Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 4

message: Changed withdraw symptoms to something published by the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine. For now it's better then the Erowid list.Grason1129 06:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdraw Symptoms 

message: There was a lot under the cancer section that didn't belong there (as far as I could tell.) I also changed some of the more informal wording that was in the article and deleted a sentence that wasn't necessary.I think I may have messed up the citations though.Vesperal 19:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved some stuff, changed some stuff 

message: I do not feel that this article has a complete NPOV-- it seems to talk an awful lot about the positive side effects of cannabis, than the negative ones. The wording of some of the setences suggest that cannabis doesn't cause cancer, nor does it exasperate Schizophrenia.
I call for these sections to be partially rewritten, with a more NPOV.  What are your thoughts? Unconscious 21:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cannabis smoke actually doesn't cause cancer, according to epidmioligical evidence (despite containing numerous carcinogens and irritants), but it does exacerbate schizophrenia, and if it is implicit in the article that it doesn't, the reference to schizophrenia should be rephrased so it would be as accurate as known to science. Let The Sunshine In 18:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you are interested, look at the health issues and the effects of cannabis article, it has a great, long section about the relationship between cannabis use and a change in mental health (e.g. schizophrenia outbreak). Let The Sunshine In 23:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be quite interesting, yes. I'll be sure to check it out. Unconscious 18:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: First, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).  Second, I agree that just because an article portrays a subject as being mostly positive does not make it biased.  However, the effects of smoking cannabis have not been studied in near the detail as the effects of smoking tobacco.  I am not sure what type of scientist you are or what papers you have been reading, but in my experience the vast majority of studies that have been done indicate that there are some significantly negative side-effects to smoking cannabis.  The clinical, peer-reviewed studies that I have examined, far from presenting cannabis as a "pretty benign harmless substance", instead present a picture of the strong potential for brain damage and respiratory difficulties if it is smoked.  Your mileage may vary, but I have not seen scientific, peer-reviewed studies that present unlimited cannabis consumption as benign.  I encourage you to present the research, here on the talk page.  Ursasapien (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the guy who you responded to (check the history same ip). I dont have an account here, therefore im not sure how to sign my comments. Also im not sure what you meant when you said add four tilde since looks at other posts i dont see them using four tilde, so im a bit confused. Otherwise id be happy to sign my posts if you can clear that up. In response, I am a Computer Engineer who specializes in AI R&D. I never claimed to be a scientist that had any authority on this topic. I only mentioned it because i do have expiernce in reading, reviewing, and validating white papers in general. However as a hobbiest i have touched on biology and pretty much every area of science to some degree. But none of that is relevant. I never said marijuana is harmless. It has its negatie effects (all of which have been pointed out on this page that i am aware of). You claim brain damage, every bit of research ive done on the subject suggests that there is minor memory loss that goes away when you quit (suggesting there is no brain damage, just temporary effects). In fact several studies hint at the fact that cannabis actually helps prevent neurons from dieing off. Id love to hear of any papers clearly showing brain damage that has not been debunked by peer-review. In one of my college finals (not worthy of a citation on wikipedia of course) I have even cited many sources supporting this assertion. So please, if you have any paper that has stood up to peer-review clearly showing brain damage, present it to me, to the group. Im sure if you can support the paper with peer-review it will make it into the page. By the way you say unlimited consumption of marijuana is not benign, of course not. You can even die from unlimited consumption of water, but it is still benign. I know from my personal expirence of interviewing 10 doctors for my college paper about cannibis, they all agreed that it wasnt a significant health risk aside from a few points (all illustrated here).66.166.153.197 07:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Never mind, i figured out how to sign, and added it66.166.153.197 07:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually i did say it was harmless, but i didnt intend "it had absolutly no bad effects" only "the bad effects are minor and few". My fault i should have been specific66.166.153.197 07:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Respiratory difficulties I can see (breathing smoke hurts the lungs, no doubt), but I've never read *anywhere* that marijuana causes brain damage at any dose. I'm pretty sure, although I may be wrong, that THC will cause cardiac or respiratory arrest long before it causes permanent brain damage. --Utopianfiat 21:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, the article is promotive of cannabis rather than factual. Considering my marijuana smoking friend just recently got admitted to a mental institute for schizophrenia and PP disorder (paranoid  personality disorder) I would like this article to be more factual than promoting a substance that can ruin lives and ambitions. It's also worth noting, marijuana smokers have the highest rate of throat cancers. Also a recent psychiatrists in a British paper admitted 4/5 of his patients who complained about depression had a history of marijuana use. Even the Dutch scientists who attempt to squash the Swedish study admit marijuana can trigger schizophrenia and genetically predisposed users. Marijuana is certainly not safe, and from personal observation it makes people dopey. I haven't come across one world famous scientist or mathematician who uses marijuana. --78.86.117.164 19:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article is very well written, and does not seem to be promotive to cannabis. Your marijuana smoking friend is part of a large group of people that use THC. Does your British paper state how often, and whether they have used marijuana recently? Its most likely safe to say that majority of people in western countries have used marijuana at some point. Just because certain people don't use it doesn't make it bad. THC and Cannabis are not nearly as bad for you as just about anything else that you can do. You have a much higher risk (I assume)of being hurt from being an Adrenaline junkie than a pot smoker. Majority of marijuana smokers do it on a safe basis, and are contributing members to society. I see no reason to change any of the info in this article. I still think marijuana is safe. Cite one source that has stated that someone has died from use of it, that has gone on a shooting spree from it, that is a major threat to society because they've used it etc. Coupled with the fact that its not addicted, and really the only downside I've noticed (personally) is you lose a little bit of lung capacity. My father is a long time user of it. Also his eye doctor theorizes that because of marijuana use and his eye blood vessels getting more blood that his eyesight had gotten a major boost from it during his normal life. Marijuana is like chemotherapy. The benefits much greatly outweigh the risks of it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.45.65 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Yes, it is true that cannabis induces paranoia. Is this fair to say only because it is illegal to buy/ sell/ smoke? I believe that if it were legal (or deemed moral), escalated paranoia would not be considered a side effect.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.73.65 (talk • contribs) 
:Yes, of course.  It's a well-known fact that Dutch marijuana smokers never get paranoid.--Loodog 04:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [citation needed] ;) I don't think 'paranoia' is an identifiable side effect. Hypervigilance, maybe. --Utopianfiat 21:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From personnel experience smoking in Amsterdam is much less paranoia inducing, i watched some guys get beat up by the cops while i was high with weed in my pocket knowing it was legal and completely calm. Had this same situation been in a very unfriendly state in the USA i would have had a panic attack.Grason1129 18:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we can cite your experience as scientific research? I'll be the peer that reviewed it. The outcome is pretty impressive, for 100% of your sample turned out to not have any panic attack (which is more or less the same as paranoia of course) while 'seeing cops beat up some people'. Unconventional, but effective research!--Cruzlee 21:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Paranoia based on its illegality? Lol. Sure if one is smoking on the streets and paranioa while buying on the streets, sure, but the idea that one gets paranoid of the police smoking in the privacy of one's own house in the great majoprity of countries is laughable. Best to look at the cause of the paranoia, may be pointing out something wrong or out of place in one's life, SqueakBox 19:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in any case, this would all fall under the category of original research.  The article only makes passing reference to paranoia as a side-effect anyway, at least that I could see...  --Jaysweet 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think most paranoia is caused by the teenagers who are afraid of getting caught by their parents. 4.176.117.245 04:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A creative and well-supported idea.  Someday, someone will think of something so profound, run studies to show it, and cite you as the primary inspiration.--Loodog 06:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Lol, you think just because it's illegal they say marijuana causes paranoia? Oil is legal, and we all know fatty foods make you fat, then again some people can get away with eating too much fat. Cigarettes are legal and we all know it causes cancer, but some manage to smoke all their life without being affected. There are always exceptions to side effects. Marijuana does cause paranoia, it's a well known fact, however, everyone is different, some get too paranoid, some feel comfortable. And it's not teenagers who get paranoid of getting caught, you are confusing the type of paranoia marijuana causes to that of normal paranoia. Marijuana induced paranoia is unjustified, e.g. you might walk down the street and think people are looking at you. The problem is marijuana makes you too self-aware and self-analytical (did i say this right, did i do this right) in excess to that of normal human behaviour, which in effect, causes paranoia. --78.86.117.164 19:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paranoia induced by cannabis 

