statements. There's no reason for the criticism section to be the second section of the article. Most of the statements in the criticism section should be moved to the Health issues and the effects of cannabis article. As it stands, the section needs a major copyedit to reorganized and remove redundant statements; I suggest using subsections to organize the various arguments. --Chondrite 02:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think in the criticism section we should definitely include statements from those who worked in outlawing the drug, such as anslinger. Make sure people realize the words said that created these laws.

--The Pot Snob 23:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

In this article there is no reference to the fact that the FDA has officially issued an inter-agency advisory against the legitimacy of smoked marijuana. There is also no reference to the fact that several major public health organizations oppose the use of smoked marijuana. Additionally, while the article is heavy on pro-medical advocacy, there is no reference to the fact that no major medical association considers smoking marijuana as modern medicine.

Of course you are more than welcome to put them up if you can find reference to it. But just to tell ya, frankly, if anyone has any compassion he would not deny something that can make a terminally ill patient feel better. If you only have one day to live why bother about the health effects? Wooyi 21:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If you only have to live one day why bother about a law that many people consider wrong? SqueakBox 00:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wooyi, for your point of view (POV) on this. I'm glad you're expressing your bias in this forum instead of in the article. I will add references to public health orgs that dispute the efficacy of smoked marijuana and source them. Thanks!

No problem. Also I'd like to point out, you wrote supporters of medical marijuana mainly come from ones who support full legalization. But this is not true, there are many who only support medical use, like prominent figures such as Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (see his article). Saying "predominately" legalization advocates support med-pot is like saying "only racist support abolishing affrimative action". Wooyi 21:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point Wooyi, I'll clarify by noting that its not supporters of legalization which support medical marijuana (although in many cases that is true) I'll add a note sourcing the fact that the Marijuana Policy Project has directly funded and run every medical marijuana initiative in the United States since the mid-90's, as is noted on the "accomplishments" portion of their web site. [1]

Remenber this isnt medical cannabis in the US but medical cannabis, SqueakBox 00:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks squeakbox. This is not a US enclyclopedia entry. But the thing is in rest of the world medical cannabis has no dispute and is very widely accepted. In US the moral panic and intolerance has made us left behind the whole world. Indeed, it is a shame that people have to argue about medical cannabis when the world has no problem with it. Wooyi 00:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I hear that (though here in Honduras I can assure you the situation is at least as bad). I wouldnt object to a Medical cannabis in the US article, SqueakBox 00:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The lack of the two facts you mention above does not warrant a POV tag. Anarchist42 21:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree--this article is VERY POV and I respectfully suggest that the POV tag belongs until the pro-marijuana bias is eliminated or balanced by arguments and evidence to the contrary. There are also many unsourced statements.Argos'Dad 05:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that the article, in the version that I read, is balanced, but could do with being longer. I am surprised that there is no mention of the efficacy or otherwise of cannabinoids in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. There was recently a court case about this in the UK (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6183637.stm). Also, to what extent is the medical efficacy (if any) countered by the side effects. Many people find the psychological effects of cannabis unpleasant, frightening and disabling. Are there any preparations of cannabis which reduce or eliminate the psychological effects? I would be glad if the article could be enlarged, to include discussion of these points. Greensea

The Fact is there is no shortage of anti-marijuana bias in America. This is not America, this is the Wikipedia, and the international encyclopedia for all people in all times. Giving too much credit to those against medical cannabis is not correct, and should be very limited, just as the limited length of time marijuana has been stigmatized and illegal.

--The Pot Snob 00:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Advocacy groups

I just reverted an edit where the editor removed the ONLY advocacy group listed that opposes medical cannabis. This is precisely what is meant by the fact this article is not NPOV. I pledge to work to balance it out, and hope the other editors will also join in good-faith to do that.Argos'Dad 04:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

But that group is erroneously listed under "advocacy" group, which isn't the case. we should create a section called "Anti-medical marijuana organizations" and put that group under the section. Wooyi 04:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
DFAF is an advocacy group that advocates a different perspective from the other groups listed. That is what "Neutral Point of View" requires: both perspectives be presented. To argue that "advocacy groups" all promote medical marijuana and everyone else is an "anti-advocacy" group is an example of what is wrong with this article. Any group that advocates for or against medical cannabis should be listed in that section.Argos'Dad 04:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Since this is article is about Medical cannabis, so a section on "advocacy groups" should logically include only those groups which advocate medical cannabis, and not any groups which don't advocate medical cannabis. Anarchist42 17:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed the title and re-added the anti group. Wikipedia is neither pro or anti cannabis and this is a policy I will enforce, SqueakBox 17:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you SqueakBox, I think you did the right thing. The title change was needed, since the previous title would cause confusion. Wooyi 22:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

POV editing?

User:Argos'Dad made this edit, saying my explanation of Mark Souder was POV. However, it was true that the DEA under Bush Administration did actually raid on patients who are using medical cannabis. So I can't see why it was a POV. Wooyi 00:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

sources to be incorporated

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/01/opinion/edgrinspoon.php

Nice quote: "If marijuana were a new discovery rather than a well-known substance carrying cultural and political baggage, it would be hailed as a wonder drug."

Can you work this stuff in? --Renice 05:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Cannasat drug company website: Cannasat Therapeutics; "Our Mission: To research, develop and commercialize novel pharmaceutical products that target the endocannabinoid system."

Health Effects

Please stop unilaterally removing studies by declaring them "debunked." This article belongs to all of its editors, and we are trying to make this NPOV. It is unhelpful to remove wholesale content because you don't agree with it. Also, please join the discussion here before acting unilaterally. Argos'Dad 23:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you READ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cannabis_%28drug%29/Archive_3#debunked_studies yet? Anarchist42 23:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I am not persuaded that the studies reported here are "debunked." In fact the whole language used here is POV. You can say, one study showed this, but another study showed that; this is an attempt to remove information rather from the consideration of others and it makes this page rmeain POV. The whole point of presenting a BALANCED approach is to report each side's perspective. Argos'Dad 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree with you, Argos Dad. Ajor 05:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Argos Dad JS747 (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry "metoo" arguments have no weight here. Studies come and studies go; not all are equal nor should all be represented. —Viriditas | Talk 01:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
So who is to determine which studies should stay and which should go? You? I don't think so.JS747 (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Suffragette granny

Perhaps we should include something about the lady in this article? Its the lead UK story on the BBC website right now and she is being called a suffragette, SqueakBox 16:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Two standout quotations: "In 2005, Judge David Hodson refused to jail Tabram, saying he did not want to make her a martyr. " and "The Crown Prosecution Service said medicinal use of cannabis was not a legal defence to possession and cultivation of the drug."
Until the latter changes, there will be martyrs. If this story is referenced, is there a way to include info about the research showing why cannabis relieves both aches and pains, as well as depression? MS research may be the most thorough in making that connection. (See search.)
--Renice 19:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Synthetic THC

We have a page about medical marijuana but that is focused primarily on smoking it, a little on Marinol, and nothing about Cesamet (Nabilone)?!? JRey 21:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC) JRey

I edited the nabilone page and added a link to the medical cannabis page. I also added a section on pharmacological THC derivatives. I think the article is of generally low quality and more or less a mess. Most of the verbiage could be tightened up quite a bit.--Dr.michael.benjamin 08:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

US centrism

This article is way too US centered, and is therefore more political then scientifical (actually it is almost solely political). I don't think that any political bodies, especially not US ones, should be quoted (they should be mentioned of course). Let The Sunshine In 18:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

i agree, this article is much too focused on medical marijuana and the Unites States; the first paragraph in particular positions the article in this respect. 72.0.72.121 06:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking of deleting all the external links. Most of them seem to be commercial or quasi-commercial ads for medical cannabis acquisition. I'm not sure that's the intent of the encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr.michael.benjamin (talk • contribs) 05:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Deleting all the external links is a means of suppressing information. This is not the end of all sources on Medical Marijuana. I wonder how many commercial or quasi commercial sites are in the external link sections of other articles?? Delete these, and you must delete all the others, or it is called thought control. I am here to make sure this does not ever happen here. I would call this a political move.

--The Pot Snob 01:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You are responding to a message that is almost six months old. The discussion has moved on. Pairadox 01:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
See WP:EL for a guideline on what is acceptable in External Links sections. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism?

Why is this under criticism, "In a 2001 study by the Mayo Clinic, Marinol was shown to be less effective than megestrol acetate in helping cancer patients regain lost appetites.[10]" It appears this has nothing to do with medical cannbais because Marinol is not cannabis, but just has THC in it; note "Marinol lacks beneficial properties of cannabis, which contains more than 60 cannabinoids, including cannabidiol (CBD), thought to be the major anti-convulsant that helps multiple sclerosis patients, and cannabichromene (CBC), an anti-inflammatory which may contribute to the pain-killing effect of cannabis."

Shouldn't "In a 2001 study by the Mayo Clinic, Marinol was shown to be less effective than megestrol acetate in helping cancer patients regain lost appetites.[10]" be on the Marinol article instead of the Medical Cannabis article? Would anyone care if I moved that sentance to the Marinol article and took it off here? (it obviously does not belong on this page) -ChristopherMannMcKay 06:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Could relevant info be put in the Pharmacologic THC and THC derivatives? (btw, CB2 has been shown to promote healthy bone development.) --Renice 12:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have spent years studying this subject

I am new here and I do accept a good encyclopedia needs impartiality. I could give another author/editor some directions they may want to look in. I had been told by the Clinton administration that the NIH study would set the policy for marijuana. The study (too narrow for my needs) showed that smoking pot really is the best medicine available for some conditions such as wasting syndrome, and a lot of AIDS patients need it to take the large number of pills their treatment requires. The NIH study said that for most other conditions probably had enough medicines that work that they could not in good conscience recommend smoking anything due to health concerns. .. That is probably the main supportable anti-pot arguement. The problem the Feds have is that as well as saying pot is not a cure-all it almost certainly has a value as a medicine. I do think the comment I read about the UN Treaty that outlaws pot world-wide has some truth to it, but more and more countries are deciding to let individuals decide for themselves. I guess they would technically be in violation. That's 2 arguements against pot. Another comes to mind — when smoked the typical user experiences an increase in heart rate, making it unwise for some heart patients to use pot. No, I'm not trying for a job at DEA, I just think this encyclopedia should express more than one viewpoint.

I think a POT CLUB category is needed to descibe the actual situation on the ground in the US today.

If you have any questions or wonder about my experiences you may e-mail me at Morganterry@earthlink.net

MorganCharlesT 15:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If it is smoking cannabis whish is probably the main supportable anti-pot arguement then we are talking about deception here, since cannabis need not be smoked (and the NIH knows it). Anarchist42 17:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree a Pot Club Category is definitely needed. It will expose the truth about how Prop 215 passed in California, and why Marijuana is the largest cash crop in California.

I also agree with Anarchist42 that the smoking stigma is part of the greater deception perpetrated by those who don't understand the benefits of Cannabis as a medicine. The best example is that at any medical cannabis dispensary in California you can get a wide range of edibles, including Ginger Snaps, Toffee Bars, Medicated Coffee, Medicated Ice Cream, Fudge Brownies, Cookies of all sorts, Hash Chocolates, medicated peanut butter, and medicated chocolate sauce just to name a few. Also there is a wide availability in the dispensaries of Pills that contain all of the cannabis compounds.

Giving Too Much Credit to those with sentiments against Medical Marijuana will only further this deception and ignorance.

--The Pot Snob 00:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of "ma" for anaesthesia in the Chinese language

I've been doing a little bit of scratching around the edges of the Chinese language recently, and it should come as no surprise that hemp is a very elemental component of the language, a "radical" used as a character and from which other characters are built.[2] Omitting pinyin markings (see the preceding source for full details), hemp is "ma", sesame is "zhi ma" (literally, sesame hemp), flax is "ya ma" (Asian hemp), bulrush? is "zhu ma", nettle is "qian ma", and ephedra is "ma huang" (yellow hemp). But more surprisingly, not only is marijuana "da ma" (big hemp) and narcotic "ma zui ji" (hemp intoxication medical preparation), but anaesthesia is "ma yao" (hemp medicine), and even chloroform anaesthesia is called "ma zui yao" (hemp intoxication medicine). That last one really stuns me, because when chloroform anaesthesia was invented, China was in the grip of an epidemic of opium addiction like the world has never seen before or since - yet chloroform was effectively described as a type of hemp! Additionally, some other usages really seem to point at an ancient role for hemp anaesthesia, because leprosy is described as "ma feng" (hemp air), paralysis as "ma bi" (hemp paralysis), and the castor oil plant as "bi ma" (paralysis hemp).

The reason why such wordplay seems informative is that the history of ancient Chinese physicians such as Hua Tuo has been subject to dispute. The evidence of language seems to point to a very widespread association of hemp with pain relief in ancient China, not just by one famous physician. I'd like someone who actually knows Chinese to consider whether my observations here make sense, and if so to add what is most important to the article. Mike Serfas 00:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We definitely need to include all this information in the wiki article on Medical Cannabis, it displays the close relationship of the development of the human civilization and the use of the Cannabis plant for both medicine and fiber.

--The Pot Snob 00:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing medical in marijuana

That can't be found elsewhere.

So? We are here to write an encyclopedia and nothing more so the fact that some people think cannabis has medical value is why the article is here, SqueakBox 18:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Medical Marijuana is one of the most documented medicines ever. Before major drug companies attempted to monopolize the medicine market in the 1930's - 40's, Marijuana extracts were used more then anything else.

Don't believe me- Prove me Wrong

WHOIS: For Freedom —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Pot Snob (talk • contribs) 21:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Medical Marijuana Museum

I am not personally affiliated with this site whatsoever. They are a California Non-Profit Corporation that is building a physical museum in the San Francisco area. This should definitely be included in Wikipedia, as it is dedicated to archiving and compiling information about Medical Marijuana.

Let me know what you think.

Medical Marijuana

--The Pot Snob 21:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks okay to me, SqueakBox 21:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, having spent hours looking at every single External link, I think there is some evidence that there is a connection between The Pot Snob and the Museum website, but since the site is being discussed here I'm willing to overlook the COI for now. On the merits of the website, I see nothing on the site to indicate that there are any plans for a physical museum. There is no indication that it is a California non-profit. There is no indication that the people who maintain it qualify as experts in the field, and thus fail the reliable sources criteria. There is also nothing really unique about the site, which duplicates similar information (with less POV) found in other links. I would be opposed to it's inclusion for now. Pairadox 22:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Medical Marijuana Museum is a registered Non-Profit in the state of California, and is attempting to gain momentum for a physical museum in the Bay area.

The Museum Does Not Claim To Do anything but archive information associated with Medical Cannabis and does not claim to be an expert, but has created a web portal to bring as much of the experts evidence as possible in one place.

The site is highly unique, as I found it searching on Google and it was the most qualified result for the keyword typed.

Medical Marijuana needs to be archived with all of the studies, organizations in One Archive-Why Not A Museum?

I find the writing to be highly provocative and unique to Medical Marijuana websites, I believe there should be a link to the museum.

--The Pot Snob 23:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The claim that it's a non-profit is not supported by the site (and, if true, is yet more evidence that you may have a connection to it). The only unique aspect is the review of clubs, and even that is useless because it's empty. Every bit of the medical info links to other websites (including this very article). I like it is not a reason for inclusion. Pairadox 23:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Pairdox did not go to the Donations Page because lack of motivation to donate for the cause. The Donations page made it clear, It is a Non-Profit-dedicated to building a museum in San Francisco. They say in the Last Light on the front page, that San Francisco is the chosen place for the museum, because it is a place people were witness to their friends and family dieing of HIV and how Medical Marijuana helped them to suffer less. Which is why more than any other place, San Francisco will never let the light go out on Medical Marijuana.

The fact that this user that does not believe the museum should go on the site did not go to the Donations Page shows their Bias against the site. We should not disclude a website because we do not "Like It" Nice Try

Get Up Stand UP

WHOIS: for freedom anymore?

--The Pot Snob 00:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, I did miss that information in my read through. My apologies. I don't donate to organizations that don't offer a full disclosure of their board, policies and finances, so I probably wasn't reading that page as carefully as I should. (I would suggest Church and Market - that locale has a LOT of history behind it.) Pairadox 01:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Infiltration???

It appears to me that this page is being regulated by those who do not believe Medical Marijuana is a Medicine. This talk page is full of people who dislike medical marijuana. Since the majority of Americans support Medical Marijuana for those having chronic pain and suffering. Who on here has an agenda to bad mouth Medical Marijuana? It is obvious the one continuous source of misinformation about medical marijuana is the DEA.

I am beginning to believe that someone with an agenda is attempting to hinder the future generations from being able to access the truth about Medical Cannabis right here in Wikipedia. Future generations must be made aware of how common and useful marijuana has been as a medicine up until the drug company takeover of the 1930's.