message: Someone has been repeatedly re-adding a plea to contact Congress about medicinal marijuana.  As much as I may or may not agree with this POV, this Talk page is not the place for such a plea.  This is not a forum to discuss marijuana, it's a forum to discuss the Wikipedia article about marijuana.  --Jaysweet 18:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We aren't American either so specifically US causes are well outside our scope as Jaysweet says, SqueakBox 18:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not use this Talk page to promote a cause 

message: In external links I saw a new link added entitled "Bibliography of scholarly histories on cannabis and hashish". It turns out the article is nothing more then a "bibliography" without an actual article. Another words, just a list of document. It isnt very useful, and points to an article in a blog. Seems to me this was added more so to promote the blog then to provide a useful external link. I didnt want to remove it myself, but i think it should. Debeo Morium 19:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete it, SqueakBox 19:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did and done, woot i am now a contributor, lol Debeo Morium 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Im not an authority on such things, but from my opinion, no where. It didnt seem like original research to me, cause unless i missed something, It was just a list of names of papers with not much of a rhyme or reason to it. My suggestion would be to post the link here, and let the others decide if it is something that has merit somewhere. Debeo Morium 02:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The contribution was to provide a vetted list of peer reviewed, scholarly histories of Cannabis and Hashish.  It's a starting point for those Wikipedians who have access to university libraries and who wish to add scholarly material to their contributions.  (It is clear from the existing page, for example, that nobody here knows about the relevance of Moreau de Tours.)  Additional value is provided by the fact that the bibliographies were compiled by a researcher trained in the history of psychology; it's not "just a list." In any case, the original post can be found here.  JTBurman 03:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: My main problem with it is that i dont see the point of a list of research papers, and quotes from them without much interpretation or personal analysis. If there was some coherent point made in a research paper that used these references int eh bibliography then yea, thats cool. But what there is right now isnt anymore useful then 5 minutes on google from my perspective. Of course lets wait to hear from a ew other people, if i the only one who winds up thinking this i wont oppose it. The key is, do most people find that link to be a helpful resource to add? I don't. Debeo Morium 16:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: In fact, now that i look it over more completely, it seems to be the same article you tried to add before that got shot down. The only difference seems to be that you copy and pasted the first paragraph from each reference below it. Doesnt seem to make much of a difference from how it was before personally. However you did mention that it could be helpful for people looking to contribute to this article in the future. Perhaps then it would be good to keep it in the talk page and even flag it so it wont go into the archive. Since the talk page is geared toward contributors and the main page is geared towards educating/readers. Debeo Morium 16:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just trying to help out.  The resource will continue to be hosted at our site for the foreseeable future.  If anyone cares to use it, feel free.  JTBurman 21:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article edit to promote a site 

message: Does it say somewhere in the article that there is no lethal dose of marijuana?  If it does I missed and I apologize.  If the article doesn't mention this, don't you think that this is a important fact to mention? 70.54.111.29 02:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cannabis_%28drug%29#Toxicity.  Try your browser's "find" function on the word "lethal".--Loodog 02:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ctrl F for most browsers, SqueakBox 15:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lethal Dose? 

message: Can someone create an image from this?  As it is it is horribly difficult to read and takes up a huge amount of space.  Actually it is also under mediation for being unsourced on psychoactive drug (the diagram is unreferenced and false; plenty of people oppose it; it can and will be removed in accordance with WP:V until it is sourced)199.125.109.99 23:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I called OR on this, and the user has since provided sources on the page.  Obviously, said sources should appear in this image also, and be checked.--Loodog 02:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it was sourced it needs to be redone as an image so it does not take up so much space on the page. It is very confusing and hard to read, and some of the text is on top of each other. 199.125.109.133 16:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification of marijuana 

message: This seems a bit muddled. I've made major alterations to remove things and to try to make it more concise and to the point. This has been removed:
<quote>With this argument in mind, certain activist groups such as NORML contend that legalizing cannabis would substantially reduce the use of other drugs by taking the distribution of marijuana out of the hands of criminals, and regulating it in a similar manner to alcohol or tobacco.  Government agencies such as the DEA, however, claim that legalization would do far more harm than good, and would likely cause a rise in cannabis use.
</quote>
The reason I removed it is because NORML are actually saying that legalization of cannabis will reduce cannabis use. They don't mention the effect on consumption of other drugs (the research they quote does though). Similarly - the reference to the DEA is mainly about cannabis use, not other drugs. Perhaps this should go in the legalisation section? --Dilaudid 18:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with other drugs 

message: How does Infrared detection work?  Some people use infrared detection to find the plants.  Is it because the plants give off heat or because the environment in which the plants are grown must be kept warm?  Thank you and please do not add my IP to this comment. -"anon"
:I guess it's because the lights that are used to grow the plants indoors, and they can give off a lot of heat. I also heard that the electricity usage is used to work it out. The electricity companies are supposed to have disclosed suspicious electicity bills where a constant high demand for electricity comes from a residential address --Dilaudid 08:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest putting detection of plants in the Cannabis article and not in the Cannabis (drug) article. 199.125.109.50 18:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if your concern for your IP is out of legal reasons, but anyone can look back through "history" and just read your IP off, even if you now delete your post.  With regard to the original question, plants are usually grown under UV lamps, since, they need UV lights and wouldn't get it without sunlight.  UV lights (aka black lights) heat up enomormously during operation, resulting in a very conspicuous electrical bill as well as a ton of heat which you can pick up as radiated infrared.--Loodog 18:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, issues relating to growing cannabis are more appropriately added to the Cannabis article. 199.125.109.42 03:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Both high pressure sodium and metal halide give of UV light. In addition your toaster doesnt come anywhere near the power consumption of these lights. or a relatively small grow room or a dozen or so plants youd need a 600 watt growing light. This is equielant to the energy consumed by 10 normal lights, and quite  a few toasters. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 20:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job working in hydroponics and not realizing Sodium and Halide HID lamps give off UV, buddy.--Loodog 21:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infrared Detection 

message: The paragraph "The official position of several medical organizations including the American Medical Association,[41] the National Multiple Sclerosis Society,[42] the American Glaucoma Society, the American Academy of Ophthalmology,[43] and the American Cancer Society[44] is that they do not support smoking the herbal form of marijuana for medical use.", cites references, which is good, but if you actually read the references, there is nowhere that says any of them do not support smoking the herbal form of marijuana for medical use.  I think this paragraph uses weasel words to make a point that is not supported by the links.Nly8nchz 03:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you are free to throw up a  tag, which flags a piece of information as not supported by the references provided.--Loodog 03:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Thanks for the tag.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nly8nchz (talk • contribs) 04:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government Debate 

message: WHO censored a positive cannabis research
Booze and cigarettes have been found more dangerous than cannabis products.
According to a study made by the World Health Organization cigarettes and booze have been found to cause, for example, greater addiction than cannabis.
According to the magazine in which the study was published (New Scientist) WHO had planned to release the findings of this study last December, but had instead for political reasons decided to classify the results.
From a scientific point of view there was no reason to classify the results.
..article that went something like this (sorry had to translate from Finnish) was apparently made my AFP-Reuters. I just can't find anything about it. Censorship huh? Perhaps someone with access to the latest New Scientist can confirm this? Let's make something of it ;)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.232.114 (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One more thing 

message: The Wikipedia can make an important contribution to public health, and maybe help save 5 million lives a year, by finding a way, in its entries concerning cannabis, tobacco, smoking etc., to inform the public on the need to replace all dangerous overdose smoking modalities with an anti-overdose utensil.  A valuable by-product will be that those of us who value riefer will have freedom to smoke our herb of choice, and as much OR LITTLE herb as we choose, at long last. 66.99.1.162 01:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a reference and add it to the article. Toker is not even mentioned in the Cannabis smoking article, by the way. Make sure you add it to both that and the effects article. 199.125.109.107 15:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: - seems reasonable, though if you have a summary of the article that could be placed in that section, it would be ideal. :) Nihiltres(t.l) 16:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Describe Mini-Utensil in Article 

message: I am working on getting rid of links to disambiguation pages.  In the history section, I suggest you change the Indian link to Indian.--Rog 04:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is only semiprotected to edit. --MZMcBride 04:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So that means I'm the only one who can't edit? Here is a thought - instead of saying "A common view is that" (if there is any future of marijuana as a medicine, it lies in its isolated components), which does not appear in the reference, how about: "While the Institute of Medicine suggests that if there is any future of marijuana as a medicine, it lies in its isolated components and their synthetic derivatives, it is commonly thought that cannabis will be legalized within 5 years." Note also that "cannabinoids" does not need to be mentioned as it is implicit. 199.125.109.93 20:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian link (disambiguation) 

message: My friend told me there was a debate about the legality of marijuana in Mexico, and it is now legal to possess small amounts, so i just changed the picture a little. If this is not true then I apologize and can some one change it back for me. --Hiaburi 19:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexico 

message: Marijuana has a strong cultural identity, and its worth at least noting, if not being given its own article.  After all 4/20 has its own article, and that is a large part of "Stoner" culture.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.24.109 (talk • contribs) 
There has definitely been a culture that arose out of the use of cannabis in the 60's and 70's.
I think cannabis has much less a specific culture though, and more like a fractured representation of everyone across all cultures.
From personal experience, the Cannabis Clubs in California usually have people waiting to purchase from all ethnic, economic, and educational backgrounds.  Cannabis cures racism is the philosophy of many now in California.  The community pot clubs are bringing people together from Berkeley to Hollywood.  You see everyone from hippies to attorneys going to buy their medicine.  Thanks to the broadness of Prop 215, we can now witness the range of pot smokers in America.
The use of cannabis across all cultures is known to spread peace.  The evidence is now available at pot clubs in America.  Hundreds of thousands of registered patients in California openly cultivate and purchase cannabis at local dispensaries that provide papers, bongs, vaporizers and more.  That huge population of pot smokers in California is so broad in scope, it boggles the mind.
We could perhaps have a section on how cannabis has effected different cultures and movements, but it might be too broad and long for this article.  It is an interesting concept, and should be developed further.
Anyone else have any comments?
--The Pot Snob 05:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just begging for original research, but go ahead and create a cannabis culture article if you have sources.--Loodog 17:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, make one and see what happens. But note, there may exist little literature on canibus in culture so instead another way to illustrate its popularity in culture is to reference its use in popular media e.g. films (Half baked, How High)--Savre 23:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That wouldn't be cannabis culture so much as Cannabis in popular culture, which would essentially be a bloated trivia page, which is discouraged by WP:TRIVIA.  I'm pretty sure there is no way to write this compliant to wikipedia guidelines.  Then again, maybe someone's written a well-sourced book on it.--Loodog 00:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marijuana Culture? 

message: Re WP:RS all challeneged material must be sourced. If you wish to add the list you must source every single claim, anything less is unacceptable, SqueakBox 02:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: per "this template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request."  If the edit you are requesting is controversial I won't make the change unless a consensus in support exists first.  Please make sure anything you propose includes no original research or personal opinion and is cited to reliable sources.  Thanks,  ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 22:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: As a result of a long (1.5 months long) discussion about this article at good article reassessment it was determined that the article does not currently meet the standards as set forth in the good article criteria and thus it has been removed from the GA list.  The archived discussion contains many suggestions for improvement, please read it carefully and once improvements are made, please consider renominating the article at WP:GAN for a new review.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was silly. Discussing the article behind everyones back with no notice of the discussion on this talk page. 199.125.109.133 14:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results of [[WP:GAR|good article reassessment]] 

message: First of all, if an admin reads this, please semi-protect the page!  It's getting nuts over here.  Secondly, I just realized there is a lot of vandalism that did not get rolled back.  We need either a major revert, or someone to go over the article with a fine-toothed comb.  This article is totally screwed-up right now. --Jaysweet 17:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't. A lot of vandalism is by registered users and would not be affected. A lot of good edits are made by unregistered IPusers. The edits of two editors who have now been blocked have been fixed. It got a little crazy for a few minutes when one editor would revert back to a messed up version, but it's all good now. 199.125.109.99 01:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 19th, 2007 -- Need major revert! 

message: the introduction to be rewritten so that what the average well-informed person thinks when hearing "marijuana" is shared for those who might not know.  Wikipedia is supposed to be written for the GENERAL READER.
At a minimum, the introductory paragraph should state Marijuana with respect to:
* Popular culture, noting predominance compared with Alcohol, Cigarettes
* The huge dichotomy between e.g. hippie users, and the federal crackdown on Marijuana.
* The role in media, esp. as the subject of popular films such as Cheech and Chong.
* the basic questions: who what where when how why
WHO uses it (demographic information)?  WHERE?  HOW?  WHAT do they do with it, WHAT form do they use marijuana in, WHEN (social events, etc), and importantly WHY.
Basically, anyone reading this talk page can think for a few seconds about what "marijuana" means, and NONE of this is reflected in a balanced way in the introductory paragraph.  It's just written in an incompetent way.  Also, cannabis is much better-known as marijuana and per wikipedia guidelines should be under that name.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.37.179 (talk • contribs) 
::The Cheech and Chong promotion is a good example of tobacco industry overdose propaganda masquerading as "marijuana culture".  One picture showed the two men carrying what looked like an eight foot long "joint"-- what better way to glamorize the overdose idea.Tokerdesigner (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Editor, please sign your posts with 4 tildas like so: ~~~~.  If you wish to rewrite the lead, be bold and to do, keeping in mind what guidelines are for introductory paragraphs.  Please see WP:LEAD.  The lead should be a concise summary of the article and a stand-alone paragraph.  Importantly, with respect to the content you propose, there should be no original research.  Anything written should have a source unless included later in the article.--Loodog 17:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, there are actually five different distinct uses of cannabis as a drug. While they are called kef, dagga, bhang, ganja, hashish (or charas) and marijuana, these are actually five distinctly different uses of cannabis as a drug. While all five have a common plant origin and share the same active ingredient, they vary dramatically in potency and region where used. It would be helpful to provide a better clarification of the differences. 199.125.109.99 23:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  better introduction. 