They also must be made aware about the truth about the drug laws, and how competition and disenfranchisement play a role in keeping Marijuana and all drugs illegal.

--The Pot Snob 21:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiscanner might be helpful in this case, try it out [3]. Regards, Adamantios 21:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Marijuana makes you paranoid.  :) Corvus cornix 21:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that makes a marijuana smoker paranoid are the laws associated with it.

In places where medical cannabis is consumed and legal in California, no one is "paranoid" taking bong hits at all. Don't continue to fester the ignorance associated with Marijuana.

--The Pot Snob 21:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Do remember what most Americans think isnt very relevant as we are an international encyclopedia (that is why the article is called medical cannabis). I agree with Corvus re cannabis and paranoia, not all the people allt he time but some of the people some of the time. We need to present both the pro and anti views in this case, SqueakBox 21:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
User:The Pot Snob came to Wikipedia with an pro-marijuana agenda, as his very first posts (to his user and talk page) clearly demonstrate. If you go looking for an enemy, you're likely to find one (even if one isn't present). Instead of casting accusations, try following the policies about assuming good faith, no personal attacks and verifiability. Oh, and the talk page is for discussing the article itself, not a forum about the pros and cons of the subject. Pairadox 22:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If this is a truly Global Encyclopedia We should not let one countries Drug Laws effect the article very much. The Long History and use of cannabis extracts as medicine has been pivotal to the development of the human species. To allow the stigma associated with the last 50 years in the country of the United States play a huge role in this article does a diservice to all people in all times.

--The Pot Snob 23:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Then try working on the article. There is a huge amount of information found in associated external links that could be used, but complaining about stigmas and conspiracies on the talk page ain't gonna make it happen. Pairadox 23:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I intend to definitely contribute to the Wikipedia articles on a variety of subjects including Medical Cannabis. The stigma is what I intend to end. Get Up Stand Up --The Pot Snob 00:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Please also read Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Corvus cornix 01:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia will no longer be a soap box for law enforcement agencies in the United States to spread biased information about Medical Marijuana. I am not trying to be underhanded here, I am trying to be truthful about the benefits of Medical Cannabis. I speak with no political affiliation, or website affiliation at all. The only propaganda is spread by those who would keep Cannabis illegal to sick people. Does it seem right, that to protect the public good, we raid Sick people who are cultivating a plant in their own home???

Arresting Quadrapelegics, MS patients, and AIDS patients might sound like a noble cause to some, but to me it sounds like the wrong thing to do: Just On Face Value Alone. For that reason any literature or sentiments against sick people getting Cannabis is all propaganda that is meant to misguide people from the truth.

I will be placing links I find appropriate when I find them, and I will be adding content to this article.

You can help Place the books in the Library; but you can't Erase Them

Get Up Stand Up

--The Pot Snob 04:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Pot snob, please read Wikipedia is not a soapbox. 71.204.49.76 (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Harm Reduction

The article says, "Studies have shown that vaporizers can dramatically reduce or even eliminate the release of irritants and toxic compounds."

Unfortunately the article does not mention any refinements or improvements in the technology of smoking utensils, some of which can also dramatically reduce irritants and toxicity, but which are dramatically less expensive than any vaporizers available today.

A narrow-screened-crater utensil (one-hitter, mini-toke) made out of a quarter-inch-i.d. socket wrench, barbed hose nipple, etc. with long, long hose attached offers LSMFT (life-saving minimum firing temperature), minimal loss of medicinal value, minimal carbon monoxide dosage. Many patients who for one reason or another are not going to spend the money for a vaporizer ought to be encouraged to try this route.

Concerning burning temperature, it has been known for decades that a typical commercial cigaret when being lit burns at 1500 degrees F (860 C)-- seven inches from your trachea! A research project which ought to be sensational when published would simply test various diameters of craters in pipes, chillums, bongs, etc, down to 1/4" (the best) for burning temperature achieved during a prolonged toke when the user is drawing air as slowly as possible. When the comparative results are known, the cigaret and "joint" as we know them will drop out of history forever. Yet (we may have to remind our congresspersons of this) to date the U. S. Government persists in providing legal cannabis to a few select patients in the form of... cigarets.

I believe that an encyclopedia has the duty to provide patients or users with the best harm reduction information. Give this some consideration and find a way to make it fit into the article.

Tokerdesigner 21:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources (not propaganda) for such information, it would be worthy of inclusion somewhere. Pairadox 00:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

We will have sources as soon as our discussion here succeeds in propelling a properly equipped medical lab to do the needed burning temperature comparison test between the above-described quarter-inch crater, wider bowls, "joints" and cigarets.64.107.0.178 23:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I will gladly find information (not propoganda) regarding the use of Vaporizers instead of paper joints, and perhaps the amount of chemicals added to the smoke when paper is smoked with it. What an excellent way to also question the quality of data coming from the US government. I will probably have to get these studies from our more liberal friends across the pond. None the less it will definitely improve the quality of information in this encyclopedia.

--The Pot Snob 20:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Medical Cannabis Summary needs to be re-written - it is US centric and faulty

I think the introduction to this article is completely unacceptable for a global encyclopedia.

The second line of the article should not mention the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 or the United States at all. Mentioning its illegality in the United States tells us nothing about the many medical uses of cannabis. Medical Cannabis is not that controversial out of the USA, and that does not need to be in the summary.

The second line of the 3rd paragraph should not mention the US pharmacopia, that needs to be included later on, and mentioning anything about the US, in this area makes this a completely US centric article.

In fact, most of the information given by the US government regarding this issue is being reviewed because of lawsuits filed regarding data quality.

Having a picture of a historical US marijuana extract is also not acceptable as a first image. Perhaps a more recent image of medical patients in California using the substance in a cannabis club, or ancient chinese script, something either more recent, or further back in time.

This is a link to one of the challenges brought on by the ASA regarding data quality about Medical Cannabis: Information Quality Challenge

It is essential we present an unbiased view of medical cannabis so that kids in school studying the subject, and people wanting tolearn more about it can do so. I doubt people come here trying to learn that marijuana was illegal, or that it has no medical value according to the United States.

People come here to learn about the medicinal benefits of cannabis, and not the United States history on the subject. All that info at the top can be included in the United States section, and not effect the main article.

If anyone agree with me let me know, I am willing to draw up and conceive a new introduction with the help of my fellow peers. Let me know if you think this is a good idea to help improve the Data Quality being disseminated to all people in all times.

--The Pot Snob 20:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Your concern about "US_centric" coverage taken to heart. However due to US economic-- and military-- power worldwide, many countries imitate US cannabis policies. In turn, US (especially federal) cannabis policies are influenced by the inordinate power of the tobacco overdose marketing industry, which does not want cannabis use, especially the interest of many users in miniature dosage methods and utensils, to impact on the masses of overdose cigaret addicts whose overdose spending (pack a day = over $2000/year) supports industry profits.

A comparative statistic which should be of interest to readers of this article: U.S. cigaret deaths widely reported at 440,000/year; worldwide cigaret deaths reported by WHO (2003) as 5.3 million/year. Why does U.S. with 5% of world population have 9% of world cigaret deaths? R.J. Reynolds website complains that U.S. smokers pay $36 bil./year in tobacco taxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokerdesigner (talk • contribs) 16:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That is perhaps the nicest way I have seen to skirt around the medical cannabis issue YET! Lets not talk about the original subject, lets bring up tobacco smoking statistics.

This is a medical cannabis article, and it needs to focus on the medicinal benefits of cannabis and not US foreign policy. I am going to invite some editors from the cannabis(drug) article to explain that there is a specific section for these American legal issues. This article needs major revisions and I expect more feedback from people, before I go make any changes.

Thanks,

--The Pot Snob 00:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with The Pot Snob. 

  1. "Marijuana Tax Act of 1937" should be in a United States section.
  2. An image of "medical patients in California using the substance in a cannabis club" seems most appropriate.
  3. "Tobacco" should be in another section
  4. A medical cannabis article should focus on the medicinal benefits of cannabis.

Anonymous person 1 01:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Anonymous

With that, I will begin changing the beginning of this article to mention only the medcical benefits of cannabis, and not the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act. I have waited months, and have gotten very little response from the community, if no one is in disagreement, I am going to change this article.

--The Pot Snob 08:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Potentially interesting

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7098340.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorftrottel (talk • contribs) 23:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis legality world map

The world map picture doesn't really apply in this medical article since there are different laws on medical cannabis and for drug use. Ie. recently in Finland the medical use has been legalized for patients with special permission, still the drug usage is strictly forbidden. Solutions? Anyone interested in making a medical cannabis legality world map? --Sapeli (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The map is an excellent diagram for visual learners. The map should be specific to medical use. Agreed this map is a bit vague, if it were focused it might be a good tool for visual learners. --The Pot Snob (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Legality in U.S.

The graphic showing color-coded legality, while interesting, is totally incorrect regarding legality of the drug in the U.S.

Distributing, growing, and possessing marijuana is illegal everywhere within the United States under federal law. Under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, valid federal laws trump contrary state or local laws. As such, state and local laws purportedly legalizing medical marijuana have no impact on the federal prohibition. Per recent Supreme Court precedent, there is no legitimacy to arguments that these federal laws are somehow invalid in the face of state laws. As such, it is simply incorrect to state or imply that medical marijuana is somehow "legal" in, e.g., California. It is not.

Although enforcement of the federal prohibition is far from ubiquitous, it is dangerous for individuals to assume that State laws offer any meaningful protection from federal prosecution. Many medical marijuana advocates in California, for instance, are quite open about their possession, use, and even distribution. Depending on their level of involvement, these individuals may be risking substantial jail time under federal law, including federal criminal RICO. From what I have seen, misconceptions about the federal prohibition have prompted significant imprudent behavior on the part of advocates. I would hate to see Wikipedia promoting those misconceptions.

The graphic should be changed, maybe with an additional color category indicating "legal in this U.S. state, but still prohibited under U.S. federal law."24.219.30.222 (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

However, when 98 percent of all marijuana arrests occur at the state level; the state laws would seem to matter much more to any medical user.

  • The openness of the advocates is a way of saying, "I dare you to throw my crippled ass in jail for smoking a joint!" They are knowingly commiting civil disobedience by disobeying what they see as an unjust federal law.

GUESS WHAT EVERYBODY - OBAMA HAS SAID HE WON'T BE USING FEDERAL FUNDS TO INTERFERE WITH STATE LAWS, SO THIS PERSONS WORRY ABOUT MISCONCEPTIONS ARE NOW HISTORY.

Here is the link to the story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/26/holder-vows-to-end-raids_n_170119.html

Pot dispensaries in California will no longer be raided. Thank you President Obama. --The Pot Snob (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, this isn't the place for this. Wikipedia is an international project. What is happening in a cannabis dispensary in California at this moment has nothing to do with improving this article. Please try to keep the political and advocacy stuff out of this talk page and focus on how to improve the sorry state of this article. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it make a big difference, because US policy is no longer to interfere with state laws. Understanding this is an international project, does not change the fact that USA policy has been changed. In order to improve this article such information must be included in the legal status section of this article. This is not political advocacy, this is stated US policy from the Attorney General of the United States. One improvement suggested by my statement is that US policy has been changed and thus, the article will change with it. "What is happening in a cannabis dispensary in California at this moment has nothing to do with improving this article." Excuse me, does that not effect US Policy towards the substance used for medical reasons. Doesn't that change the article? The reason this article was made sorry from the beginning was not because of advocates, it was because of those who were against it, and over politicized this article to be US centric. I was the first to suggest that it did not conform with a global view, and I do not need to be reminded of such. --The Pot Snob (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
If you can stick to talking about how to improve the article, then fine. But if you are going to gaze into your crystal ball and tell us how Obama is going to improve the environment for medical cannabis use, then I'm going to ask you to stick to the sources. Right now, nothing has happened, so when you are saying "Pot dispensaries in California will no longer be raided" and still, two (or more) have, there's a problem. I appreciate your excitement and enthusiasm, but we are here to write good articles, not advocate for political positions. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, the raids you speak of happened under Bush's Justice Department, and during and right after the inauguration before the changing of the guard had actually occured. We can assume now that the guard has changed, that the new policies announced by the attorney general will in fact be law. In fact, the reason that Medical cannabis was even mentioned at that news conference on the Drug raids in Mexico, was because it is such an important topic to the people of California that their dispensaries are not raided. Holder's comments signal a complete shift in how the Justice department handles this situation. Now that the Obama administration has officially taken over the US Justice Department, and sent out memos from the last administration, we can assume that the policies of the last administration are now over. Do you disagree that Holder is now the Attorney General of the United States? While those last minute raids at the end of the bush administration might give you hope that the policy didn't change, we can assume that now with a mew administration, and statements from that new adminstration, that the raids that occured will be the last ones for at least four years. --The Pot Snob (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

We can assume nothing, there has been no new legislation, and puff pieces in the popular press to fill up space do not count as "change". We don't use crystal balls on Wikipedia When the raids have ended, let's talk. There's been what, six or more raids since Obama took office? Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

i am thinking about adding what Assemblyman Tom Ammiano proposed in his bill of legalization and taxation of marijuana. Thoughts?--Hiram408 (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What reliable source are you using for your proposal? Since you just created this account and have only one edit in your contribution history, you may not understand what is required. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
it was a recent article in the sfweekly...here's the link [4]--Hiram408 (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Several things stand right out: 1) It's a blog column 2) The topic of the blog posting is the legalization of cannabis, not medical cannabis 3) It doesn't meet the standards of WP:MEDRS. 4) The articles you are looking for are called Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States and the Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act, although I don't think the reference you provide meets the standards for inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Well what would differentiate medicinal and recreational when its legalized? It would would be legal in general, thus it remains pertinent to the medicinal section. Now just because it is a blog column doesn't mean that information is not credible, after all they did interview the Assemblyman. Now i understand that you are trying to help the development of this article but you're coming off as an elitist asshole. My edit count has no correlation towards my knowledge on the subject. But thanks for advice regardless.--Hiram408 (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Replying in order of your points: 1) WP:CRYSTAL 2) WP:BLOG 3) WP:NPA 3) WP:CIVIL. If you want to discuss your proposal in regards to medical cannabis, I would be happy to talk about it. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the readings but you honestly came off as such in the manner which you addressed me. I may have been out of line but I just thought you should know because comments like those may only defer people from even considering contributing to this article. Aside from that, I thought that the news of such a proposal, if it does manage to eventually become ratified, could set a landmark precedent for the rest of the U.S., seeing as how California is one of the most radical and influential of the states. If it is to begin anywhere, I think California is our best shot.--Hiram408 (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(comment removed per request)

Sarah (Sko1221), what you have posted above is a personal attack, and I'm going to ask you to remove it. There are plenty of admins reading this talk page and several are participating. Nobody has any control over this article. What we have are a group of brand "new" accounts making the same arguments, arguments that are not valid or in adherence with the policies and guidelines that help us write articles. Sarah (Sko1221), if you can't stick to the topic of this discussion, then I will ask you to please keep your comments about other editors and how you feel about them to yourself. You and this brand new account seem to think this article is about Obama, the legalization of cannabis, and other off-topic issues, and I'm sorry to have to remind you that it isn't. Also, blogs and popular news articles aren't the best fit for an article about a medical topic, and I've pointed you in the direction of WP:MEDRS several times. I haven't yet made an official sock puppet investigation, but I think I'm getting pretty close to making one. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, do make a sock puppet investigation. I will remove my comments. (You could as well, the one where you call Agent Agent childish.) Sarah sko1221talk 05:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm planning on making a SPI, but right now I'm in evidence collecting mode. I will remove the comments above at your request. Viriditas (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Collecting evidence? Is this to improve the article or to create a sideshow? I would love to see evidence of the sock puppets for myself, lol.

Unfortunately, I think your efforts will be wasted. There are no sock puppets. This is all a big sideshow to keep this article from being improved. Good luck keeping this one going. --The Pot Snob (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable?

  1. Kevin L. Wisneski - Libertarian Democrat politician, educator and theologian.

Either this person should have an article of his own, or he should be removed from the article. Right now he's a red link. Vandalism? Llamabr (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

He's already gone. WLU (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Image

The most recent image removal from this page was an improvement.mike (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Table

Tables do not go in lead sections. Its use in the lead section without neutral sources is suspect, and gives the appearance of OR. Please point to the text in the article that supports it with WP:RS. Viriditas (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Annual number of deaths in U.S. from various causes
Substance(s) Number
Tobacco 440,000[1]
Hospital administered drugs 106,000[2]
Alcohol 46,000[1]
Marijuana (toxicity) 0[1]

Further reading

Needs to be formatted per WP:MOS. Viriditas (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable pro- and anti-medical cannabis individuals

This list should either be turned into prose or removed. If there is another article more appropriate for the subject then split it out. As it stands, this section does not serve the interests of the reader and is subject to a great deal of spam. Viriditas (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I support it's removal from this article.--Metalhead94 (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable US-owned Patents

The following URL http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6630507.html shows US Patent 6630507, the holder of which is named as "The United States as represented by the department of health and human resources". This patent covers specific medical uses for marijuana compounds. It was applied for on Feb 2, 2001 and approved on October 7, 2003 - while the US administration was telling the people and the world "marijuana has no medical value" and directly blocking institutional research into medical uses of marijuana (imagine that). If I write this myself, its going to sound like the US/DEA bashing which it SHOULD be, so I figured Ill drop it here for someone else to pick up on if they like. 71.58.235.30 (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sativex - Canadian box front.jpg

The image Image:Sativex - Canadian box front.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh... what's with the uncaptioned 'snake on a stick' picture?