message: Why can't I edit this page, even after registering and logging in? There are many sections that can be improved or corrected. For example, the paragraph that deals with correlations between cannabis use and psychosis seems to contradict the page on health issues and the effects of cannabis, and the page cited for a 2% increased risk does not mention a 2% increase anywhere in the article. It seems to suggest that there is a consensus on the link between cannabis and psychosis, when in fact there are several conflicting studies that have come to opposite conclusions (I think the "health effects" page previously mentioned does a far better job covering this topic). BlackHoleSon (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've unprotected the page. It was semi-protected, which "disables editing from anonymous users and registered accounts less than four days old", explaining why you could not edit. Give it your best shot now. — Scientizzle 03:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlock? 

message: Going with the popular culture thing as stated in near the top of this page, I think that various methods of consuming marijuana (brownies,cookies, etc.) should be discussed. What think the rest of the potheads and just-curious who are looking up the Marijuana page? --Grammar Watchdog 05:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a phrase for that kind of research.--Loodog (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oral Consumption of Marijuana 

message: This article, along with the sub-articles on the health effects, continue to be dominated by a pro-cannabis lobby and in my opinion, are an example of the worst of Wikipedia.  Citations that show marijuana is harmful are quickly reverted back.  Any information from NIDA and other government agencies are removed.  The majority of scientific evidence clearly shows marijuana is harmful, especially when ingested in a combustible form.  The notion that the inhaling of any combustible plant product, which would include the inhaling of carbon monoxide, is somehow trivially harmful is the epitome of junk science.  One day, somebody will clean up this article.  I however, am tired of fighting this.  There are plenty of articles of on-line that show the truth, such as http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/marijuana/index.html that people can find.  As long as this page continues to show its blatant pro-cannabis POV, it stands as evidence why Wikipedia will never be taken seriously as a source of accurate information.  --Darth Borehd (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Cannabis has negative side effects.  It's fun, but most people who do it can't deal with it not being *good*.  But you're going to get primarily pot users watching this page so...--Loodog (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add some of those refs you say keep getting reverted.  I'll keep an eye on POV-pushers.  I'd love to see a more balanced approach.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As well as the lung cancer risk, it also, at least in strains in the UK such as skunk (drug) increases the likelihood of serious mental health problems.Merkinsmum 20:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: whitehousedrugpolicy.gov is a website for the US federal government, an organization that is explicitly anti-cannabis, so of course the information you find there will point to cannabis use being harmful. That doesn't mean that all of the information on that website is necessarily false, but it does mean that it should come from a different source. I see no reason to use a non-peer reviewed, non-scientific source to retrieve scientific information about a topic for which peer-reviewed scientific sources, which are explicitly preferred by Wikipedia's verifiability policies, are readily available. If those anti-cannabis claims are "the truth" and there are "plenty of articles online" that express them, then you should have no trouble at all finding well respected, peer-reviewed scientific studies to support them. Ketsuekigata (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In one study, researchers compared marijuana smoking and nonsmoking 12th-graders' scores on standardized tests of verbal and mathematical skills. Although all of the students had scored equally well in 4th grade, those who were heavy marijuana smokers, i.e., those who used marijuana seven or more times per week, scored significantly lower in 12th grade than nonsmokers.
There is no magic behind this study.  Did you know any peers that got drunk 7 times a week when you were in high school?  They were called something... it's coming back to me... yes.  Delinquents.  I don't think test score comparisons between an average school child and one that has such a disturbed home life and disinterest in education that they become intoxicated 7 times a week is relevant at all to marijuana's effects on memory and learning. You would be hard pressed to convince me these children have the same study habits, opportunities, and support structure as the average schoolchild.  The study they are referencing was most likely not controlled for socioeconomic or other variables but who knows as there is no proper link to the study on the page.
In closing, putting all these ridiculous statistics under the heading "Health effects" is deliberately meant to misinform, i challenge anyone to dispute me on this.
Lastly, i would like to disagree with you that there is such clear cut evidence that marijuana is so dangerous.  I am tired of beating the dead horse that it is nigh impossible to overdose on thc but it deserves mention.   In psychopharmacolgy in undergrad I learned a great deal about marijuana and a theme in the lectures kept coming up that certain studies that were not reproducible were cited again and again as definitive papers on the subject of marijuana's toxic effects.  For anyone interested, the text "Psychopharmacology: Drugs, the Brain and Behavior" by Meyer and Quenzer has a lot of good info on marijuana.
24.88.103.234 (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally pawwned..! thanks for the analysis :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diza (talk • contribs) 13:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That was great, I'm glad someone put the anti-cannabis propaganda pushers in their places.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrod2008 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible NPOV 

message: This drug, like any other must have more effects besides the possible increase in chance of psychosis. E.g., vomiting, confusion, increased appititte, halucinations, and etc.
134.129.156.36 (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We actually have an entire article on its effects, Health issues and effects of cannabis. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects 

message: anyone heard of cannabis helping lupus and why would it be a good choise? or why not?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.229.87 (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Crohn's Disease is believed to be an autoimmune disease too, and apparently marijuana helps (Google Michelle Rainey). So there might be a slim chance it will do some good for lupus patients as well. I suggest you find an open-minded immunologist and ask. --GSchjetne (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lupus and cannabis 

message: Under the New breeding and cultivation techniques section, I found some problems:
"Smoking of cannabis with higher THC concentrations leads to an increase of the occurrence of effects, particularly among younger or inexperienced cannabis smokers, who do not adapt their smoking to the higher THC.[42]"
So to paraphrase, taking higher concentrations of a substance leads to increased effects, especially to those with no experience. The entirety of this statement falls under the realm of logic and basic causal relationships. The very next sentence:
"Smoking of cannabis with higher THC concentrations was associated with a dose-related increase of physical effects"
Again, this offers nothing that isn't already in the article.
"What was well observed in the Dutch study was that the effects based from a single dose—the smoking of one piece of a joint for 20–25 minutes—lasted for more than eight hours... This means that even when individuals have the impression that their state has returned to baseline and that they can smoke another piece of joint, the effect of the first joint may be still present."
The smoking of an entire joint rarely lasts more than 10 minutes. Smoking a "piece of joint" for 20-25 minutes is not only an exercise in poor English, it is highly unlikely; a whole joint would burn itself half-out in approximately the same amount of time.
::Smoking a hot-burning joint destroys a major part of the THC and the reward is an overdose of carbon monoxide.
The very next sentence is a semi-quotation with a bad conjugation: "Another study showed that 15 mg THC result in no learning whatsoever occurring over a three-trial selective reminding task at two hours. In several tasks, delta(9)-THC increased both speed and error rates, reflecting “riskier” speed–accuracy trade-offs.[43]"
This would be better off simply quoting the article it references:
"The higher dose [15mg] of delta(9)-THC resulted in no learning whatsoever occurring over a three-trial selective reminding task at 2 h [two hours]. Working memory was generally unaffected by delta(9)-THC."
As mentioned before in this discussion, I'd take any reference from the .gov domain with a grain of salt, as they have a tremendous potential bias. The article itself is unnervingly brief and its claim that "no learning whatsoever" takes place seems like a truism that most reputable scientist at least would try to re-word  or avoid all together.
Lastly, I'd like to point out that these statements mostly do not belong in the Breeding and cultivation section, and would fit better under "Health issues".
Now, problems I have with the "Health issues" section:
"Whilst some studies and tests have proven inconclusive,[citation needed][45]..."
I'd prefer Whilst to be While, but that is not very important. However, [citation needed] preceding the actual citation is slightly more disconcerting.
"It contained 20 times more ammonia, (a carcinogen) and five times more of hydrogen cyanide (which can cause heart disease) and of nitrogen oxides, (which can cause lung damage) than tobacco smoke.[46]|title=Cannabis smoke 'has more toxins'}}</ref>"
The reference [46] no longer exists. This section along with its broken reference tag should be removed. Also, when comparing tobacco smoke to cannabis smoke, it should be noted that it is NOT comparing cannabis to cigarettes and their glorious additives.
In the Methods of consumption section, under the Smoking subsection:
"The most common methods of smoking cannabis involve the use of implements such as bongs and smoking pipes, or rolling joints or blunts[2]." If this is really a reference, it needs to be fixed. That simple of a statement wouldn't normally require one though.
If you have an accepted account and agree with me, please make the changes (if appropriate).
--Vocationalzero (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nitpicking 

message: Under "Relationships with Other Drugs" under "Effects" it is stated "Not shown is the mean social harm score, which rated ninth, in a tie with Amphetamine.". I followed the external link to the study presented right before this claim and found no mention of the "social harm" metric nor of where Marijuana, Amphetamine, or any other drug ranks on it. I would like to see this statement cited or removed if a citation cannot be found. Thank you.  Moman2 (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  more nitpicking 

message: "Alfred respiratory specialists are investigating [with respiratory specialists in Brussels] new ways to identify airway damage from marijuana smoking which is difficult to detect using standard lung function tests. The move comes after a study uncovered a disturbing trend of early onset emphysema in mariujana smokers compared with tobacco smokers. In a study released recently in the Respiratory journal, researches from The Alfred and Monash University found that regular mariujana smokers were presenting with emphysema 25 years earlier on average than tobacco smokers. Led by The Alfred's Head of General Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Associate Professor Matthew Naughton, the study found that patients aged between 28 and 50 presented with symptoms ranging from breathlessness to chest infection and all were marijuana smokers. "There are very few groups around the world looking at the impact of marijuana on areas such as lungs which is surprising given its prevalence in today's society", he said.
From Alfred Matters, Summer Edition, December 2007/January 2008, Issue 82 - Regular news bulletin for the staff of The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.106.81 (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would help if you linked an article for verification. Does this study take into account that many cannabis smokers might also smoke cigarettes in addition? The reverse is obviously not true for the other group studied, which could have greatly impacted results. Also, correlation still does not prove causation. Vocationalzero (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess this is a linkDala11a (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Can we have a link for that to, please, Bigoldhippy. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marijuana users risk airway damage 

message: I've noticed some of the external links are sketchy at best, not verifiable or reliable. For starters one is called veryimportantpotheads.com and doesn't appear to have anything educational on it.
Also I found this odd page which talks about frequent marijuana overdose. I'm no doctor but THC overdose is close to impossible but this site explains how frequent it is and the symptoms etc. I think someone should review this and a discussion be made on whether this is at all viable information. I for one am very sure that Marijuana overdose is unheard of because it would require such a large amount straight into the bloodstream with an IV system. I'll post the link in a jiffy. TostitosAreGross (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course one might OD being sick while asleep, and there is no question new users do sonmetimes get sick (I haven't forgotten my own experience) but without some reliable source that a coroner determined somebody had died from ingesting cannabis we are best off not even mentioning the issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overdose and other sketchy links 

message: Who thinks we should protect this page from new or unregistered editors, to stop vandalism?
Someone dedicated to making your day a little bit better! (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure it warrants it right now, no anon has edited since November 5, I have seen it far worse. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Any dead refs should be removed and the related text that was supported by it should either be removed or given a  tag.--Loodog (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone? 

message: Why is there nothing in this article about the different "types" of marijuana?  For example: Mids, Beasters, Dank, Sylvia, Green Flame, etc.
Those I mentioned are simply the ones I know of, and even then there may be other names for them that are less "Slangy".
I'm pretty sure Sylvia (Or however it is spelled) is another plant entirely, but I havn't been able to find much out about it.
-72.241.1.123 (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types? 

message: This is described as a species of sage with psychotropic powers, apparently different from Salvia officinalis, the garden-variety sage used in turkey stuffing.  Because one (1) 18-year-old boy committed suicide allegedly after using Salvia divinorum there are bills pending in certain states to outlaw it, but legal hot-burning overdose nicotine cigarets go on selling despite a genocide rating of 440,000 per year (US) and 5.4 million per year worldwide (WHO estimate, Feb. 2008).Tokerdesigner (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Salvia divinorum]] 

message: I had to reread this multiple times to actually figure out what it meant:
"The production of cannabis for drug use remains illegal throughout most of the world through for ex. International Opium Convention of 1925, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, . . ."
Should read something like:
"The production of cannabis for drug use remains illegal throughout most of the world, through, for example, the International Opium Convention of 1925, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, . . ."
If someone with the requisite privileges could fix this, it would be much appreciated!
24.19.26.221 (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting development, but not really suitable to this article.  It's a tad specific.  This article functions as an overview of everything related to cannabis in all parts of the world.  This might be more relevant in Legality of cannabis.--Loodog (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: My reply is the same as the above.  It's a tad specific, particularly location-wise for a summary article about all issues relating to cannabis.  This also would be better fit to Legality of cannabis.--Loodog (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More editing issues 

message: Something should be added about this recent ground breaking news, don't you think?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7212778.stm
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/01/hot-button-medi.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.165.220 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting development, but not really suitable to this article.  It's a tad specific.  This article functions as an overview of everything related to cannabis in all parts of the world.  This might be more relevant in Legality of cannabis.--Loodog (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marijuana Vending Machines 

message: Someone should add this news:
"Berkeley a sanctuary for medicinal marijuana"
http://www.mapinc.org/norml/v08/n107/a06.htm?134
According to <a href="http://www.mapinc.org/norml/v08/n107/a06.htm?134">mapinc.org</a>, "Berkeley City Council members unanimously approved a resolution last night to declare Berkeley a sanctuary for medicinal marijuana in the event of federal interference with dispensaries."
:My reply is the same as the above.  It's a tad specific, particularly location-wise for a summary article about all issues relating to cannabis.  This also would be better fit to Legality of cannabis.--Loodog (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berkeley Marijuana Sanctuary 

message: Does anyone have any figures on how many bags of pot for personal use are bought in different countries in the world each year? MobyDikc (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sales and Market info? 

message: Not a registered user, so I can't make this edit.  The reference near the bottom of the page to "greenades" links to a PR-Wire news release.  It's pretty clearly bogus.  First of all, it references the marijuana in question possibly being fatal to young people that might obtain it.  Marijuana is not fatal to anyone in those doses.  Second, it contains a lot of clear fearmongering, and appears to be a news release written by a commercial drug treatment company.  These types of warnings about new ways that drugs are being distributed are usually urban legends.  Unless someone can find a better source for the idea that "greenades" really exist, it should  be removed from the page.
74.131.128.254 (talk) Anon, Feb, 2008  —Preceding comment was added at 22:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone please remove the "greenades" reference 

message: Hey, could a registered user add a couple of nicknames for Marijuana in the section for it?  The two I'm referring to, and was shocked to not see already, was "bud" and "smoke". Where I'm from, in the heartland of the United States, these two terms are used almost exclusively. (i.e. "Where's the bud at!?" or "Know where to get any smoke?".
I know that the entry alludes to the fact that there are many others, but I seriously think at the very least the term "bud" should be second only to "weed" and "pot", as I hear it more than any other slang term for Marijuana.  Many of the other terms listed on the page I very rarely hear, and some I've never heard in my life, so I suppose they are regional.  It's my belief that "smoke" and "bud" are much more common than some others mentioned. 98.20.213.0 (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't, we could take up the whole article space with people's slang terms. Why bud? sounds very American to me and colloquial terms are not helpful, and I think your beliefs re this are unreliable. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to the Slang terms for Marijuana 