... Is that really relevant? Doesn't the use of the word "medical" in the article title accomplish the same thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.233.169 (talk) 04:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Michigan

Michigan's Proposal 1 has passed, which allows Medical Marijuana usage and cultivation in the state. Please update the map! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.171.23 (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the phrase, "and noted opiate addict..." from Rush Limbaugh. I hate the guy as much as anybody, but that is not something that belongs in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.70.112 (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ordinary citizens who may wish to benefit from the pain relieving aspects of marijuana use, even in California, are prohibited from doing so. In some cases, even a decriminalized citation would result in a person losing their job. This is something that needs to be addressed by the incoming Obama administration. When there is virtually no evidence of long term harm from marijuana (as there is, say, from alcohol or tobacco), the time has come to move forward.

Greenwoodian (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see the removal of most advocacy links and their replacement with scholarly journal articles and reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think some advocate links are fine, as long as they pertain to medical use of cannabis. Many of these listed don't seem to be only for medical cannabis, and this is a problem.

--The Pot Snob (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This isn't a political or advocacy soapbox. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Your disagreement arises from the fact that you do not believe these advocates have completed any scholarly work? Or that you would prefer that these advocates are only associated in the article with the work they have published? Because many of these advocates have published works that could potentially be included in the article. Making the assumption that these advocates don't have work published to back up their beliefs I believe was implied by the statement: "I would like to see the removal of most advocacy links and their replacement with scholarly journal articles and reliable sources." Many advocates for medical cannabis have published books and other works associated with it. Would you be open to keeping advocates who have published works? --The Pot Snob (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
In the future, it's best to ask me questions, not answer them for me. Advocacy links are best used as inline references. If there are notable works in the field, works that have made a significant impact, they should be listed. But again, we are not the place for advocacy. I can't stress this enough. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of these advocates should be included in the history of medical cannabis section, and should not be removed altogether from the article. --The Pot Snob (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Who and where? Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Definitely Peron, and those who drew up Prop 215 need to be mentioned. Also we might want to include a link to the actual text of Prop 215, so that those interested can read the voter approved law in its entirety.--The Pot Snob (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
This is already in the history section, is it not? Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't see the need for most of these links. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any other article relating to marijuana advocacy or compassion clubs that they would belong in? OlEnglish (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
No. This is something I planned on creating in 2004 and completely forgot about. If you want to take the lead on this, I would appreciate it. First, you would need to determine the correct name for the new article. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
It's on my to-do list, however it'll probably be a little while till I get around to doing it. How about Marijuana advocacy with a compassion clubs section? OlEnglish (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's ideal. You've expressed interest in adding information about "compassion clubs", so the article should fit that narrow scope. The question at hand is whether the article should be named compassion club or something else. We should favor the most neutral term, such as Cannabis dispensary or something similar. There's a lot of information about this topic, and the details might surprise you. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis Dispensary might be too general a term, because these are medical cannabis dispensaries. In the near future, cannabis might be legalized, and cannabis dispensaries will be an entire different subject matter. It is important not to broaden this so much that is is not future proofed, and we end up having to rewrite whole articles because certain countries laws begin to change.

Medical Cannabis Dispensary might be more appropriate. --The Pot Snob (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis dispensary is only used in a medical context. If the time comes that cannabis dispensaries offer cannabis for non-medical use, then they will probably use a different term, like Cannabis coffee shop. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I know here in California we call them "Compassion Clubs", "Cannabis Clubs", Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, Coop's, Cannabis Collective's and more. No universal term was ever given to them, and Cannabis Dispensaries is not the only one term given to them. I believe there is a danger here by making an article to general in a subject matter that changes all the time. In order to future proof the article, I suggest it would go under Medical cannabis dispensary. In this case, because one could refer to the dispensaries in Amsterdam as Cannabis dispensaries as well, I feel it is going to generalize a situation that must be kept separate.Medical Use of Cannabis and Recreational Use must be kept completely separate. --The Pot Snob (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis dispensary is a fairly neutral term and lacks the political and emotional baggage of other terms, hence it is superior for the purposes of the encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Update: the MSNBC article you just added (regarding Obama and the DEA) uses the term "dispensary" so I think this is open and shut. Viriditas (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable pro- and anti-medical cannabis individuals

Section should be removed and merged into the appropriate article. This isn't the place for it. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the appropriate article? --The Pot Snob (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, this isn't a soapbox for political issues. There are plenty of articles that discuss or should discuss proponents and opponents, such as: Legality of cannabis, legal history of cannabis in X, Cannabis legalization in Y, cannabis political parties, decriminalization of medical cannabis in Z, etc. If anything, this article should stick to professionals in the field only, such as Donald Abrams, and others listed in Category:Cannabis researchers. Keep the politics out of this article, please. Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The danger is that you are considering medical cannabis and recreational cannabis as the same thing in this instance. Having a medical advocate like Dennis Peron, who was responsible for Prop 215 in California might be rather important to list in this medical cannabis article. Burying the information in some general marijuana article endangers it to become useless for everyone. Perhaps you don't understand the fine line between medical and non-medical. You're intent is good here, but you might actually do damage by associating medical cannabis advocates with those who support it for recreational use. You also risk making this article less of a resource for those doing research on medical cannabis. --The Pot Snob (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I worked with Peron and Brownie Mary on 215, so you don't know what you are talking about. You need to take a step back from this topic and focus on improving it, not using it as a soapbox for your political campaign. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The history of Medical cannabis section should definitely include information about notable medical cannabis individuals such as those that worked on Prop 215. Do you disagree? --The Pot Snob (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This particular article can link to other articles or mention 215 in passing, but again, this is an international article with a wide scope. Perhaps a small paragraph could mention efforts in California, but we need to see the big picture here and not focus on small players. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the main individuals responsible for Medical Cannabis in California should be mentioned beause they have spawned numerous studies, and other states to join in. What happened in 1996 has made medical cannabis what it is. Those such as Peron definitely need to be mentioned, as well as describing the set and setting. Mentioning the fact that people were dying in the streets from AIDS and other illnesses helped its passing is important. When these notables are mentioned, creating the proper backdrop is essential as well. --The Pot Snob (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Please tone down the rhetoric. Brownie Mary and others were distributing cannabis in the Castro long before 215. Nobody was "dying" in the streets because they couldn't get cannabis. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Availability section

This should be merged into the Legal and medical status of cannabis section and is somewhat beyond the scope of this topic. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the article (Legal and Medical Status of Cannabis) is too broad. This article is about medical cannabis, and should not be mixed with the other forms of cannabis. You might consider calling that article, Legal Status of Recreational Cannabis, so as not to interfere with this article and it covering of medical cannabis.

--The Pot Snob (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The availability section goes beyond this topic and duplicates the legal and medical status of cannabis article, where it should be merged. It also focuses too much on the U.S. We don't need this information in the article. Four paragraphs at the most, can summarize the issue. Again, this is an attempt to politicize the topic. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that the article (Legal and Medical Status of Cannabis) needs to be changed. In fact, I am going to start moving into that article as well. This article in essence, links medical use of marijuana with recreational use. This is unacceptable. Tell me, what exactly is the Medical Status of Cannabis? Why would this be included on a legal page? Do you mean to say what have doctors actually said about medical cannabis, as in its "medical status" or is your goal to intertwine legality in government with medical status? Because that would make that article a soap box for those who go against doctors, and medical recommendations wouldn't it? In fact I would suggest that the article in essence seeks to link medical and recreational cannabis to discredit it. This does not conform with a global view of the problem, and I am sure many Doctor's might debate the medical status of cannabis.Is it not this article, which is supposed to discuss the medical status of cannabis? Perhaps the solution is making the section on this article devoted to "Medical Status of Cannabis", and have the separate article changed to be listed only as the "Legal Status of Cannabis". Perhaps another section for "Legal Status of Medical Cannabis". Do not link these subjects, they are completely separate, and blurring the lines will do nothing to help people learn more about it. I think the availability section, and Medical and Legal Status sections can be merged into one section called the Medical Availability of Cannabis. This will prevent any combining of recreational cannabis and medical. --The Pot Snob (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How do reliable sources treat the issue? Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Judging by the amount of medical professionals and groups supporting it, I would say that quit a lot of reliable sources will back this up. The AMA supports it, but the government still doesn't, does this not say what I have been saying all along, that you can't link legal and medical status together. --The Pot Snob (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand. The overlap between the two articles was the reason for the merge, not the specific issues themselves. Are you saying that the medical status of cannabis is not a legal issue? Of course it is. I think what you are trying to say is that medical use and legal issues are two different topics. However, medical status is not use, but it's use in medicine has legal issues. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I am suggesting that when you have such stark differences between what Doctor's want, and the government, that you can't combine the two subjects. If the government and medical doctor's all agreed on this subject, it would become an easy matter. The fact that many in the medical community continue to recommend cannabis to patients suffering from AID's, cancer, etc, regardless of the fact they can lose their medical license, clearly shows my point. While we can't argue that medical status and legal status are not intertwined, it is important to note that on a controversial subject such as this one, that differences exist between the medical community and the legal community.it is for this reason that I suggest in this specific instance, that medical and legal status be separated. Anyone agree that in a subject matter this controversial, that aligning the two subjects might be detrimental to the article, and create confusion about how the medical community sees the substance as opposed to the legal community? --The Pot Snob (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Which reliable sources are you using to support your proposal to to change article? Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The article attempts to mix apples with oranges in this case. Would we associate legality and medical value of any other substances? The fact the people in California had to vote in Prop 215 should be evidence enough that it took an act of the people to change the legality for a substance known to have medical value. Should we then associate legal and medical status into one article? It would seem in the case of cannabis this would confuse the issue. Anyone have any comments on that? --The Pot Snob (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was addressed on the talk page of another article with reliable sources, and you were shown to be mistaken. I've now addressed it again on this page, here. Viriditas (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

New development: Obama administration

According to this San Francisco Chronicle article, "U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is sending strong signals that President Obama - who as a candidate said states should be allowed to make their own rules on medical marijuana - will end raids on pot dispensaries in California." Just wanted to point this out in case the information in the article can be used to improve this page. --Another Believer (Talk) 06:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We could probably update this page by adding this new legislation. I found this on Obama and medical marijuana: [5]

"Obama recalled that his mother had died of cancer and said he saw no difference between doctor-prescribed morphine and marijuana as pain relievers. He told an interviewer in March that it was "entirely appropriate" for a state to legalize the medical use of marijuana "with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors."

After the federal Drug Enforcement Agency raided a marijuana dispensary at South Lake Tahoe on Jan. 22, two days after Obama's inauguration, and four others in the Los Angeles area on Feb. 2, White House spokesman Nick Schapiro responded to advocacy groups' protests by noting that Obama had not yet appointed his drug policy team.

"The president believes that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws" and expects his appointees to follow that policy, Schapiro said. Sarah Katherine 22:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this new statement changes United State policy and must be included in the article. I like what has changed here so far, and I am glad to see many took my suggestions for bias in the previous article very seriously. --The Pot Snob (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How has U.S. policy changed? I see all talk, and no change. New boss, same as the old boss. Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, change has come to US policy regarding Medical Cannabis. Here is quote from Attorney General Regarding Raiding Marijuana Clinics, “What the president said during the campaign, you’ll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we’ll be doing here in law enforcement,” said Holder last week. “What he said during the campaign is now American policy.” Here is link to an article discussing the stunning change in US policy, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29433708/. Because of this new US policy, we will need to change the article to say that the US Government respects the states right to regulate medical marijuana, and that 13 states have passed such compassionate use laws. I know we in California like the change being shown by the White House, and it is indeed a major change. The over 500 compassionate marijuana clubs in California are now safe to distribute cannabis to the community without fearing the federal government. Big Change, New Boss, you got it all wrong buddy. --The Pot Snob (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There has been no change whatsoever, and until there is, we are neither a crystal ball nor a web forum. Please add material here only when there has been actual change. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Explain what that change is, so I can find it for you. Because I think a statement from the President and Attorney General is good enough for me. What should we expect to show us that the federal government will no longer be interfering with state cannabis laws? Please tell me more --The Pot Snob (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Words are fairly useless, and they've been said time and time again. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
It's a lot of work to keep these pages up to date, and no one is being paid, so it's easiest to not get into personal feelings and frustrations, but just stick to adding facts. A statement from the President and Attorney General belongs in this article, given that we have a reliable source. Sarah Katherine 23:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Which statement belongs in this article and why? Is this an article about medical cannabis or legal and political issues? Or all three? The DEA says they are going to end the raids, but the raids are still going on. I don't see a reason to include it in the article. Let's remember Wikipedia:Recentism. Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"Holder was asked about those raids Wednesday in Santa Ana, Calif., at a news conference that was called to announce the arrests of 755 people in a nationwide crackdown on the U.S. operations of Mexican drug cartels. He said such operations would no longer be conducted." It does seem that the medical cannabis issue must include legal and political infomation/updates, no? If this page became too long with information on how the herbal medication benefits people, then the legal/political issues could have their own page, but it doesn't appear to be at that point yet. Thoughts? Sarah Katherine 17:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC) [[6]]Sarah Katherine 17:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The actual raids have now ended according to the latest statements coming out of the Obama administration. While it is true that they continued raiding during the inauguration, all that has ended now. The justice department has now switched to new people and to this new policy as instructed by Eric Holder.