message: I was curious about the comment that "historians and etymologists" have claimed that cannabis was used as a religious sacrament by ancient Jews and early Christians (in "History").
I followed the footnote to find that it led to an article about an article written by some guy and published in "High Times."
There was no indication who the guy was or what credentials he hs.  Googling him, he's apparently a mirijuana advocate, whose interest in history and etymology is limited to that context.
While the statement apparently has some validity, it could use a better source and footnote.
205.143.204.110 (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is fully sourced in Spiritual use of cannabis. —Viriditas | Talk 13:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Historians and etymologists" 

message: In February 2008, researchers at the University of Toronto published a study that reported that people who had used marijuana to alleviate the symptoms of MS had more cognitive problems and a higher incidence of depression and anxiety. 
:This article explains why this study is basically meaningless.  This study consisted of an interview of ten cannabis smokers who had MS, a group of test subjects who were already cognitively impaired, with a disease that causes "mild visual acuity disturbances", which "could adversely affect performance on this test, according to the researchers".  "As such, it is possible that some of the cognitive problems experienced by cannabis users in our study were attributable to impaired visual acuity."  More importantly, "An alternate explanation may be that some patients with psychological problems...begin [to] smoke cannabis as a means of self-medication".Dr. Virginia Devonshire, director of the University of British Columbia MS clinic, called the study interesting, but agreed there were too few participants to draw a strong conclusion on the possible negative effects of marijuana....The study was funded by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which also provided a fellowship to Dr. Ghaffar.  Dr. Ghaffar has received honoraria from Cerebrio. Dr. Feinstein has received lecture honoraria from Berlex Canada, Serono Canada, Serono USA, Teva Neuroscience, and Avanir Pharmaceuticals."  According to New Scientist, "the researchers found that pot-smokers were more likely to have psychiatric issues overall such as anxiety or depression but no more likely to have a diagnosis for a specific mental illness than those with MS who did not smoke marijuana. Nor did they fare worse on the cognitive test. They were, however, significantly slower on the symbol-digit matching test.  The study is preliminary, stresses Feinstein..."  Until there is a second study that consists of more than just an interview of ten people with MS, that essentially demonstrates nothing, I can see no reason to include it in this article.  It's also very clear from the research in this area and from the physicians who prescribe cannabis, that the benefits outweigh the risks.  Missing from this study is a discussion of the legal, prescription drugs used to treat MS, whose known adverse effects cause anxiety, and the fact that people with MS often have depression. —Viriditas | Talk 14:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Bulbous has added it back in without responding to the talk page discussion.  A preliminary interview of ten people whose results have not been replicated, have not been cited in any other paper, and whose results were mostly inconclusive, is not important enough for this page.  There are many studies of many drugs; this "interview" does not even pass the threshold for inclusion.  I recommend that Bulbous read up on why some studies are included while others are not, starting with guidelines for using scientific studies that can be found in most biomedical textbooks.  This particular "study" does not even meet the most basic requirements.  —Viriditas | Talk 06:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit has been properly sourced. If you want to provide additional wording to include a rebuttal, go right ahead. But there is no justification for removing it. Bulbous (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I explained on your talk page, just because material is "properly sourced" does not in anyway justify its inclusion in any article. You seem to have a basic, fundamental misunderstanding about guidelines for inclusion.  This is especially stringent when it comes to science and medicine, as the popular press often gets these things wrong. In any case, there is absolutely no evidence that this "study" (an interview) of ten people is in any way notable or relevant.  In fact, the authors of the study admit that the data has not been replicated (the hallmark of notability) and a second study is needed to confirm.  If you read the links I added above, you'll notice that the conclusion is associative and the popular media didn't even represent the results accurately.  I suggest you actually read the study and tell us why it is important to include it in this article.  Please do not add it back into the article again until you can prove why it should be in this article. —Viriditas | Talk 15:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to battle with guidelines that exist solely in your head. If you want to "educate" me on why material should or should not be excluded, then please point me to a policy that supports the exclusion of this material. It passes WP:NOTE. If you personally disagree with the study, interpretation, or results, feel free to do so by including material of your own. You seem to misinterpret the edit. It doesn't say that Cannabis causes cognitive problems in people with MS. It merely reports what the CBC News published. It's a statement of fact, not a study itself. Bulbous (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Claiming cannabis causes cognitive problems is clearly controversial, and I seem to have been here before with Bulbous re similar issues. I suggest we do not include this material as failing notability. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not claiming that cannabis causes cognitive difficulties, no matter how empirically obvious that may be to all. Bulbous (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If it was empirically obvious to even far less than everybody it would be very easy to source, and the fact that it isn't so easy is itself evidence that it may not be provable using current scientific knowledge. Mental illness is being correlated by modern science with cannabis but cognitive lack simply isn't. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I would be more convinced that alcohol interests but not tobacco interests had anything to do with this but would want to see some reliable sources. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannabis and MS 

message: Squeak Box, correct me if I'm wrong, I think you're trying to restore the version of the lead sentence that begins:
:"Cannabis, also known as marijuana,[1] ganja (from Hindi: गांजा gānjā),[2] or as hashish,[3]..."
This version makes no sense--hashish is not synonymous with cannabis, like marijuana and ganja are.  Hashish is a type of cannabis.  This is an unambiguous semantic truism that is not subject to debate.   For the love of God, please do not restore this version, especially without consensus to do so.  I am frequently baffled by your edits.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead sentence and Hashish 

message: This article reads like it was written by someone who has never smoked a joint in his life.  It is most definitely biased.  If this is to be a neutral encyclopedia, let's add in a section on how marijuana relieves stress and extends a person's life span, or that its seeds are extremely nutritious to birds and other animals and by forcing this plant's extinction we are disrupting the food chain.--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can assure you this article was written by people who have used this drug.  Trust me.  As for your mention of content to be included, it's called original research unless you can provide sources that confirm what you're saying.  At any rate, I fail to see how this article violates neutrality.--Loodog (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Having smoked a joint is most certainly not a requisite for editing this article. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we all just have to accept the fact this article is going to suck some serious fucking cock until cannabis is legalized. Until then, people aren't going to have the sources they need to back up their original research. And since most of the available research (At least the research done in the USA) is anti-marijuana, most sources we have will be anti-marijuana, and consequently this article will be anti-marijuana, or at least ambivalent to the positive effects of marijuana. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank god for other countries. (1 == 2)Until 01:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased Article 

message: I would like to change "Although recently in Canada the use of marijuana has been decriminalized and laws in certain provinces (such as British Columbia) have been un-enforced."  to "Although recently in Canada, certain provinces (such as British Columbia) have not enforced all of the applicable Criminal Code statutes regarding the use of Cannabis."
The use of Cannabis, other than for medicinal purposes (for which a special exemption must be granted), is still very much illegal in the eyes of Canadian law.  JoeCanadian140 (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Cannabis not decriminalized in Canada 