Viriditas, this is something new, these words have never once been uttered by a Presidential administration since the passing of Prop 215 in California. I do believe that if a Attorney General says words its going to make a difference. This is the first time this has happened, and thus while we have all heard words before, we have never heard these words coming from this specific source, so discounting it immediately is stupid. The addition to the article of the change in US policy towards medical cannabis is essential. --The Pot Snob (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the raids have ended, and until we have an official memorandum, document, meeting, or other documentation, words of hope and promise aren't good enough for Wikipedia. We are dealing with facts, and we just don't know that the raids have ended as they are still ongoing according to latest reports. Again, we aren't a crystal ball, and we need to focus on encyclopedic material with an eye out for WP:RECENTISM. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
We could include "there is no evidence yet that the raids have ceased". There is also no evidence that i can find of any raids taking place since the Feb. 26th statements in question. Why don't we just stick to the facts? This new section could be called something like 'recent events' / 'present administration' ~ something along those lines. Just so that someone completely clueless on the subject could get information by visiting Wikipedia that includes recent news. Yes, it is true Obama has not provided us yet with huge change, but it is news ~ similar to, for example, this addition i made to another page (below). Although Sebelius has yet to be confirmed by the Senate (i.e., no huge change), this news was seen as appropriate for Wikipedia, and my addition was not questioned at all, as you can see. This is why i am baffled that my attempt to do roughly the same move on this article has been met with such controversy. Sarah Katherine 20:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. (I moved the lonely, orphaned link, complete with page history diff inline to your comments) You are talking about politics, a subject that many people try to force into topics that try to remain non-politicized. This is supposed to be an article that focuses on medical cannabis. Granted, there are political aspects to it,for example, why hasn't the U.S. government allowed researchers to study the effects of cannabis in the past? Etc. These are valid questions. But, we need to focus. The information you are talking about does not yet have an impact on this article. It may in the future. In such cases, we need to step away from the crystal ball and get to work. In another discussion, you've expressed an interest in the treatment of spinal diseases. I'm personally interested in whether it can be used for arthritis pain. Why don't we get back to work on these things and leave the politics for the politicians? When and if the time comes that the politics needs to be mentioned here, it will. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I can accept that it is your opinion that legal/political issues revolving around medical cannabis are irrelevant to this article, but i am of another opinion, along with a few other folks who are commenting on this page. What would it matter to the general public whether cannabis helped arthritis pain if it is illegal and therefore impossible or dangerous to aquire? In my way of thinking, it is a very important part of this article what the present views of the government are in regards to legal use. Would you be willing to agree to disagree, and let us move on with adding this new info to the article?Sarah Katherine 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you read what I wrote, as I didn't say legal and political issues were irrelevant, and in fact, I've said the opposite. The material you are asking to include doesn't belong here unless it involves something more than crystal ball gazing. What you have added to the Obama article, however, does belong there. What I am willing to do is have you try to convince me as to why this material should be added here. You've already brought forward the San Francisco Chronicle article that does little more than crystal ball gaze about future politics,. This article, on medical cannabis, doesn't benefit from politcization. If there are actual issues to discuss, please tell me what they are and how we should include them. You've provided a source and some quotes, but I see nothing but predictions of the future, and we really don't do that here. You may be interested in perusing the articles listed under Category:Cannabis legal reform, as they may be a better fit for what you are looking to do. Viriditas (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I won't try and convince you, you are right: there are actually multiple other articles regarding cannabis and legalization on Wikipedia. It might be a huge project, but one place we could really use some activity would be towards uniting all those articles in a very readable/navigable way. Thanks again. Sarah Katherine 22:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there is a significant intersection between this article and others. If you could put something together, that would be great! :) Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I already have a lot on my plate, but i would be delighted to assist in a group project! Sarah Katherine 22:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
For now, we could put links to all these related pages at the top, like many Wiki pages do... And i would also suggest we consider a summary section regarding legal and political issues on this page, as this is the main page on the subject and this is in keeping with other pages. For example, foie gras has a section on "Controversy" as well as a separate page, foie gras controversy which is linked to several times throughout the page. What do the editors think of this idea? Sarah Katherine 23:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are some suggestions by Viriditas in response to this thread (posted by him to my talk page) ~ in case this could help those editors who have the time and desire to help: Sarah Katherine 20:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are on the right track, but make sure you read WP:POVFORK. It sounds like you are laying out a good roadmap for a new section. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Have you seen this? You can see that there really is no official position as of yet. And we are what, 68 days into the adminisration? Anyway, what do you think of something like politics of medical cannabis? There are some good sources on the subject. If it's something that works for you, you could play around with it, show it to us, and quite possibly create a new summary style section for use in medical cannabis if it works. Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
[This] looks like a good source for us to get Obama's position straight. Maybe this can't be used in the article, but it could help us in writing this section. Sarah sko1221talk 07:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Sarah. Depending on how it is used, that interview is usually considered a primary source. Wikipedia tends to use secondary sources to write articles, but primary sources can also be used (and are defined differently in other fields), but they must be used carefully. You can always start a new article in your user space like you did for User:Sko1221/Shambhala Electrc Cars and simply move the new article you create into main space when you are ready. Viriditas (talk) 10:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
As i said, i include the link so that we editors can get more clear on present statements and position of the President. Sarah sko1221talk 19:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure the President has a position on a great many things. Should we add it to all of the articles on Wikipedia? Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I added it for the editor's benefit, not to be included in the article, please reread my original statement. I thought that the more clear we are, the better this section might be in the end. OK? Sarah sko1221talk 02:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Wikipedia community, The Pot Snob is back, and I am glad to see many improvements have been made to this article since last time I was here. Hopefully all my ranting and raving helped make this article into a more educational one. I am wondering if anyone has considered links to video documentaries off of Wikipedia articles like this one? Just as I have taken on Wikipedia, I have now taken on Youtube, and I am demanding that a video documentary of the first medical cannabis clinic in the United States be taken off of age restriction because of its educational value. If I am successful, I was wondering if linking to it would be OK with the community, or if there are specific guidelines. Glad to see the article improving, let me know if you need any help. --The Pot Snob (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

External links are really only useful if we can use them as inline references to support material. If your documentary is notable in some way, then we should use it as a primary source. Even better, if you are willing to release a free screenshot (high quality please) from the video to Wikipedia under a free license, then we might be able to use them in the article, even in the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
This documentary is extremely notable, as it shows the very first marijuana store in San Francisco before the passing of Proposition 215. Most people do not realize that in San Francisco they had a Medical Cannabis dispensary before the passing of Proposition 215. The reality in San Francisco in 1996 was that of seeing throngs of its population wasting away from AIDS, cancer, and MS. Compassion shown through this documentary, before all the other pot clubs opened up, is an example of exactly why this article is being made. This article is not only here for those doing research, but should provide information to the public about its many medicinal uses. I know the documentary film maker, and getting a licensed screen shot will be very possible. I will let him know what is going on over here, and try and see if I can at least get a licensed screen shot. --The Pot Snob (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
We don't necessarily need the film to take photographs of the original clubs on Church and Market, and other places. Stick to the sources and you'll be ok. If you have a good source that talks about how notable the film is, then great. If you just have images you want to use, then it should be easy to find sources to back them up. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, and am researching by contacting the filmmaker now. --The Pot Snob (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Introduction of Article should Not Talk About Legal Status

Greetings Wikipedia community, So far, the medical use of cannabis is legal only in a limited number of territories, including Canada, Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands, Spain, Israel, Finland, and some U.S. states. This usage generally requires a prescription, and distribution is usually done within a framework defined by local laws.

This does not belong at the top of an article about Medical Cannabis. Does anyone agree with me that this section might want to discuss what it has been found to be good for medicinally? I think from - "So far, the medical use of cannabis is legal only in a limited number of territories, including Canada, Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands, Spain, Israel, Finland, and some U.S. states. This usage generally requires a prescription, and distribution is usually done within a framework defined by local laws." does not belong there but belongs in the legal status of medical cannabis part of the article or a separate article on the legal status of medical cannabis. Does anyone agree with me on this???? Immediately throwing people into the legal aspect of medical cannabis is obviously some sort of sneaky way to discredit medical cannabis from the outset. This needs to end right here and now. Anyone agree, because I am going to be changing it soon, if no one disagrees. --The Pot Snob (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

BOLD, revert, discuss. Make the change! hmwithτ 19:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The lead section should provide an overview of the article (see WP:LEAD. If the material is too heavily weighted to one section or one "side", then yes, it needs work. However, this isn't the problem. The problem is that the lead needs to be expanded to include other aspects of the article, as you have observed. So, instead of deleting the material from the lead, I recommend expanding it to discuss other aspects of the topic. Legal aspects are discussed in the article and should also be discussed in the lead, however, the lead needs to be balanced in proportion to the article itself. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Very good explanation, Viriditas. :) I figured that if it ended up biased in the other direction, we could simply balance it back out again. hmwithτ 18:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The intro section can mention both legality and medical status, but can some one tell me why with only 150 words in the article section on "medical and legal status", that the introduction paragraph of the whole article(5000 words) uses 47 of its 81 words devoted to the legal status of the article that is going to be moved off to some sub article anyways?

Lets review:

  1. Approx Total - 5,000 words
  2. Legal Status of Cannabis Section - 150 words - 3% of total article
  3. Introduction Total - 81 words
  4. Amount of words talking about the legal status in Introduction - 47 words - 58% of total introduction

I don't want to call out the Wiki community on bias or anything, but I think this is evidence to that fact. Who designed this introduction paragraph, and can you explain yourself? If anything the Introduction should focus about 3% of its attention on this section. Perhaps just the mentioning of the word legal will be sufficient. In any case, the responses I have seen here do not preclude me from completely changing the introduction to conform with the article itself. Good writing requires a good establishment of subject matter at the top, and I believe that this is not establishing a good estimate of what the rest of the article is about. Anyone agree that the introduction is currently biased and must be completely re-written? I mean, I showed the numbers in percents and everything, do you really have an argument, lol. Bring it --The Pot Snob (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I pulled out the white space in your comments. Your long comments are slightly inconsiderate to other editors and do not follow talk page conventions. Please keep commentary short and to the point. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one who seems to realize that the Legal and Medical Status of Cannabis should not be linked in one section? They are completely different subjects that can't be combined. While many doctor's around the world agree cannabis can help medically, most of the governments do not see it the same way. We can't refer to medical cannabis's medical status in terms of legality in this section. The American Medical Association says Medical Cannabis is OK under certain circumstances, but the Federal government says that it is not. So what is the US medical and Legal status in this circumstance? Obviously this is some clever attempt to try and combine recreational use with medical use in this article, and I will not let it continue. I am going to ask for the entire article "Legal and Medical Status of Cannabis" to either be deleted or have the medical status removed, and put into a separate article. But I do believe that the medical status should be covered in this article, seeing that the title is "medical cannabis". Anyone agree? Might be redundant to have an article titled "medical status of cannabis", when you have an article titled "Medical Cannabis", therefore this clearly shows that this was a clever attempt to confuse the issue and intertwine medical with non-medical. Nice try. Medical Status and Legal Status are not one in the same and can't be combined unless you want 1984. --The Pot Snob (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

For readability and consideration of other editors, please keep your comments short and to the point. Posting essay-length comments every time you edit here isn't helping. You can say the same thing is far less words, and without taking up half the page. Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to start refactoring your comments so that other people can contribute to this page. Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Please bring people, and lets start a real discussion, because what I have said is true, and regardless of the amount of words, I am right. --The Pot Snob (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
That's not a helpful attitude here. Regardless of who thinks they are right and who appears to be wrong, we're here to improve an article, not to advocate or push political positions. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly why my call for a complete revision of the introduction is essential. Do you not admit that it would appear the article is biased to a specific subject from the introduction? Saying I am biased does not change the fact that this article is, and must be changed to fit the true subject matter of the piece. My revised Table of Contents makes a lot more sense than the current one. Let's all agree that the article needs some progress, and that my discussion here has caused a lot of independent thought and suggestions that might have merit. Let us move forward, and improve this article to conform with the subject matter, and a world view. --The Pot Snob (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate seeing the ratio of words being used here. I think it's a good point that the intro should be more about medical cannabis in general and less about legality. --Patriot minds (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The "legal" information in the current lead is fine. It does require, however, expansion to include other sections. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
By its controversiality MC's legal status is notable enough to remain in the opening. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I am starting to agree that it must be mentioned because of controversial nature. But in the same respect, I think a proper ratio based on the amount of content in the actual article is needed here. When the final article is done, it is important that the introduction pay attention to the ratio of content in the article. If the majority of the content is about marijuana as medicine, then it should not overwhelmed with discussion of its legality. While I now agree it should remain mentioned, I do not believe it will be correct until the ratio of words in the introduction about each subject matches up with the content in the actual article. Anyone agree with that suggestion?

--The Pot Snob (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the following should be changed "So far, the medical use of cannabis is legal only in a limited number of territories, including Canada, Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands, Spain, Israel, Finland, and some U.S. states which include Michigan and California." to something like, "Even though cannabis is recommended by many doctors, found to be extremely useful as medicine, and virtually harmless, it has only become re-legalized in a limited number of territories, including Canada, Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands, Spain, Israel, Finland, and some U.S. states which include Michigan and California." --Agent Agent (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Agent Agent. Peacock terms and glittering generalities are generally avoided on Wikipedia, as we prefer to stick with the facts. Adding content like, "recommended by many doctors, found to be extremely useful as medicine, and virtually harmless" doesn't adhere to encyclopedic standards. As a new user, you might be interested in reading the welcome links I left you on your talk page or starting with the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not that I should avoid those words but that, I should explain them as well. Such as evidence that "many doctors support medical cannabis", or evidence of it being "extremely useful as medicine", or studies that show it being "virtually harmless".--Agent Agent (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
We avoid them entirely, and I cannot think of any reason to use those words. This is why I made my comment earlier about finding writers who understand how to write medical articles. Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
'Examples include describing people as "important", "main" or "among the greatest" in their field without explaining why.' It says right there in the link you posted - not to use such terms without explaining why. Many doctors to support medical cannabis, it is extremely useful as medicine, and scientific studies do show it as being harmless.--Agent Agent (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
A full and detailed response to your comment would take up this entire page (and probably a few more) so I will try to be brief, and address what I can. You wrote: 1) Many doctors support medical cannabis. How many? What percentage? What sources are you using? 2) Extremely useful as medicine. What does this mean? Useful to whom? According to whom? How is it useful? 3) Scientific studies do show it as being harmless. I doubt you will find a single scientific study that uses that word. What does "harmless" mean? Do you mean to say it is safe compared to similar drugs? Please remember to use exact language, and to avoid generalizations. Also remember that the lead section should summarize the most important points in the article. For more information about sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Agent Agent, while I agree with what you're trying to add the the intro in general & get across, I agree with Viriditas that the language would have to be more exact, as he said. Something along the lines of "cannabis is recommended by 60% of doctors, found to be helpful in treating 250 conditions, including arthritis, asthma, depression, glaucoma, and pain, and the side effects are minimal when compared to competing drugs." Note: I absolutely made up the percent off the top of my head, & I'm sure it's nowhere near the actual percentage, if there is a number available. I also don't know how factual anything else I said & was simply giving an example. hmwithτ 17:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
In a nutshell, what we need is more critical thinking. Everyone here has beliefs, attitudes, likes, dislikes, and other rose-tinted (some not so rosy) perceptions that color the way we view the world. Some of us will come right out and admit it, and make sure that we leave those things at the door when we edit articles. Others, will proudly wear their bias on their sleeve, and this conflicts not only with basic policies and guidelines for writing good articles, but with the actual evidence we use as sources. The lead section should summarize the current article; it is not a platform for what we think medical cannabis is or isn't. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
hmwith, right, thank you for explaining the correct way to do it. --Agent Agent (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The original problem with the introduction was that it did not conform with the rest of the article. All of this discussion has been an excellent distraction from the problem I displayed at the beginning of the post. We have diluted this conversation to be about how people perceive bias. Nothing has been addressed in my post. --The Pot Snob (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No, we aren't going to play that old tired game. On the contrary, every single one of your questions has been addressed in excruciating, lengthy detail. You aren't the first editor to ask a question, have it answered, disappear for a month, and then return claiming that their question wasn't answered. It's an old game, and we aren't falling for it. Viriditas (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

First Picture is not Recent

Greetings again, The picture is really cool and all, but thats not how medical patients use cannabis today. Does anyone agree with me that the first image people see should be of something more recent, like patients in a marijuana club in San Francisco using a vaporizer? Extracts and tinctures are available in today's medical marijuana clubs, and if we must have the picture of some type of liquid, should we not use the tinctures that are bought and sold legally now in the United States? Antiquated photos like this one belong under the history section. Anyone else agree that we need a more recent photo? Thanks, --The Pot Snob (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no rule about using "recent" photos in a Wikipedia article. Of course the decision to use a particular image in the lead section would be best decided in a discussion like this one. Unfortunately, it really isn't a top priority right now due to the problems in the article. I suppose if we were nominating this article for GA/FA, it would be a valid issue, but due to the current state of the article, it's at the bottom of the list. Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
See the section above titled, "Link to Documentary Video". If you can provide free screenshots (or photographs) from your video or photography collection, then start uploading so we can see some alternatives. Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Web usability studies suggest that 25 seconds is the length of time to get out the information you want on a Web page before the user decides what to do next. Obviously, when people are researching this subject, they might have more patience to read further along, but none the less, what image people see above all others is extremely important. The initial paragraph and image are the most important parts of the article. For this reason, I would suggest that such an image is extremely important, and should be changed as soon as possible. I will be approaching several cannabis clubs in the bay about potentially having a photo taken of either an extract, or their modern medical facility. --The Pot Snob (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be wonderful. The article definitely needs a recent image, as there is not one image of how medical cannabis is currently used. File:Vaporizer 01.JPG is the best one that I could currently find on Wikipedia. Images from the WP:Wikimedia Commons can also be used, and there are a few located at Commons:Category:Medical cannabis, but they're not very good either. However, some are better than what we currently have. What about File:Medical THC.jpg? hmwithτ 18:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I added the image as well as did some other minor cleaning up, mostly with images and references. hmwithτ 19:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The only problem with your edits is that they are simply not true. What you've done is made a claim in the caption with no source to back it up. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the current image is informative, and the caption is nowhere near true, so I'm reverting to the last version. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
A) That was just my best effort per WP:BRD. I figured that someone would correct the caption if it wasn't correct. B) Why did you undue the rest of the edits that I did? I did not simply add a new image. It will be a lot of effort now to go through and redo the constructive edits that I did before. hmwithτ 16:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

TPS, I think you are missing the point of the current image. The old image shows that medical cannabis has been part of the pharmacopoeia for some time and is not a recent fad. While it may be helpful to have a more recent image in the lead, there are also good arguments for keeping an old one. Let's use this section here to offer new images up for selection, and refrain from using the main page to edit back and forth. So, please offer images for suggestion here. Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis was, and never has been a fad Sir. Displaying an appropriate image showing how it is used in modern times, and past times might be possible. Perhaps both can be combined, with a proper caption? What you think? --The Pot Snob (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Try to look at the article without your mind for the moment. The average reader will most likely not be aware that medical cannabis has been part of the medical pharmacopoeia in recent page. Hence, they will think of it is a "hippie fad', or some other recent development. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
It is my opinion that you are referring to the cannabis movement in California as a hippie fad, and I am taking note of that. Those cannabis jars are real medicine here in California, and the vaporizer is the best method to inhale without harming the lungs. Showing an image of both will be the solution we need, showing that it has been used for years, and also is being used today. I do not like that image, I am going to go down to some cannabis clubs and see if they want to participate in the article, and perhaps allow some photographs that don't show hippies. --The Pot Snob (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Nope. I'm saying that other people, such as our readers might not know that medical cannabis has been part of the medical pharmacopoeia in the past, and might think of it as a hippie fad. Try to see things, such as ideas and concepts, from the perspective of people who are not you. Try it. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think the first pic should be of some raw medical cannabis and the tincture picture can go lower down. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think showing an image of modern medical cannabis would be most appropriate, and the tincture in the history section. --Patriot minds (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis tinctures are widely available in cannabis buyer's clubs and qualify as "modern medical cannabis", and they have a long history of use as the lead image demonstrates. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Nobody doubts that, which is why it would not be okay to remove the tincture pic from the article itself but a crude canabis picturwe would illustrate the subject better and in a more encyclopedic manner. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Not sure I understand you. A "crude cannabis picture" is certainly not "more encyclopedic" than a historical image, nor does it illustrate the subject "better". And the replacement image was absurd, as it made claims that were patently false, and didn't illustrate anything about the topic. Viriditas (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Viriditas, nobody is saying cannabis tinctures aren't modern, or that they don't have a long history. We are saying that the current first picture is not representative of medical cannabis as a whole, and should therefore be replaced with something more suitable. Perhaps an image of a medical cannabis club. It seems most of us agree that even the image that was put there yesterday would be a better choice.--Agent Agent (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Please don't speak of "we" unless you want me to submit a RFCU, which it looks like I'm going to have to do soon anyway looking at the state of this talk page. Of course the current image is representative of medical cannabis. Your argument, that a modern, contemporary image is "better" than an older, historical image, doesn't seem to be supported by any "facts", other than "I like it/I don't like it." So far, I haven't seen any good alternatives. Please provide them. Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Why shouldn't I say "we"? I created this account simply because I could not log into my previous account - Patriot minds - so there are still four people here in support of this change. And that is because an image that is representative of medical cannabis today would be better suited than an image that is representative of medical cannabis pre 1937. An overwhelming majority of medical cannabis users today do not use medical cannabis tinctures, much less ones that are from before 1937! I propose that we move the current "pre 1937 tincture" image to the first image in the history section, and put back the image of raw medical cannabis, at least for now, as was supported by the most reason. --Agent Agent (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Your "proposal" (from multiple accounts no less) is no longer necessary or relevant, as we are discussing the use of new images in the article. Please join the discussion. Viriditas (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I already told you why I had to create a new account. What's your problem? My "proposal"? What's that supposed to mean? That my proposal isn't good enough for you? What is not necessary or relevant are your slanderous accusations, and your unhelpful attitude. Yes, we are discussing the use of a new image in the intro, and my PROPOSAL was for a new image! So what is so unnecessary or irrelevant about that? --Agent Agent (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Who exactly are you accusing of being a sockpuppet? And why? Bevause you see you are losing the argument? This is hardly the way to discuss this in a civilised way, I personally see no evidence of sockpuppetry and if you make a fishing RFCU that will merely indicate your bad faith towards users whom you disagree with. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
SqueakBox, I'm surprised you're so defensive here. Yes, you have been accused of being a sockpuppet by multiple users, and yes, those allegations have been proved by check users. But no, I was not addressing you. I was addressing the creation of multiple accounts used to edit this talk page within the last 48 hours. Unless you know something about this, I'm surprised you would respond. This isn't bad faith, it's a fact. As for "losing any argument", appealing to something modern over something old isn't an argument, it's a fallacy. Please try to understand the difference. And if you have some alternative images for consideration, I would be happy to take a look. Viriditas (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually no checkuser has ever proven I have used a sock, one admin played judg and jury several years ago when I had been blocked. I don't know about others but I came here because this page popped up on my watchlist. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll take your word for it and retract my comments. I've been the subject of a bad block by an admin in the past, so I understand how these things happen. But just so we are clear, I am open to the addition of a new image, or a good proposal for one. I just haven't seen one yet. Viriditas (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
"An overwhelming majority of medical cannabis users today do not use medical cannabis tinctures, much less ones that are from before 1937! I propose that we move the current 'pre 1937 tincture' image to the first image in the history section, and put back the image of raw medical cannabis, at least for now, as was supported by the most reason."--Agent Agent (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Stephen Fry recently went to medical cannabis pharmacy in California for a series exploring the US in general and basically the camera went into the pharmacy and showed first lots of cannabis foods such as cakes and then showed some glass jars full of light green crude cannabis, the best pic would be something like this, or even the shop front of tsuch a pharmacy, I wonder if one of our California based editor could obtain such a pic. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I suggested that he get a release for a screenshot from the documentary film, as that would work nicely. Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
FYI... there are a lot of YouTube videos that we could grab frames from if we can get the permission of the uploader/author. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
picture found on User:Psychonaught's page

While bodding about I came across this picture on Psychonaught's page - is this of any use?--Alf melmac 08:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it works for the following reasons: 1) It is staged, and does not best represent the topic. Most medical cannabis users do not use vaporizers and probably don't receive their "medicine" in such containers. The caption that was originally used for this pic (recently) implied that this was common without a source. 2) We don't get a good photo of the medical cannabis itself. 3) The best photo would include the human element and show someone who is suffering from an illness using medical cannabis in a cannabis club or dispensary, if that is possible to show. To protect privacy, the profile can be shown in silhouette or blurred out, or we can see someone using it from behind or from the side to hide their face. Viriditas (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, I would say, however, the current picture fits none of the above either (tincture is not most common form of medication, we don't see the tincture only the bottle and label, it's not an 'in-use' shot). I do see clearly on the labels the labelling as medical marijuana and notes about it not being for resale and having been produced in accordance with the regs, the medicinal product is visible through the containes, which is more than can be said for the tincture pic. I wish you all the best in finding a wikipedian in a relevant country to make such an image for you.--Alf melmac 09:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but one reason the historical image (drawing?) of the tincture is in the lead section is because it shows that medical cannabis is not a new solution. In other words, the image gives the reader an idea of how long this issue has been around and it shows them that this was at one time prescribed by the medical establishment. Now, tell me, what does the photo you propose tell the reader? Honestly, I don't learn anything from it. But that's just me. Perhaps you can help me understand why it is important from a first glance. Without clicking on it for detail, what does the photo convey? Pretend I know nothing about the topic. What is it that I am looking at and why is it important? An image should tell a story in one glance, and this one doesn't. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Without clicking on the image for detail, even if we increase the image to 300px, we don't 'get' as much as the tincture I agree. If the picture was cropped to show just one of those canisters, enlarged it would show one of the current medical marijuana products, the packaging in which it is kept for distribution, its labeling as "medical marijuana" and adherrance (sp?) to the relevant regulations. Another possible image to do a similar crop to is File:Medical Marijuana.jpg.--Alf melmac 09:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
That's one possible solution to correct the composition, but I would like to see some standardization with the strain names, such as photographing the most common medical cannabis strain in its most common context. Blaring "Green Crack" at the top of this page in 300px doesn't really tell the kind of story this topic is covering, and could mislead our readers. My understanding is that "Green Crack" goes by several names and is a Southern California phenomenon. What strain would I find if I walked into the average dispensary? Remember, we are talking about presenting a topic about a drug that is meant to help people. The last thing we want to do is give people the false impression that medical cannabis = crack cocaine. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The most common strain in its most common environment would be ideal <wonders if there are any wikepedians in those locations who are not so medicated that they they can be arsed enough to get it together :p > I didn't think once about 'crack' but now you mention it.... maybe not the best choice, and the resolution on that image is very good indeed - damn.--Alf melmac 10:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Wiki_alf, I actually made that the main image, but it was reverted. Viriditas, as I said, the caption was basically a place-holder that I knew would be quickly corrected if it wasn't correct itself. The 2nd picture you bring up, I also noted was available at Commons:Category:Medical cannabis, but I also did not think it should be the primary image due to its name. Although I still agree that a new image would be best, I still feel that the image of the volcano and medicine bottles is better than what we have now & should be used in the meantime, but what does everyone else think? hmwithτ 12:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
It was reverted because we are discussing the addition of a new image here on the talk page, and there is absolutely no hurry to remove the current image, which places the use of medical cannabis in a historical context and shows the reader that medical cannabis is not a new phenomenon and has been used by the medical profession in the past. The image you propose to replace it with is staged; the vaporizer, which most people who have prescriptions for medical cannabis can neither afford or use, appears in the background to make it look like it is a healthy alternative to smoking, and the fake dispensing containers add a false legitimacy to the idea along with the slighly humourous strain names, which for all intents and purposes detract from the supposed health benefits. In other words, I prefer a historical image over something that is trying so hard to be something it is not. Surely we can find a photo that meets the needs of this topic and doesn't try to "pretend". Frankly, the concern with the lead image is misplaced and of least concern. What we need most is good content and brilliant prose. Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I do agree that content/prose also need help. We can only move one step at a time though, and this is a simpler task than a total rewrite. However, I do agree that we need to continue conversation about the prose/content, as well. hmwithτ 13:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we have neccesarily found the right image yet. I am happy to see my topic has spurred quite a discussion though. Viriditas suggestion for a screen shot from the documentary I suggested might be best. I agree that we can't have labels like "green crack" showing in the image. The vast majority of cannabis patients in California do receive their medication in such bottles, but it does not mean we have to pick the strains with the most controversial names. Vaporizers are not as common as rolling papers or water pipes, but the vaporizer is what is promoted by health professionals and clubs in the bay area because it is the most medically sound way to ingest cannabis quickly without ingesting it through food. While it is not most common, it is what is recommended, and thus having an image of one somewhere on the article makes sense. I am not saying it has to be the first picture, but definitely a vaporizer image must be featured somewhere. --The Pot Snob (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I gather of Stephen Fry he is pretty pro-wikipedia, I think it would be worth one of us emailing him with a request.--Alf melmac 17:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we all can agree that we need an image that we don't currently have & will try to get soon, but what's your opinion on what to do in the meantime? hmwithτ 16:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

How's this? http://i593.photobucket.com/albums/tt17/theagentagent/medical_cannabis.jpg (I can't upload to wikipedia yet but, anybody, feel free to use it.) --Agent Agent (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you take those pictures? Those are good images. It would be a great deal easier for you to upload it on your own though, as far as licensing goes, but I see that you're a new account. Try uploading the image(s) to the Commons. hmwithτ 16:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Or just follow the upload file link at the top lest of the page. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
This image is composed of two files by user:coaster420, found in wikicommons. Thanks for the upload tip, hmwith.
  • Proposed image. (Until we find a good one of a medical club.)
    Proposed image. (Until we find a good one of a medical club.)

    • --Agent Agent (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

    Anyone have any objections to using this as the new image? -Agent Agent (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, I have an objection, and I would appreciate it if you and "The Pot Snob" stop trying to force a false consensus at the end of every edit that the two of you make by saying "anyone have any objections" and "does everyone agree" and other strategic tactics for coordinating false consensus. Discussion takes time and requires introspection and debate. Please stop trying to force hurried decision making when that isn't how things are done here. I understand that you have a busy schedule advocating for medical cannabis, but Wikipedia operates differently. Viriditas (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    Hey guy, i can say "does anyone have objections" if i want to. You don't tell me what to say. No one is trying to force false consensus here. "strategic tactics for coordinating false consensus"? ok, sure dude. Man, you don't know anything about me so stop acting like you do. How is asking "Does anyone have objections?" trying to force consensus or hurry decision making? Anyways, don't even answer that. You said you have an objection but, I guess you are still thinking of something...--Agent Agent (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    The great thing about wikipedia is we can edit it. People have already voiced their opinions about how they feel about a new image, and how they feel about this one. Real people, not just ur imaginary people. You've already insulted me repeatedly, and have otherwise been rude to me, so I really have nothing to say to you unless you apologize and retract your statements.--Agent Agent (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    You are engaging in tactical editing, using a debating tactic otherwise known as "silence equals consent". Editors who use the "does anyone have objections" line in every edit, often do this to get a change implemented faster, because when nobody replies with an objection, then they go ahead and make the change. Combine this with the flurry of new accounts on this talk page, and the overall picture becomes one of targeted advocacy. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    Well, you know, lots of real people have already agreed with this change.--Agent Agent (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    We are discussing image proposals. It is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. The talk page is used to discuss improvements to the article. Whether I agree or not, is irrelevant. Does the proposed image improve the article more so than before? That's the question. Viriditas (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    Silence can be seen as consensus on Wikipedia (see WP:Silence and consensus). Do I think that File:Medical cannabis.jpg improves the article as the lead image more than File:Drug bottle containing cannbis.jpg? Certainly. I also prefer it over the vaporizer image that I suggested. However, I think that the other vaporizer image should be used somewhere later on in the article. hmwithτ 17:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    So viriditas, what's your objection?--Agent Agent (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    Again, this isn't simply a matter of emotions, approval, disapproval, ageement, disagreement, support or objection. I've made my point many times above regarding the history of medical cannabis, an old idea reflected by the current lead image. I haven't seen a better image yet, however I have detailed above my criteria for improvement, i.e. including the human element in a nautral setting that isn't staged. I think it is important to show a real person in any replacement image. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, the history of medical cannabis - that's why the current tincture image is better suited as a lead image for the history section. The tincture image doesn't even have a person in it either, and it's a historical image. The purposed medical cannabis image is at least representive of medical cannabis today. And what do you mean staged? How is the tincture image not "staged" in comparison to the current proposed image?--Agent Agent (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    And besides, the tincture image isn't even a real photo.. it's a painting or something... --Agent Agent (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    I've addressed all of these points in this discussion, so either you aren't paying attention or you are beating a dead horse. There is a rough consensus that people are open to a new image. What that image is or should be has not yet been decided. Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    You've addressed the history issue by saying people have to see that medical marijuana has a history. But that's the reason there is a history section, and a historic image shouldn't be representative of the entire article. You haven't addressed how the current purposed image is "staged", at least more so than the current tincture image. And again, the current tincture image doesn't even have the "human element". But the purposed image IS more representative of medical cannabis TODAY. And by the way, could you please keep your negative comments to yourself? Thanks. --Agent Agent (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    Why should a historic image not be represented in the lead section? What is the "current" proposed image? You must be referring to your proposal. What is your proposal? And why would the old image be subject to my criteria for a new, replacement image? Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    The lead image should try to be representative of the entire article. The history of medical cannabis is only one section of the entire article. The current purposed image is the image which was most recently proposed. The image is part of the public domain, and who uploaded or proposed it is irrelevant. As for your criteria, you shouldn't say that an image isn't good enough because it lacks a "human element", if "your" image lacks one as well. Both images lack a human element, so you can't use that against one and not the other. However, one image is reflective of medical cannabis as it is primarily used today. The other image is reflective of how medical cannabis has been used historically. That is the reason why the image of an actual cannabis bud, unprocessed, and also in a medical container, is more fitting than a historic image of a cannabis tincture which most medical users would find unfamiliar.--Agent Agent (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    What is the image which was proposed? All you have to do is link to it. Since we are talking about replacing the old image, the new criteria does not apply to it, as we are not arguing to keep it, but to replace it with something better. I think I've repeated myself several times now. You have not really given me a reason. You gave me your opinion. Why is the other image better? Of course, it would be nice to know which image you are talking about. Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    The image we are talking about is the last image you objected to. It is the most recent image in this section. All you have to do is scroll up a little bit.The fact that the history of medical cannabis is just one section of the entire article is more than my opinion. That fact that an image of a pre 1934 tincture is a historic image is more than my opinion. And that fact that most medical users today vaporize or smoke actucal medical cannabis buds, and not a pre 1934 tincture, is also more than my opinion. Again, the puprosed image is more appropriate in the introduction because it represents medical cannabis as a whole, more so than a pre 1934 drawing of a tincture that most medical users would find unfamiliar. --Agent Agent (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not scrolling anywhere because I want to know exactly what image you are talking about. Images have names, so please link to it (use a colon in front to show it as just a link). And please, stop repeating yourself. No matter how many times you tell me your opinion, it doesn't automatically make it true if you say it twelve times instead of two. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    File:medical_cannabis.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Agent Agent|Agent Agent]] ([[User talk:Agent Agent|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Agent Agent|contribs]]) 04:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    "...the history of medical cannabis is just one section of the entire article..."
    "...an image of a pre 1934 tincture is a historic image...
    "...most medical users today vaporize or smoke actucal medical cannabis buds, and not a pre 1934 tinctures"
    How is that my opinion and not fact? --Agent Agent (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    Please watch the whitespace, we've been over this before so stop ignoring the request to keep comments short and to the point. And please don't speak of "facts" unless you have sources. We've been over that too (see critical thinking in above section). Now, please tell me a little bit about this image. Where does it come from? And, why should it be in the lead section? Please don't refer to any other images or ideas. Just talk about this one, please. I don't want to know about any other images. I want to know about this image, why it is important, what it tells the reader, and what story it conveys. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    Are you kidding me? I've already said all of that. You said you had an objection to that image. That is what this is about.--Agent Agent (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    Perhaps you don't understand how things work: The burden of proof is on the person making a proposal. You have proposed using a new image in the lead section. Please defend your proposal by explaining why it should be used. Please address what story it tells the reader, how it comments on this article in general, and why it is important. I'm also interested in the origin of the photograph. Is it representative of Southern California, for example? I await your reply. Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    No, you don't understand. You are the only person here who doesn't want to move forward with the medical cannabis image. I have already explained why it should be used. An image of medical cannabis is more represenative of medical cannabis than a pre 1934 tincture. I don't need refrences because it's an obvious fact.--Agent Agent (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    Please pay very close attention: I am trying to decide on the best image to use in the lead section. Please explain why the image you have proposed should be used. I have not seen this explanation. Please do not refer to anyone else, their beliefs, or their images. I'm only interested in your proposal. I had to pull teeth just to get you to give me the file name. Now, I await your response. Viriditas (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    It was very clear which image we were talking about, and it's very clear why this image should be used. I am going to go ahead and make the edit. I am through playing games with you. --Agent Agent (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not playing games. I don't believe that your opinion about the image is justified, and as I pointed out before, it is a fallacy to argue that something "new" is better than something "old". The image in the current lead section is used to represent the topic. The image you are proposing to use may represent a more recent phenomenon, but this does not take precedence over a wide range of applications, techniques, and methods. You have not presented any proposal other than to exclaim, "I am right and you are wrong, and this is an obvious fact." That doesn't hold water. Discussion pages are used to present proposals. Please present yours. Viriditas (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    You misrepresent my position. I am not saying the medical cannabis image is better because it's newer. I am saying it is better because it is more representative. Raw medical cannabis is more representative of the wide range of applications, techniques, and methods, than a pre 1934 tincture. A person doesn't even see raw cannabis in that image. What they see is an illustration of a glass bottle, with a label on it, "cannabis indica" and some companies name, and a dark substance in it. How is that more representative of the wide range of applications, techniques, and methods than of an image of raw cannabis from which any preperation or use would originate?--Agent Agent (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    Further more, most of the artical is about medical cannabis in a modern context, not in a historic one. So why should a historic image be used in the intro instead of a modern one?--Agent Agent (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    It's impossible for me to "misrepresent" a position you have not yet offered. You merely restated what I said about the old image. I'm not here to listen to mimicry. I've asked you legitimate questions about your "proposal" and you haven't responded to any of them. So we are back at the beginning. I'm not interested in hearing your opinion about the current image, an image of pharmaceutical company-produced, dosage-controlled, physician-prescribed cannabis extract from the American Druggists' Syndicate. During the 19th century and up until 1937, cannabis tinctures were prescribed by physicians. They have a long history of use. Pharmaceutical companies like Eli Lilly and Parke-Davis (now part of Pfizer) produced cannabis tinctures in the United States, and in the UK, cannabis tinctures were legally prescribed up until 1971. To this day cannabis dispensaries have tinctures available. You've proposed using a new image, an image that "pretends" to be dispensed by pharmaceutical companies in faux containers, but is really just someone's idea of packaging cannabis that is usually smoked; Unlike tinctures, it is not really possible to control the dosage due to the difference in strains and drug-delivery devices and/or methods The question of quality and control of the cannabis dispensed by a buyer's club is an open question. Most physicians do not suggest or recommend that patients inhale smoke through their lungs, even though the cannabis may help them with their symptoms. Although a patient can get a prescription, the decision to smoke raw cannabis is made by the patient, not the physician. Raw cannabis isn't the only thing available in a licensed dispensary, and oral tinctures have a much longer history having been once part of the standard pharmacopoeia. So far, you have not given a valid reason for using a photo of raw cannabis in the lead section, even one supported by modern medicine, and your reason should stand alone, by itself without appealing to any other image. So, tell me, why is the image you propose important? What is it about it that you think illustrates the topic? How does it help the reader understand the concept of medical cannabis? Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    Because most medical users smoke or vaporize it. How is that not valid?--Agent Agent (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    What does the medical profession say about smoking cannbis as a method? Some seriously sick people can't smoke, and have to eat it or use tinctures, and looking at the big picture, tinctures have been used longer in medicine and the quality and dosage is controlled. You say that most medical users smoke it. Since there are so many medical users smoking it, you should be able to easily get a photograph of a sick person using it or a vaporizer. Since there are so many activists out on the open on this issue, it shouldn't be hard for you to do. Contact a medical cannabis organization and have them release a photograph to you. The old CBC in SF released lots of photographs to the media, as well as video. Otherwise, let's get a photograph of the alternatives, medical baked goods, tinctures, etc. This issue isn't just about smoked cannabis, it's much bigger than that, and the most important thing is not the cannabis, it's the people using it. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    Arbitrary section break