message: With all due respect, you've got to be kidding me here. This article isn't even close to meeting the GA criteria. The prose is poor, and it looks like it was written at about a fifth grade writing level in some areas. The lead section does not adequately summarize the article (I'd strongly recommend looking at WP:LEAD for suggestions here). There are numerous uncited statements throughout the article (see the  and  tags I've added. The article is also incomplete -- notably absent is a section on the 'mechanism of action' of the drug; might want to say something about Δ9-THC here and how it interacts with cannabinoid receptors in the brain.
The 'criminalization and legalization' section is very short, uncited, and probably out of place. I would focus first on the history, followed by sections on the mechanism of action & pharmacological effects, and then talk about the legal issues. The title of the section should also be changed from 'criminalization and legalization' to something simpler like 'legal issues'. Please see WP:MEDMOS for a recommended structure of an article about a drug. There's quite a few missing sections that should be included.
The 'effects' section isn't organized very well. The obvious flaw here is the duplication of the 'main article' link in the section summary and 'health effects' sections. Starting the 'health effects' section right away with the addictiveness fact (or rather, lack of addictiveness) seems to focus more on the positive effects than the negative effects, and this is a minor WP:NPOV issue. The article should focus on the pharmacological effects of the drug from a scientific perspective; both positive and negative effects need to be included, and an adequate summarizing statement on the paragraph/section needs to be put in place to focus on all of the effects together. As written, this looks clearly like it was written by someone with a pro-marijuana perspective.
The 'classification' subsection is very short. Short sections like this are discouraged. It should be combined with another section, and/or more information needs to be added to make this complete. More can be said about classifying this drug than simply classifying it as a Stimulant, Depressant, Hallucinogen, or Antipsychotic.
Lots of issues with the 'methods of consumption' section. Mostly unsourced. Parts of it look like they were written as a "how to" guide, which wikipedia is not.
The 'cannabis culture' section is very short, completely unsourced, and does not follow the manual of style. There's three 'see also' links at the bottom of the section, which coincidentally is right above the main 'see also' section, so the section seems largely redundant. Since there's really no content here, why not just scrap it entirely, and just link to Cannabis culture under the main 'see also' section. There also seems to be a couple of POV forks with many of the 'see also' links; there doesn't seem to be a need for a Cannabis culture and a 420 (cannabis culture) section, for example. Hemp and Hemp oil? Other links could be pruned as well, linking to them from some of the daughter articles involved. For example, it doesn't seem to be necessary to link to the people Fitz Hugh Ludlow and Marc Emery -- these could be linked through the context of cannabis culture, but as 'see also' links, they're really kind of pointless.
Reference citation formatting is overall good, but there's a few inconsistencies. The links to citations within the text should be placed immediately after punctuation marks, not before them (like thisa.), and not after a space (like this. b). It should look like this.c There are also two template errors within the references section that need fixing,  ad a few URLs that need full citation information added to them (author, title, publisher, date of publication, date URL was retrieved).
There's a stray external link at the bottom of the 'references' section.
Change the 'bibliography' section header to 'further reading'. It's not immediately clear if those citations are being cited by the article; if they are citing material in the article, cite it inline preferably.
'External links' could be pruned a bit. Links to 'notable cannabis users' seems to not be very important, and the site 'veryimportantpotheads.com' seems kind of silly and pointless. We probably only need one link to slang terms, not two. You might consider adding the  template here.
Sorry folks, but this article is still quite a long way away from meeting the GA criteria. I'd probably rate it at the early B-class stage, probably a B-; it's better than Start-class, but just barely. Hope these suggestions help improve the article. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I never imagined it was GA status. I think part oft eh problem is yuou get a lot of high scholl kids who are passionate on the subject of cannabis but not encyclopedia writing. I changed the legalization header to Legal status, how does that sound? I'll read your critique more thoroughly and try and institute other changes. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: Just curious what others thought about changing the name from "Cannabis (drug)" to "Cannabis (plant)". Aloe Vera is not considered a drug despite it's many uses.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegivingtree (talk • contribs) 03:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What, you mean like Cannabis sativa?--Loodog (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article Cannabis is about cannabis as a plant. This is a sub article dealing with the drug aspects of it. There are several cannabis articles. (1 == 2)Until 04:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about your description of this as a sub-article, Until, but yes, the cannabis article is about the plant and I wouldn't really support a change of any sort. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Title Change 

message: Aspirin is a drug but it's title does not include
"(drug)" next to it. POV error.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.190.99 (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand.  There is an article Cannabis which is about the plant.  This article is about using the plant as a drug.  The topics are both broad enough to warrant their own article. --Jaysweet (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But if you think the title of this is POV and should be something else please make a proposal. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, when you think about it, this is a very poor title. Can we find some backup to support that the primary name of the psychoactive drug which is derived from Cannabis Sativa (not Cannabis as Jaysweet erroneously alluded) is called "Cannabis"? I would suggest that the drug produced from the Cannabis Sativa plant is more frequently refered to "Marijuana" rather than "Cannabis". "Cannabis" more commonly refers to the plant itself, not the recreational drug produced from the plant. Bulbous (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TITLE: (drug)? 

message: "Aggression and violent outbursts can occur with benzodiazepines when they are combined with cannabis."
This is not sourced, can someone please remove this opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.29.189 (talk)  05:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced Claim 

message: 'Most users of heroin, LSD and cocaine have used marijuana. However, most marijuana users never use another illegal drug.
Over time, there has been no consistent relationship between the use patterns of various drugs. [1]
"As marijuana use increased in the 1960s and 1970s, heroin use declined. And, when marijuana use declined in the 1980s, heroin use remained fairly stable.
For the past 20 years, as marijuana use-rates fluctuated, the use of LSD hardly changed at all.
Cocaine use increased in the early 1980s as marijuana use was declining. During the late 1980s, both marijuana and cocaine declined. During the last few years, cocaine use has continued to decline as marijuana use has increased slightly."
In 1994, less than 16% of high school seniors who had ever tried marijuana had ever tried cocaine - the lowest percentage ever recorded. In fact, as shown below, the proportion of marijuana users trying cocaine has declined steadily since 1986, when a high of more than 33% was recorded.
-----
Proportion of Marijuana Users Ever Trying Cocaine
High School Seniors, 1975-1994 [2]
1975: 19%	1980: 27%	1985: 31%	1990: 22%
1976: 19%	1981: 28%	1986: 33%	1991: 22%
1977: 20%	1982: 27%	1987: 30%	1992: 18%
1978: 22%	1983: 28%	1988: 26%	1993: 17%
1979: 25%	1984: 29%	1989: 23%	1994: 16%
-----
In short, there is no inevitable relationship between the use of marijuana and other drugs. This fact is supported by data from other countries. In the Netherlands, for example, although marijuana prevalence among young people increased during the past decade, cocaine use decreased - and remains considerably lower than in the United States. Whereas approximately 16% of youthful marijuana users in the U.S. have tried cocaine, the comparable figure for Dutch youth is 1.8 percent. [3] Indeed, the Dutch policy of allowing marijuana to be purchased openly in government-regulated "coffee shops" was designed specifically to separate young marijuana users from illegal markets where heroin and cocaine are sold. [4]
Sources:
[1] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Main Findings 1990; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Preliminary Estimates from the 1993 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse.
[2] Johnston, L.D. et al, Monitoring the Future, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research (1994).
[3] Cohen, P.D.A., Cannabisgebruikers in Amsterdam, Jaarbeurs Congrescentrum Utrecht (1995).
[4] Leuw, E. and Marshall, I.H. (eds)., Between Prohibition and Legalization: The Dutch Experiment in Drug Policy, Amsterdam: Kugler Publications (1994). '
-This information was copy/pasted from:
"Exposing Marijuana Myths:
A Review of the Scientific Evidence
From The Lindesmith Center
A Project of the Open Society Institute
Ethan Nadelmann, Director
Lynn Zimmer, Associate Professor of Sociology, Queens College
John P. Morgan, Professor of Pharmacology, City University of New York Medical School
October 1995
© Open Society Institute/The Lindesmith Center"
I would appreciate if someone would incorporate this information into this section. The section already highlights the reasoning that supports the "gateway drug" hypothesis, in the spirit of neutrality and seeing things from all perspectives I believe it should also include the reasoning that disproves the "gateway drug" theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.29.189 (talk)  05:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gateway Drug" Hypothesis can be proved to be false, section should reflect this 