    Note: I've created this section break, as this section was getting unbearably long. Please post all continuing discussion below this section break, as if it were not here.

    Everyone on this page needs to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down:

    • Viriditas, please remain civil and assume good faith. Your language and tone can be very condescending to newer users, and that can only hinder the development of the encyclopedia. I know that you disagree with Agent Agent, but your attitude is only making things escalate. People have different opinions on what makes an article best, but, if we all work together, we can make the best possible article. I know that you are aware of this, as you've been around for years. If you have sock concerns, this isn't the place to discuss them (see WP:SPI). If there is information that I am missing, feel free to let me know.
    • Agent Agent, I understand your willingness to help make the article better. However, we will have to hear from a few more people, and have more calm discussion, before we decide what exactly to do. We also have to make sure not to make the article become biased in advocating medical cannabis.

    Maybe everyone should take a few days away from this article & have a breather. hmwithτ 00:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    A question to the group regarding the leading image... If we found out that eating the herb in brownies is used as much as drinking the tincture, then it would make as much sense to have a brownie be the lead image as it does to have the tincture. My question is, doesn't the actual BUD from which all the other derivatives come, merit lead image position? Aren't the differing ways it can be used medicinally a wee bit secondary to the actual source of the medicine? Sarah sko1221talk 02:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    If you follow that argument to its conclusion, then you might as well stick a photo of a plant in the lead section, since that's where buds come from. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    I agree there should be a picture of the whole plant somewhere, but the medicine comes from the bud. Watch CNBC's show that airs a lot these days on Marijuana. They make a real point of showing and talking about the BUD, and that being the real point of the whole plant. If we got medicine from the trunk or leaves, it would make sense to place pictures of them next to the bud. Would you mind letting others weigh in too, and then we could finally ask for a 3rd party to help us if we can't come to an agreement otherwise? Sarah sko1221talk 03:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    Others have been weighing in, although new accounts that are created just to contribute to this discussion are suspect. I don't watch CNBC, but I understand how medical cannabis works. One could easily argue for images of the chemical diagrams of the medical compounds in the lead section, such as cannabidiol and β-caryophyllene. No need to even refer to the plant. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

    It is obvious why we need a more recent image. All this discussion is a total distraction from making this article current and meaningful for users. Associating medical cannabis with a tincture is quaint but not reality anymore. Medical cannabis is primarily consumed today as plant matter or in food. The new image is needed, and will be uploaded. I will not allow one editor to make all decisions in this regard. This is a bottom up approach, not a hierarchy. Welcome to the period of Emergence. --The Pot Snob (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    No, all of this discussion is how we make the article current and meaningful. Do you understand what discussion pages are used for? Viriditas (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    Table of Contents Revised

    Greetings all, I believe one major problem with the usability of this article, is its presentation of the content in the table of contents. Following a terrible and biased introduction paragraph, the user moves onto information about china, and history, and this makes no sense. My review has brought me to this conclusion:

    Introduction needs to be reflective of the article as a whole, and not the legal status section.

    1. "Marijuana as Medicine"
      1. What is it used for? (What illnesses has it been found to help people)
      2. AIDS
      3. Cancer
      4. MS
      5. Glaucoma
      6. Eating Disorders and more
    2. How is Cannabis Consumed as a Medicine?
      1. Marijuana as a food medicine(from harm reduction section and elsewhere)
      2. Cannabis as a vapor medicine
      3. Cannabis as a tincture and other extracts used in medicine
    3. What are the Medicinal Compounds (Compounds section moved under here including THC, and THC derivatives)
    4. History of Medicinal Cannabis
      1. Ancient China & Ancient Taiwan
      2. Ancient Egypt
      3. Ancient India
      4. Ancient Greece
      5. Medieval Islamic world
      6. Modern science
    5. The conflict between Doctors and the Government
      1. Emerging Medical Concensus
      2. Medical Status
      3. Legal Status
      4. Conflict Between state and doctor's

    Note: I don't include notable medical cannabis individuals because much of that information might be referenced in the history section. I also separate Legal and Medical Status. Harm reduction does not belong in here, but some of the content can be used. More must still be done, but does anyone think that this is the right direction at all for this article? The top sections should focus on marijuana as medicine and what it is used for, as opposed to history. History should be down near the bottom if anything because it is history. I also believe each method cannabis is used must be explained with pictures, so people realize that it is mostly not smoked, and is often eaten for those with chronic pain, and glaucoma. Tinctures and Hashish are also used and should be explained as many people do not know how these are used medically. A whole section on how to consume medical cannabis is needed as well as the reasons for using it. This currently is not really discussed anywhere in the article where it counts. Let me know if anyone has suggestions for this format, or changing the entire layout of information in this article. Thanks, --The Pot Snob (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

    I disagree. But it is close to impossible to respond to your long comments. Perhaps you can choose one specific item to discuss and stick to it. Posting essay-length comments every 24 hours is not helping. The best way to use talk pages is to post small comments that address one issue. Allow someone to respond, and then move on to the next one. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

    Viriditas, do you have a better suggestion? I am a Web usability expert in real life, and I can bring proof if I need to prove that the way this is set up is wrong. Suggest your revised table of contents please. --The Pot Snob (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

    If you are a "web usabiilty expert" in real life, then please start by applying your skillz to this talk page. Talk page comments need to be short and to the point in order to let other editors address them and move on to the next topic. Your long paragraphs, gratuitous use of white space, and disconnected sig seem to go against talk page usability guidelines. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

    I get the talk page now Viriditas, thanks for reminding me of my duty to usability on this talk page. So do you have anything constructive to say about my table of contents? --The Pot Snob (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

    Go for it, edit the page. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    Do it! And thank you! If anything seems like it needs fixing once you're done we can go from there. BTW, if you have time also to add Obama's remarks and new changes that i noted above, great! If not, i'll find some time soon. Sarah Katherine 23:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    Please remember to add that folks with spinal cord injuries and other neurological issues are prescribed this medicine as well.Sarah Katherine 23:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    I think this revision of the table of contents is more to the point. --Patriot minds (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    And it would require medical references and someone knowledgeable about the topic. Let me know when you find both. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    There are plenty of references to support that revision, and many of us are knowledgeable about the topic.--Agent Agent (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    The use of multiple new user accounts and threats of edit warring to make your point aren't very convincing. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    Patriot minds is now known as Agent Agent. Again, I created this account because I could not log into my previous account, Patriot minds. So Viriditas, why do you accuse me of threatening to edit war? I believe an apology is due. And to the topic of this section, again, there are plenty of references to support the purposed revision, as well as people who are knowledgeable about the subject.--Agent Agent (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    Please. Your little game got old after you created the third account. If you want to talk about the topic, then do so. What reference do you recommend starting with to compose this new material? Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    So now you are accusing me of having three accounts. You obviously think I am The Pot Snob. You shouldn't make such accusations without proof. Seriously, you should apologize and stop embarrassing yourself. I am merely in support of the revision. As far as references, a simple google search of "cannabis, aids, cancer" etc will turn up a wealth of reputable news articles, scientific and medical findings, etc. I'm sure there is something there that will satisfy your skepticism.--Agent Agent (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    Variditas, what you have said about me is slander. You need to retract your statements and apologize. --Agent Agent (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

    Viriditas, I actually work during the week, and do not have time to take part in active discussions with you everyday. These individuals who support my position that this article be changed to conform with a world view are not me in separate accounts. I see that many since I last posted have chosen to agree that my table of contents makes more sense. Your conspiracy theory that I am also Agent Agent is just simply not true. Regardless, it would appear many other active Wiki members agree with my revision.

    This quotation from you Viriditas shows your not here to work on these revisions, you are here to insult those of us who are. The Quote: "And it would require medical references and someone knowledgeable about the topic. Let me know when you find both." suggests an insult towards me. From this quote we can assume you feel as if I am incapable of editing this article, and I find it highly insulting. I would suggest your sour attitude towards our revisionist stance makes you incapable of editing this article and that your intent is to block the Wiki community from improving this article --The Pot Snob (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

    Potsnob, lets focus on the edits not the editors. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    Just my 2 cents, i am glad to see this moving forward instead of letting revisions be stalled by one person. Sometimes editors do have to be addressed when their presence looks to be more disruptive of the 'process' than helpful. Sarah Katherine 18:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    Sarah Katherine (User:Sko1221), please read and understand Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. The use of multiple accounts to promote a false consensus and rigged discussion is disruptive, so I'm curious why you haven't addressed those editors using new accounts. I see that you created your account very recently, on 18 February 2009, so you may not be fully aware of the policies and guidelines that promote harmonious editing and discussion. For what it's worth, "The Pot Snob" is an account designed for single-issue advocacy, and this is also a problem as it can be disruptive. I don't expect you to acknowledge these facts, but I did want them on record. Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    Viriditas, the false consensus is in you're head. I've already explained why I had to create a second account - because I can't log into my first one. I shouldn't have to try and prove myself about this. The only thing that has been in the way of harmonious editing and discussion is your slander and opposition to changes that make sense. And as far as what you're saying about pot snob, he has put forth some really good ideas here. The reason I created an account and took part of this discussion was because of some of the things he's written here. And I felt that these changes should be occurring a lot faster but, now i've experienced first hand why they haven't been. Anyways, you've made some untrue comments about me but, there are more important things to discuss here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Agent Agent (talk • contribs) 1:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    Discussion takes time and requires the participation of editors with more than one POV. This can be hard for people engaged in advocacy to understand, as their agenda often comes before that of writing an encyclopedia. But, let's assume for the moment that you are not engaged in advocacy, and that you want to fast track one particular change because you are convinced it will improve the article. The way to do this is to focus only on that change and post very small comments and replies. So, pick something small to change, and don't leave lengthy replies or comments. Whether you will get the desired change or not depends on how persuasive your argument is, and whether it is in accord with house policies and guidelines. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, i am new to Wikipedia. But i still do not see any reason for such controversy here. Your long paragraphs telling everyone what they don't know or understand or are doing wrong also take up tremendous time. All these conspiracy theories about who the editors are and what their agendas might be is really taking up space and time that should be spent discussing the facts that belong in this article for the purpose of informing folks who come here... I believe we can come to a consensus much quicker and get to writing if perhaps we just ignored you. But folks here are too kind to do that, so not one thing has changed in the article. How about less talk and more action, and if you have ulterior motives like enjoying arguing or something, maybe take it elsewhere. Realize that you don't have to agree with the changes for them to go into the article, it just has to be a consensus among everyone. And don't be surprised to see more than one person here with the same ideas. This issue is now all over the news so i would expect more and more folks to come here to help improve the page, as it is the first page when doing a search. Frankly, i am surprised to find such trouble here and i am in question of your motives, Viriditas. You say that you would rather we addressed one issue at a time and in few words. Well, i have to call you out on that one, because i did just that and somehow you still had a problem with adding what the government has just declared. I am not interested in dealing with this kind of nonsense which is why i am not pushing it, but it is ridiculous that the newest statement regarding raids ending is not in this article. Sarah Katherine 04:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    One thing i might suggest would be to consider getting Admin oversight for this page if all this arguing doesn't let up soon. It is pretty simple, either things do belong on the page or they don't. I have worked on a page when Admins were involved and it is a quick and painless, straightforward process. The debating actually doesn't take up much time, the truth comes out pretty quickly if everyone agrees to drop the games. I am not sure what type of oversight would be required here, but i know there are various avenues for getting help and the Admin team and process is incredibly productive. Thanks for listening. Sarah Katherine 04:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    Hi, Sarah. I would love to reply to each and every one of your points, however your comments are too long (427 words!) so due to time constraints, I will be as brief as possible: 1) The controversy concerns the use of multiple WP:SPA who use this and other talk pages to advocate for non-neutral positions against Wikipedia policies and guidelines 2) Discussion is not a matter of agreement; it also involves listening to people who have different POV's than your own and understanding both sides 3) The article has changed since these discussions began, and I suggest you read up above, and look at the current version. Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    So instead of a meaningful discussion about changing the article, and the TOC we have managed to talk about how long people's comments are and how biased people are. Why have none of my questions been answered, and why are we talking about admin oversight? Wikipedia is a bottom up organization which is controlled by the users. Having a hierarchy is contrary to how this place works. Viriditas is not the "manager" of this article. We must understand that we the users control the article, all of us. We all have our bias, and for some people to act as if they have none is a joke. We are all guilty of our own bias and problems, but that does not disqualify us from being active members here. Mutual compassion and agreement will create the intelligent article we all crave in regards to this subject. Lets start editing and stop this blocking and squabbling. --The Pot Snob (talk) 07:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    Every single one of your questions has been answered, so please don't start making claims you can't support. Viriditas (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    Request for Mediation?

    Hi there, I would suggest looking into one of these options WP:RfC or maybe WP:3O instead of all the arguing. What do you all think of this? Sarah Katherine 04:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    I was thinking WP:RFCU. Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    There are new editors, & everyone is discussing new changes. As an admin (verify), I haven't looked into the detailed contributions of any of the editors on this talk page (referring to discussion in the previous section), but no one seems to be too disruptive. It's all pretty typical for a controversial article. There doesn't seem to be much arguing or personal attacks, and everyone seems to be remaining civil for the most part. I think there needs to be more discussion to try & gain consensus, but a fresh pair of eyes, such as through WP:3O, could never hurt. hmwithτ 17:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    A fresh pair of eyes would be good. And a formal sock puppet investigation i would prefer than to hear over and over about suspicion of it on this page. Sarah Katherine 21:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    Sarah, I agree with you now that one of those options should be used. It has certainly escalated since I last read the page. hmwithτ 23:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    I am signing off on this discussion for now, due to my work schedule. Just wanted to let you all know so that someone else can pick this idea up from here. Thank you so much for your response, hmwith. I do believe people are willing to work together on this, from what i have seen in some talk page conversations. So it shouldn't be too big of a deal if we gathered our ideas together and presented them to an OBJECTIVE 3rd party. Sarah Katherine 18:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    I agree, call on a formal sock puppet investigation so we can end this conspiracy theory. Who is going to be the third party we utilize to decide contentious issues? All of this blocking and debating about sock puppets is doing nothing for this article. --The Pot Snob (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    Indications

    Elsewhere it has been shown to be beneficial in treating symptoms associated with treatments for cancer, AIDS, inflammatory bowel disease, and hepatitis.[citation needed]

    The symptoms associated with cancer and AIDS are already sourced in the above paragraph, so it should be merged there as it is duplicating content. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    Modern science

    This section fails to describe the NIDA/Abrams controversy in the mid-1990s. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    You could help by researching this issue.Sarah sko1221talk 20:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    I believe I am helping, but thanks for your encouragement. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    Viriditas, I have no previous knowledge of this controversy, but I'm sure that you're correct. Do you have any links to help explain it (for my own background knowledge)? hmwithτ 04:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, the Russo book ISBN I added to the article (which is a duplicate press of the journal) briefly summarizes the issue, and you can find it on Gbooks. The article from the collection is by Werner, Clinton A. (2001) in Russo, Ethan. "Medical Marijuana and the AIDS Crisis". Cannabis Therapeutics in HIV/AIDS. The Haworth Press, Inc. pp. 17-28. ISBN 0-7890-1698-2. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

    Researchers

    I would like to see a section devoted to current research and researchers, with a list of researchers by field. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    Both great ideas. I think that Google Scholar could bring up some names of researchers. I'm currently busy IRL, but I'll do some research on Sunday or Monday. hmwithτ 01:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    PubMed also shows what is ongoing and current. I'll start making a list and adding entries here. Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    What is difficult is seeing who did one study years ago, and who is actively studying it today. I also created the list into its own section to make it easier to distinguish & edit. If you mind, please undue. :) hmwithτ 04:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    That's true. What I tend to do is this: I find secondary sources (some of which may be considered primary, such as studies) that discuss the most notable research, and start there. Then I find the primary research discussed in the secondary literature, following the instructions in WP:MEDRS. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

    List of researchers

    • Donald I. Abrams, hematologist/oncologist. NIDA-Abrams controversy in the 1990s highlighted the rift between research and politics. Conducts clinical trials with cannabis. (listen)
    • Tod H. Mikuriya, psychiatrist. One of the first cannabis researchers at the National Institute of Mental Health. Observed government interference and political bias in cannabis studies before leaving NIMH.
    • Gabriel G. Nahas, anesthesiologist. Research established harms associated with cannabis, but has been criticized as biased.
    • Ethan B. Russo, neurologist.

    Irv Rosenfeld

    Irv Rosenfeld is longest surviving federal medical cannabis patient in the U.S. (He receives 300 joints a month from the federal government.) He has smoked 10 - 12 cannabis cigarettes a day for 35 years. Here is a quote from his testimony in front of the State of Michigan Committee on Government Operations on Tuesday November 28th, 2006: "Have they [the federal government] done any studies on me? No. Because they don't want to know how well it works. Myself and three other of the other federal patients had a complete evaluation done privately in Montana five years ago. They did brainwave testing, respiratory, IQ, blood work, you name it. We tried to look at every aspect to see what this has caused us... All four of us were perfectly fine." -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvzX8aNwxgM

    Isn't this relevant information? Shouldn't it be included in the article in some way?--Agent Agent (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    Maybe, although it seems to be crossing over into the Politics of medical cannabis route, and once you go down that path I don't see it ending in my lifetime; Too many advocates, too many agendas, too many people trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. That's why we need to be very careful and cautious. Items like the NIDA/Abrams controversy, while certainly political and related to Rosenfeld's complaint, are primarily focused on the medical science and problems involved with medical research, so they are relevant to this article. If you can find a reliable source (not YouTube) discussing Rosenfeld and medical cannabis, please provide it so we can take a look. There are a lot of scholarly and printed WP:RS on the topic of the politics of medical cannabis, so you may have to do some research. But it should be said, without RS, Rosenfeld's "testimony" doesn't meet the strict criteria for inclusion in a medical article. But, you may be able to argue that it does, providing that the source that covered his testimony is a good one. Viriditas (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    I agre with Viriditas. Find a reliable source that covers this guy, we can mention the case in the article. hmwithτ 14:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

    I am sorry, but do you think Google or Youtube would like the fact that you would not consider them a resource for information. The fact that Youtube is fast becoming a source for all sort of data, does it not seem like it might be time to stop thinking of Youtube like its just a platform for hamsters and funny human tricks? What is more verifiable than a video of the individual in question giving testimony before a legislature? I agree that another source must be referenced along with the video, but I think it is important we don't discount video as a means to distribute data or as a resource. Obviously this video could be uploaded to any number of sites, is there some specific site in which you think all videos of reference should be uploaded? This gentlemen is definitely one of the few resources for information regarding this issue as he is one of the few Federal recipients of Cannabis. Youtube is just the medium to play the video and is not the resource. Obviously if video is ever going to be referenced in these pages, we will need to agree on what scholarly resource with video we will be able to link to. --The Pot Snob (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    We already have policies and guidelines for this things and unless you have reliable sources pointing to the video in some way, we can't really use it. Viriditas (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    Perhaps if it were uploaded onto Wikimedia? --The Pot Snob (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    That doesn't change the underlying problem. Please do the necessary research on Rosenfeld and find references that meet WP:RS. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    All unreferenced material should be removed

    I think that with controversial articles that can impact a reader's health-related decisions, editors need to be more rigid in following verifiability and reliable source policies. Much of the text is unreferenced and maybe misleading. It would be tragic if readers came away from this article thinking that smoking marijuana may successfully treat their medical condition (we don't have the sources to back up the claims). As a first step to resolve this problem, I will remove all the unsourced information from all sections excepts for material dealing with legal status and history. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

    There are a great deal of sources claiming that smoking marijuana may successfully treat the symptoms of medical conditions. To what claims in the article are you referring? From what I see, this article is very well-sourced. hmwithτ 14:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    Also, allow me to clarify: I think that all unreferenced material should be removed that isn't common knowledge or is debated, whether the comment is for or against cannabis. We just have to make sure that the article remains balanced. hmwithτ 14:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    What you are seeing is the article minus most of the unsourced information since I have already made the deletions. I deleted the text that was tagged with 'citation needed'. That is not to say that the material with links are well-sourced and thus should be left alone. One has to verify if the information is what the source claims and if the source is reliable. I agree with you that all unreferenced material should be removed that isn't common knowledge. But the only common knowledge that comes to this subject is that marijuana is sometimes used for medical purposes. Here is another way of seeing this, if material is unsourced, it is either original research or plagiarized because it is not attributed and that itself is another big problem. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    One thing an editor can consider is to find sources rather than to remove unsourced info. Deleting sections is perhaps easier and faster, but might not be improving the encyclopedic nature of this article. Sarah sko1221talk 18:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    I disagree. Unreferenced text does not have a place in any article on Wikipedia. It is odd to argue for inclusion of material that is unreferenced and then expect others to conjure sources. The rule is to add referenced (verifiable) material, not add unreferenced material and wait for others to add the sources for the material. I welcome anyone to re-add the material I deleted if they provide references.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    Furthermore, unreferenced material on medically related issues is subject to stricter guidelines and anything not attributable to highly reliable sources that could possibly be construed as advice should be removed immediately rather than be tagged as citation needed. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)Mfield (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    Here, these could help you in your search for validity and to help you improve this article, thanks for your interest here! Sarah sko1221talk 18:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    [[7]]
    [[8]]
    [[9]]
    Thanks Mfield for bringing that section of the policy to our attention. Sarah, I am not sure why you believe that I would be the one to make the additions to the article. I hope you don't think I am responsible for expanding the article because I justifiably deleted unreferenced material. I might look into the sources you provided, but I am not going to guarantee that I will expand the article. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    Expanding no, just fixing that which you complained about (lack of sources), and RESTORING the article is what i would hope. This, in an effort on your part to at least seem to be NPOV. We are here to improve this article as a team, not just hack it to shreds and enjoy the ongoing witch hunt drama. Sarah sko1221talk 19:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    What an irrational response. How I am supposed to restore the text when I have no idea what the sources for it are? The burden is on you to add the sources if you think the material is verifiable. Would you like to continue this conversation this way? It seems you were walking into a ban if you ask me. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    I see the POV-pushing to be on your side since you're willing to keep unreferenced material that could be possibly misleading, something that WP policy is against. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    From your second source: "The investigator concluded that, although cannabinoids may be effective in relieving chronic pain in humans, their role in the treatment of acute postoperative pain is uncertain, and requires further clinical evaluation...Unfortunately, there are two major problems associated with the use of cannabinoids: the lack of a suitable delivery system for the highly lipophilic cannabinoids; and the associated central nervous system side effects. Both have a negative impact on patient compliance and acceptance. The recent introduction of sl or buccal delivery of cannabis extract is a positive development.11,12 Of major importance is the avoidance of the highly undesirable smoking of the cannabis leaf. In addition, synthetic cannabinoid compounds devoid of unwanted psychoactive side effects are now available and may help to reshape the future cannabinoid landscape." I guess that this isn't what you're looking for in a source? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    We want to focus on facts, whether they are pro or con. Do not assume my position. I am completely confused by your response, especially the harshness and threat. The point is not to remove information, but to make sure that it is encyclopedic. If there is no validity to the info, then i would agree it should be removed. Please do not add to the drama here by adding threats. That does not help at all. If you want to ban me, take it to the proper place, do not discuss it here as this is solely for discussion of the article in question. Sarah sko1221talk 19:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    I have no idea why you are so surprised by my response seeing that you implied that I am hacking the article to shreds and participating in some witch hunt drama. Furthermore, you said I should restore the unreferenced text and attach the random sources you provided to the material in order for me to at least seem NPOV. NO, I am not going to restore the text and slap on your sources.
    That wasn't a threat (talk about drama), that was a caution to you since you seem to be ignoring Wiki policies, I am not an admin so I can't really threaten you with a ban. The source I reviewed doesn't support any of the text that I deleted. [10] Perhaps you thought I deleted all the text regarding all the positive medical aspects of cannabis? As you can see by the link, I haven't deleted much. Again, if you think the material is verifiable and you really have the sources, then feel free to add the text back along with the sources. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

    I make the argument that with a subject as controversial as cannabis, it is very important not to just delete unreferenced material. The compassionate use laws in California must be some symptom of a greater good created by the availability of medical cannabis in the community. Did the voters in California have specific medical references when they voted? Or did they vote because it was helping people dying of serious illnesses regardless of the medical references? In fact, the entire reason compassionate use laws have come about in this country is because when the tire hits the road, cannabis appears to be the best solution for many illnesses symptoms including AIDS, cancer, and MS. The reason people had to vote on the issue was because the medical community and legislature would not act and the people were suffering. Removing unreferenced material from this article is purely an attempt to create the bias that has developed through years of carefully planned and manipulated studies that don't agree with the common wisdom we can see with our own eyes. This article must conform with Wikipedia's standards and should contain as much referenced material as possible. But the standard that all unreferenced material be removed is ridiculous pertaining to this subject because of the controversial nature of it. Lets be careful and attempt to find references for the material, or replace it with material we can reference. --The Pot Snob (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    Unreferenced material that has been previously tagged or discussed may be removed at any time. Unreferenced material that violates policy should be immediately removed. It is good practice to place the removed material on the talk page so that others can find sources and add it back in. Now, you have been asked time and time again not to use this article as a soapbox, yet you are still doing it, years later. Viriditas (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    States with Medical Marijuana Legislation

    Another sleeper SPA created on Feb. 24[11] has now shown up spamming external links[12] and repeatedly adding a disputed section into the article not once[13] but twice[14] after a discussion about this was started on their talk page.[15] This article is most certainly not about United States government legislation and has an international scope focused on medicine, not politics. This is the same person(s) and the same account(s) with the same modus operandi of turning this article into a political debate instead of a medical article focused on medical science. This has been repeatedly discussed on this talk page, so it's not too difficult to figure out the perps. The legal and medical status of cannabis article is over there. Do you want to summarize the statistics of medical cannabis laws around the world? Do so with a reliable source, but don't continue to spam NORML advocacy links describing all 50 U.S. state laws in this article. There are subarticles that deal with that narrow scope, so please use them. Viriditas (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

    Recentism and regionalism

    With the current budget crisis that California is facing, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano has proposed a new bill, AB390, that would "remove all penalties in California law on cultivation, transportation, sale, purchase, possession, or use of marijuana, natural THC, or paraphernalia for persons over the age of 21." Meaning that marijuana would now be taxed at a proposed $50 an ounce, which would bring in about $1 billion in taxes.[68]

    This was recently added to this article instead of the legal and medical status of cannabis article. Can anyone tell me what it has to do with the topic of medical cannabis? Viriditas (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

    This is confusing the issue of law with that of science. An article existing that talks about both is profoundly biased. It is as if we associated astronomy with astrology. Legal and Medical Status should not be in the same article. I agree that this does not belong in this article, but I disagree about the very notion of the article you suggest it goes on. Legal and Medical Status must remain separate, and I plan on splitting up that article. --The Pot Snob (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    We already discussed this on the talk page of that article, and I provided reliable sources that claimed the issue is inextricably linked, not separate. Please refer to our previous discussion and stop making "plans" to do something that has not been agreed upon. I'm getting really tired of having to repeat myself whenever you come back from your "long" vacations. Elizabeth Eleanor Lutge writes the following in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews:

    The use of cannabis (marijuana) or of its constituent chemical tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) as a medicine is a hotly contested issue. Those in support of its medicinal use assert that marijuana is effective in the treatment of wasting syndrome in patients with AIDS and cancer; neurological disorders such as multiple sclerosis; and glaucoma (Martin 1997/8). This is countered by the fact that, for most if not all of these health conditions, effective treatments already exist. Another important issue in the debate is the legalisation or decriminalisation of marijuana as a recreational drug. This constitutes an important philosophical obstacle to the legitimacy of the use of marijuana as a medicine (Walters 2002).[16]

    Viriditas (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    Is there any possibility

    ...that a single one of these SPA accounts will actually read a medical book or journal article and cite it as a source in an article about medical cannabis, or should I just expect the same off-topic political advocacy for the foreseeable future? What part of "medical" in the title is confusing? Viriditas (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

    I'm a gambling man and I like the odds. £50 says 'they won't and you should'. "Medical" is three syllables now come on... :P --Alf melmac 12:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

    I am sorry, but is this post contributing to this article, or is it just here to demean other people in this discussion? I call for its immediate removal. --The Pot Snob (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, but the little SPA/sock game needs to be exposed for what it is, and you need to stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Viriditas (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    For the LAST time, take this sock theory to the proper place [17] as promised AND stop mentioning socks here as has been requested at least 3 times, OK? ~ sarah katherine 68.13.134.213 (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

    Legality in the intruduction is completely FALSE

    Medical use in Belgium is NOT leagal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucason (talk • contribs) 20:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