message: Please remove the cut and paste of this edit which is a copy of the abstract at  199.125.109.103 (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. The text is a very short summary of a longer summary of a scientific report. How do write about the scientific results without using many of the words i the other summary and make it both shorter and understandable? --Dala11a (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not wrong.  You originally cut and pasted a section of the abstract.  That has since been amended.  It's called paraphrasing, and it's how scientific literature (and literature as a whole) is generally presented.  Halogenated (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just take the whole thing out. The only thing you have changed is their conclusion:
Your text:
Another example: A 25-year longitudinal study has been made on the health, development and adjustment of a birth cohort of 1265 New Zealand children. Regular or heavy cannabis use was associated with an increased risk of using other illicit drugs, abusing or becoming dependent upon other illicit drugs, and using a wider variety of other illicit drugs. The risks of use, abuse/dependence, and use of a diversity of other drugs declined with increasing age. The researcher's made the conclusion that the findings may support a general causal model such as the cannabis gateway hypothesis. The extent to which these causal mechanisms are direct or indirect, remain unclear.
Their text:
Design  A 25-year longitudinal study of the health, development and adjustment of a birth cohort of 1265 New Zealand children.
Measurements  Annual assessments of the frequency of cannabis use were obtained for the period 14–25 years, together with measures of the use of other illicit drugs from the same time period.
Findings  The frequency of cannabis use was associated significantly with the use of other illicit drugs, other illicit drug abuse/dependence and the use of a diversity of other drugs. This association was found to be particularly strong during adolescence but declined rapidly as age increased. Statistical control for confounding by both fixed and time dynamic factors using random- and fixed-effects regression models reduced the strength of association between frequency of cannabis use and other illicit drug use, but a strong association between frequency of cannabis use and other illicit drug use remained even after control for non-observed and time-dynamic sources of confounding.
Conclusions  Regular or heavy cannabis use was associated with an increased risk of using other illicit drugs, abusing or becoming dependent upon other illicit drugs, and using a wider variety of other illicit drugs. The risks of use, abuse/dependence, and use of a diversity of other drugs declined with increasing age. The findings may support a general causal model such as the cannabis gateway hypothesis, but the actual causal mechanisms underlying such a gateway, and the extent to which these causal mechanisms are direct or indirect, remain unclear.
It doesn't even say that cannabis is a gateway drug, so there is no need for even including it. Besides, it is an abstract to a paper that costs $39 to read. Just delete the whole thing. It adds nothing to the article. 199.125.109.103 (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: copyright violations are completely unacceptable. Happy‑melon 21:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To expand: it is unacceptable to directly incorporate copyright material in any form, even if it subsequently modified, as that would clearly constitute a derivative work.  If you wish to use information from this paper, it must be presented in your own words, not using or even based on a structure taken from a copyrighted source. Happy‑melon 21:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RM cut and paste 

message: Add to article that it is the drug lords who are the biggest supporters of the war on drugs: 199.125.109.103 (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  War on drugs 

message: The idea that "a permissive ideology in relation to the use of one substance increase the risk for use of other drugs" is pretty odd. Like just because chocolate and sugar are legal substances that means that people are more likely to use cocaine and heroin? Nonsense. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be interpreted as "a permissive stance on the use of a specific illegal drug in the society, diminishes the respect for harsher stances on other illegal drugs; and therefor increases the risk for other drug use" if thats makes it any clearer. During the eighties in Sweden this argument was used in an attempt to suppress any "drug liberalism" (eg. not being hardcore zero tolerance). Drug liberalism itself was considered to be more damaging to the society than individual epidemic drug abusers (contagious drug users) by Nils Bejerot and the anti-drug movement. - Best regards Ssteinberger (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, I forgot, the argument is primarily used today against a more permissive stance on cannabis on the grounds that it would be hard to explain a break with the official propagandist stance in Sweden, that all drugs are equally dangerous, without diminishing the respect for other drugs. I seen some leading person within ether "The National Swedish Parents, Anti-Narcotics Association (FMN)" or "The Swedish National Association for a Drug-free Society (RNS)" to say that quite outright on TV. This while the first use of the argument has been overplayed with the entrance of internet and the explosion in the number of media gatekeepers. Ssteinberger (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 1)Sorry I typed a text but  I forgot to update. 2) I agree that with you that it was right to delete the sentence "a permissive..."   3) You can easy find different theories about indirect connections between cannabis and use of other drugs because people have different reasons/ couses for the step from cannabis to other drugs.  The theory of an indirect connection is for example mentioned in one of the sources for this section. It is therefore relevant to mention it in the article.Dala11a (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as my logic go "The argument is that people, upon trying cannabis for the first time and not finding it dangerous, are then tempted to try other, harder drugs." is already a indirect argument, implying that the gateway theory is more dependent on policies and propaganda surrounding cannabis then cannabis itself. Ssteinberger (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

text: There are also other types of possible indirect connections for ex. taking more risks (a well documented acute effect)/a lower level of general judgment during several hours after use of cannabis. --Dala11a (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If increased risk-taking and impaired judgement is so well documented effects of cannabis, why is it not already mentioned in the article? Ssteinberger (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of gateway 

message: While I've been researching an essay I've come across some dispute around this claim - The average levels of THC in marijuana sold in United States rose from 3.5% in 1988 to 7% in 2003 and 8.5% in 2006.[39]
First of all the citation is a weak secondary source and no longer current.
Secondly according rto this site - http://www.drugwardistortions.org/distortion11.htm, the reporting of the statistics is incorrect.
I briefly tried to find the original source of the statistics
- Quarterly Report #76, Nov. 9, 2001-Feb. 8, 2002, Table 3, p. 8, University of Mississippi Potency Monitoring Project (Oxford, MS: National Center for the Development of Natural Products, Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2002)
But didn't find it.
I don't currently have time, but this claim needs to be verified by referring to the original source and if confirmed incorrect either removed or changed.
Wipasnapa (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some info: the original story, a partial retraction, a more thorough analisis of the raw data, information about the Potency Montoring Project.  NJGW (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is the source DEA  .  The same development with increasing THC-level has also happened in Western Europe.  Dala11a (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Weed in BC often passes 20% THC, it does not fall apart the THC is like glue. (1 == 2)Until 16:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increasing levels of THC 

message: Health Effects and more
That section seems to be biased, most of the section is on the toxins found in the smoke and there seems to be little mention on effects over than psychosis. I think that the name of the section health effects suggests physical risks like cancer, when the main risks are mental, not just psychosis. Also the section is called 'effects' but does not mention any, whether positive, neutral or negative effects. It can cause panic attacks, high anxiety, hallucinations etc. The section should illustrate the dangers to mental health further than dangers to physical health.
I have noticed lots of people emphasizing the fact you cant die from an od of weed but if anyone was to take in a huge amount like 50 spliffs they would probably have a bad time and trip out.
The discussion page talks a lot about the POV (both sides) i think if people do question it the article should have a banner indicating this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.172.66 (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  health effects and more