    You are right, even potheads know it is not legal in Belgium [18], the whole para is unreferenced. I don't know why this article got B status --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    Downgraded to C-Class. Viriditas (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

    This definitely is a C-Class article. It shall have to be changed, starting with the introduction. Like I have stated before we need an introduction that suits the information contained in the article, and should not focus on the legality. --The Pot Snob (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    It's called a lead section and it is supposed to summarize the article. Viriditas (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    American Medical Association

    I noticed that the AMA is cited as an organisation that supports medical cannabis. However, the link to the reference points to "The American College of Physicians Position Paper." I further noticed that all of the organisations in that section of the article cite that same position paper. A quick review of that paper did not indicate that the AMA supports the use of medical cannabis. Indeed, I've seen writings by opponents of the issue, which say that the AMA is opposed to medical cannabis. Could someone who is more familiar with this subject explain, clarify or correct this reference? Wikem (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

    I at least found something to back up the claim that the AMA does indeed endorse the further research into the validity of medical marijuana, but not in line with what the article claims. It's in the Health and Ethics Policy, H-95.998 [19] (you'll have to scroll down). Zeke (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

    pro-medical cannabis individuals

    According to the WP Libertarian Party article , "The party has also made the repeal of drug prohibition laws one of its priorities" - it seems incorrect, therefore to mention one member of said party as being pro, when in fact it is the entire party (notwithstanding the word 'Individuals' in the title). I would fix this (but Im too new to get past the padlock).Zombie president (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

    I've changed it - looks ok to me.Zombie president (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    As I have said previously on this talk page, that section should be removed entirely. It is an attempt to politicize the topic and doesn't serve the purposes of this article. Now, if some of these individuals are notable only for their work on medical cannabis, they should be mentioned in the appropriate section, in prose. Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    (I see my edit's been reverted - never mind.) Is there not a consensus for the last 50-odd years that the subject is politicized , resulting in a lack of authoritative medical research that would otherwise have been exhaustively done long ago ? If so, then ignoring the political dimension, as you seem to advocate, would leave a completely distorted version of the facts, ie the facts as prescribed by a series of medically unqualified officials in the UN, DEA etc. The result of this would be a purely political article which would need to be renamed. I apologise if this point also has previously been addressed. Zombie president (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    Before you rush out and create another account, let me respond to this one. I have never advocated ignoring anything, only focusing on the topic and writing in prose. List dumps are an easy way for POV pushers to to gain inclusion; it's an old and tired game. Question: Are all the people listed key players in the medical cannabis research community? If not, they should be removed and placed in the legal and medical status articles. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    I believe ZP to be a new user here on WP, and accusations of having multiple accounts are not helpful. Is there a particular sockpuppet investigatition I should be aware of? Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    I don't believe ZP is a new user, and I liked him better when he called himself Maxpowers4040 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Furthermore, there are at least nine accounts (probably more) that are linked to this user, so I'm curious why you "believe" he's new. Viriditas (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    Here's a little tip for you : Instead of randomly insulting my integrity from the safety of your computer screen, you should try to read and reply to the point I just made. But anyhow, you can rest assured that I have no intention of any further invasion of your little web-page.Zombie president (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    I thought I did respond to your points, so at your request, I'll read your comments again and respond again: 1) Yes, the subject is politicized, and yes there is a lack of good research. 2) I never advocated ignoring these things, only removing lists of people who do not have anything to do with this topic and replacing the list with prose that focuses on the issue. 3) You accused me of advocating a "completely distorted version of the facts". I replied by ignoring your insult, but observing the number of new accounts created in the last 24 hours to discuss this topic, insinuating you were part of the SPA/astroturfing campaign. Then, you claim that I "randomly insult(ed) your integrity". That's rich. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    Example 1: Notable celebrities who are pro-medical cannabis. Why is this here? Snoop Dogg is an expert on the subject of medical cannabis, apparently. Is there anything a celebrity can't do? Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    Quote:"that section should be removed entirely. It is an attempt to politicize the topic". Quote "Yes, the subject is politicized". Or shall we just chat about Snoop Dogg instead...Zombie president (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    The section is called "Notable pro-medical cannabis individuals" and so is this talk page discussion. It's the same argument no matter who it applies to, celebrity, politican, Joe Blow, it doesn't matter. If they don't have something to do with medical cannabis, they should be removed or placed in an article that is devoted to political activism or celebrity worship. Are you saying that we should make a politicized subject more politicized? How does the inclusion of Snoop Dogg help this article? Care to provide me some quotes he's made about medical cannabis? Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    I have to agree with Viriditas here, Snoop Dogg and other celebrity endorsements of medical cannabis don't really have a place on the article. I have no problem with adding this list into an appropriate article that would be added to the "See Also" section. Further, I really don't like the lack of citations for a lot of these notable persons, for and against medical cannabis seeing as that may not be "common knowledge". Zeke (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    ...so that would be a "yes, please", then , would it? (No surprise there!!) For the record, I have no special interest in this section - I was merely trying to improve it and clarify the overall problems with this article before I was sidetracked by this person.Zombie president (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    Incidentally, it is puzzling, to say the least, to find a list of "celebrities" in this article! Zombie president (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

    Just to flog a Dead Horse (see above), if anything, "anti-" celebritites would perhaps make a more illuminating, and shorter, list Zombie president (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC) The most obvious point about this list of celebrities, (most of whom I've never heard of), apart from their irrelevance, must be that their lawyers may object to their inclusion in a list of potential felons on a fairly high profile page in wikipedia. Why are they still there? Does noone have the wherewithal to simply(?) remove them? When I attempted a small edit of this section earlier, it was immediately reverted without discussion, so I will leave this for more experienced users to consider Zombie president (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

    The reason it is still there is because, at least in my case, I have tried to calmly discuss this topic since July 2008 without forcing my way or steamrolling over other people. In response, some editors have stepped forward and made helpful changes to the list, so it has changed and evolved over time (becoming more embedded into prose). We're just at another stage in this discussion, and since there's no hurry, we can wait for more voices. It's when people try to force changes into the article or delete them without consensus that problems arise. Of course, if the content in question is harmful or controversial, it should be removed immediately. This isn't, and is relatively harmless. Another thing, is that lists like this generally get started by new editors getting their feet wet on Wikipedia, but at some point someone needs to take the reins and make the deletion or even better, preserve the content by moving it to a more appropriate page. Viriditas (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    There is a box at the top of this page that says "Be polite, assume good faith, avoid personal attacks, be welcoming". Since you score 0/4 (see above) the question is: "Why are you still here?" ; regardless of your unwillingness to remove this apparently universally derided and potentially libellous list of supposed celebrities - since the middle of last year??. I am new to WP, (except in your fantasy world, of course, where I have been here all along, under a multitude of guises to complete my nefarious schemes), and am genuinely unable to think of any obvious reason. Zombie president (talk) 07:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    Your reading comprehension skills need serious work, and the "0/4" comment was an obvious personal attack, just like the other ones you made. To refresh your short-term memory, I am the one who proposed removing the material, not adding it. And it is your claim that the content is "potentially libelous", not mine. If you can't reply without making another personal attack, then I suggest you go back to your primary account. The "good hand, bad hand" game with multiple accounts got old about five years ago. Please try a new SPA tactic, preferably something more interesting and slightly humorous. This is worse than watching Kramer tell racist jokes. Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    So now you are claiming it is worth preserving the list of Snoop Dogg, et al for ultimately moving to "a more appropriate page".Is there one? By the way, do you see how puerile your comment about my primary account is ? Zombie president (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    I think my claim is pretty clear: I have consistently recommended removal from this article. However, I understand and respect the other side, that is to say, an inclusionist argument. If an editor, whomever they may be, wishes to preserve the material and move it to another page, they are welcome to do so. After all, it is their responsibility to argue and defend it, so I leave that in their hands. I, however, prefer that the material is deleted from this article. It may sound strange to you, that there is more than one way of looking at something, and that there are often multiple ways and viewpoints on a particular issue. I leave that possibility open, and allow for it. Things are not black and white. So, are we in agreement, or should I wait for the bad hand account to show up? Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    The "other side", like my other account, would appear to exist only in your imagination, no? Zombie president (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    The least you could do is try to tell a fart joke. Come on, liven up this place. Bring On the Dancing Horses or something... Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

    April 1 2009 Spanish research

    Hello, I have taken the liberty of adding the results of the most recent study involving marijuana and cancer cells from Complutense University in Madrid. Hope this helps! ~ sarah katherine SKO1221 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.134.213 (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    Excellent addition. --The Pot Snob (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    Medical Marijuana, Inc.

    Should there be a mention in this article of the first public company to enter this medical industry, i.e. NASDAQ stock symbol CVIV which is officially Medical Marijuana, Inc in the State of Oregon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.91.199 (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

    That makes sense to me. We need to have a 3rd party review of the issue, if that can be found. 68.13.134.213 (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    Found it ~ [20] 68.13.134.213 (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

    It is officially now in the stock market under the name "Medical Marijuana Inc" now that NASDAQ changed the symbol to MJNA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.91.199 (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

    what parts of the body

    what parts of the body can THC or other compounds in cannabis help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.252.121 (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

    New edits

    Sko1221 who is now editing as 68.13.134.213 (talk · contribs) has recently made the following changes: [21] The changes appear to be highly biased towards the United States end of things, use references that do not meet WP:RS, and seems to have removed or changed important information about alternatives to smoking the raw plant. I would like to discuss these changes here. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

    Discuss away.68.13.134.213 (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    Since you made the edits, I look forward to some kind of explanation of why you are making the article US-centric, and why you are using advocacy sources. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

    I did notice that the opening paragraph was becoming US centric. It didn't happen intentionally, but over time. I wonder about US info being moved to another section? And would you be so kind as to point out which advocacy sources you are referring to? I have made a very conscious effort to avoid blogs and biased sources.

    Secondly, if i have done something wrong, please go ahead and change it. I am new, and i also do not have time right now to do a lot of discussing. If i am at odds with your changes, i'll discuss here when time allows.

    As for the smoking method, the study i came across comparing the different methods was looking at the claim within the scientific community that smoking was more effective than the other forms. We should also mention studies that looked at the claim that smoking was harmfull, like the one by Dr. Tashkin. That would be more balanced, i see what you mean.

    Thanks, sarah katherine (sko1221)68.13.134.213 (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you for your efforts at improving the article. Concerns about the lead section and the quality of the sources have been discussed by myself and others (Falastine fee Qalby, etc.) on this talk page. Before I revisit those discussions, I would like you to take a look at WP:LEAD and see if you can move anything out of the lead section and into the body, and if you see anything notable about the topic in the body, please summarize it and add the summary to the lead. Can you do that? As for the sources, you added references to NORML. We have previously discussed WP:MEDRS so if you could also review that as well that would help. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    Your primary user page says you are now on break. No offense, but every time you make an edit and then engage in a discussion, you flip the wikibreak tag on your user page. This makes it extremely difficult to get anything done. But, I'm hoping you will return soon enough. Viriditas (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    I will review my sources and remove ones from NORML as time allows. Do you have a suggestion as to where the US info should be moved, or if a new section should be made for that, what it could be called and where located? 68.13.134.213 (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    I have many suggestions, but since you have taken a new approach to this article, and are starting to work with me for the first time, I feel comfortable enough to leave these decisions in your hands. For right now, all I ask is that you familiarize yourself with the two Wikipedia guidelines above. That's the most important thing right now. The rest can wait, or I'll help out and comment here as time permits. So again, good work getting started, but there's a lot more to do... Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I think the history section is important as the first section (the lead is often referred to as "section zero"), in somewhat the same style as aspirin, a good article. I propose splitting the history section out into history of medical cannabis and replacing it with a proportional number of paragraphs, summary style. "Therapeutic use" can follow in section two. Remember, this is a general encyclopedia, and an historical overview of medical cannabis would generally come first, not at the end of the article. Viriditas (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    • In March 2009, Medical Marijuana, Inc became the first public company to enter the legalized medical marijuana business. The company, out of Oregon, is listed on NASDAQ with the symbol MJNA, effective April 28, 2009.[22]

    This section appears to be the subject of the same spammy links being added by multiple SPA accounts. It looks like the best solution at this time is to add the links to the blacklist. Viriditas (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

    No, do not blacklist them please. A lot of those belong in a separate article on Marijuana advocacy or Compassion club or Medical marijuana dispensary (also Cannabis Social Club and Cannabis Buyers Club). I've already got pages of material relating to compassion clubs printed out and referenced from reliable medical journals. I just need to sort through it and write the article, which however seems like a big task right now. But it would be easier if someone could write up a quick stub on the topic then I could add to it, and some of the better ones from that list of ext. links have an article they belong to. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 20:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
    As I said before, I prefer Medical cannabis dispensary, and I think there are good sources for it. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

    i dont care enough to list them all but you deleted a lot of good , legit links. you should try discussing BEFORE you delete, as opposed to delete then discuss... -4twenty42o (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

    Actually, I deleted them because I felt they were not appropriate. Per WP:ELNO, external links should not be "lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers" nor should they be "links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising". TNXMan 01:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

    Portugal

    The law discriminates self-use from traffic, since 2003. In self-use you cannot have more than a few grams or you'll get a fine while traffic is crime and you'll end up in jail. Acquisition and cultivation is also illegal!

    • Cannabis leaves, flowers, fruit leading, possession allowed is 2.5g
    • Cannabis resin, possession allowed is 0.5g
    • Cannabis oil, possession allowed is 0.25g

    Check: http://mgmporto.org/mgmv2/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=111&Itemid=89

    There's no use in medical field of cannabis here, yes i live in Portugal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.73.233 (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

    Spain

    I'm missing a single (!) source supporting this section. -- Alfie±Talk 18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

    New lead image

    We finally have an actual medical cannabis picture, not a tincture or a pill or a brownie, but a picture of marijuana grown for medical purposes and downloaded [3] Has anyone got suggestions for getting this image ready to put into the article? It is too large and also needs ot be categorized in Wikicommons, I believe. Any suggestions?

    One other note, WAMM is happy to help us with this and has promised to upload more photos in time. sarah katherine sko1221 68.13.134.213 (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

    Note: I made the image a thumb so it doesn't take up the whole page. The full size it available when you click it.
    My thoughts: It's a great image for the article. However, I wouldn't say it's the best for the lead. It's just the plant growing. That can be taken of any marijuana. If they'd really love to cooperate, I'd love to see a bud next to some packaged cannabis (how its purchased for medicinal use). That would be the perfect image for the article. Many thanks to WAMM for helping us out, & I hope they'd like to take some more pictures. hmwithτ 20:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks much, I will simply cut and paste your comments to WAMM. I wonder if this present image belongs in the "Indications" section? While we are here to convey information and not to create a glossy magazine, admittedly this article is a bit lacking in images when compared with most other Wiki articles, in my opinion. I will add this and see how that works for you all. sko1221 68.13.134.213 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

    Hmmm.... I'll have to look around for something like that. A couple of notes: WAMM does not buy or sell medical marijuana, we provide it on a donation basis. It's not a dispensary, where someone comes in and pays a bunch of money for a little bit of medicine in a package. We are a collective of terminally ill patients and patients with permanent and severe disabilities.

    WAMM's garden is purely medicinal, and has been for the past 30 years. That is the main difference between Victoria (which is also the first legal medical marijuana plant after WAMM got an injunction against the federal government) or any other WAMM plant against just any marijuana plant.

    AS for another photo, I can upload photo's of WAMM providing medical marijuana on the steps of city hall. There's even one of a close up of the medicine. Let me post them here...

    WAMM (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)WAMM

    Even in a day and age where they legally dispense cannabis to the public in nice glass containers with labels, we have a picture of a tincture from the 1930's Can someone please explain this? This article is on the border of becoming ridiculous with that picture from the 30's. Plenty of cannabis dispensaries will give permission to post images of the product in all its forms. Might that not make this article more relevant? --The Pot Snob (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

    Neuron development section

    Hi there, I believe this section: "A study at Karolinska Institutet observed that adult rats pre-exposed to THC during adolescence self-administered higher amounts of heroin and show different disturbances in the normal development of the neurons." is not appropriately placed. It has been placed in the "Indications" section. Here is the definition of Indications: "something that is indicated as advisable or necessary". for the purposes of htis article, this refers to the medicinal uses of Cannabis.

    Perhaps the study in question has a more appropriate place. I am not sure what that is, or if this article is the place for it, but i am sure Indications is not it.

    Discussed and removed again. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

    1. ^ a b c "International - NORML". norml.org. Retrieved 2008-06-30.
    2. ^ "JAMA -- Abstract: Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients: A Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies, April 15, 1998, Lazarou et al. 279 (15): 1200". jama.ama-assn.org. Retrieved 2008-07-08.
    3. ^ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Women%27s_Alliance_For_Medical_Marijuana_-_Victoria.JPG here
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Medical_cannabis/Archive_1&oldid=1057099710"