Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 3

message: Under the section 'United States' I changed the link for the OCBC ruling since the link wasn't pointing to any page due to a spelling error in the previous link. --Wikipedia420 19:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative

message: The caption on the photo of "4 ounces" is wrong. Each of those bags is at least 4 times that, it's more likely 1 pound.
--What? Those bags are a little over half full, and it is pressed marijuana, not fluff. Its pretty obvious to anyone who has ever had a quarter pound of pressed thats what that is...A pound of pressed weed looks more like a small box of cereal...--Donnie from the mean streets of Boston, KY 14:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo Caption

message: Does anybody know how much a joint costs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Right Honourable (talk • contribs) 06:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen individual joints for as little as a dollar, but I've also seen a quarter-bag ($25) rolled into one huge joint or blunt. The variances listed above are actually only the middle of the bell curve.  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 04:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cost

message: The genus consists of one species. It is all C.sativa L. . There are no other species. Can the text reflect this. The one reference that states that there are more than one species is NOT scientific.  Melbob 04:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite some sources for that? I've never heard it disputed that indica exists. Anyway, this should probably be on Talk:Cannabis, as that is the genus page. --Rory096 22:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indicas and Sativas are regularly crossed, bred, and re-crossed without losing fertility. Thus, the subspecies or landraces meet the requirement for being a single species. 71.106.126.123 08:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: cannabis species

message: It looks like the article is made by the proponents of Marijuana use and legalization.
Where is point of view of another side? [User:El] 9 September 2006
I agree. This page is in favor of cannabis legalization and most paragraphs end with a pro-cannabis conclusion. This could be harmful as it informs people that cannabis is a harmless drug, which has been shown recently in studies is false. I will begin to look for these reports --Mreaster 08:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is wikipedia, people who are writing about marijuana are those with interest in it.  I would be shocked if this article were impartial.--Loodog 04:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: biased overview?

message: Can someone add the benefits this plant gives to fossil fuel technology?
such as; its high fibrousity, slow burn rate, use in plastics, and how this plant is a much better alternative than corn due to how it grows wild without fertilization i.e. it's a low maintenance plant--Howmee 23:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fibers, fuel, and agricultural topics should all be covered under hemp. This article, Cannabis refers primarily to the cured flowers of the Cannabis_sativa plant, while the name hemp is usually used in reference to the plant when used for non-drug purposes. Mikeeg555 02:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuel 

message: I merged the lists "List of effects" and "List of therapeutic effects" as there was lots of overlap between the two and not much of a point in maintaining separate lists. Instead I divided it into the three sections you see now: physiological, cognitive, and behavioral. A lot of the effects remain unsourced; I encourage anyone who is interested to source them. — GT 08:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of effects 

message: An oft (if weirdly) quoted effect of marijuana by the anti-drug advocates is its effect on fertility. That's not mentioned in the article as far as I can see. I think it should be, whether the effect is real or imagined since it gets touted so often. --ScienceApologist 14:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a very recent study in the Mar 2006 issue of the journal Fertility and Sterility that found THC had major effects on in vitro sperm motility. PubMed link. "The use of THC as a recreational drug may adversely affect male fertility." -- Scientizzle 19:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, a study from 1990 concluded that "that smoking marijuana may cause a transient disruption of ovulatory function." PubMed link. -- Scientizzle 19:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fertility

message: The edits made to this section were too outlandish to appear without reference.  I'm not dispuiting that this could be fact, but I find these claims questionable enough to wonder what science backs them.  Furthermore, use of verbiage such as "As a matter of fact,"  suggests a tone that is less than NPOV.  Hence, I question the validity of these claims. I've marked them to give the editor a chance to cite sources, but otherwise, after a few days, I believe that this should be removed.  What does everyone else think?  Cheers! --Chuchunezumi 02:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the dubious tag, as it seems that the citation needed tags are sufficient. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 01:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "citation needed" tag is not a free pass to allow unverified content to remain in an article; it is a challenge that the statement does not meet WP:V and is suitable for deletion.  Absolutely the "citation needed" tags are appropriate for unsourced information, especially when contrarian to the established view, and if it remains for more than a few days then the material should be deleted altogether.  Wikipedia is about verifiability; unverifiable statements have no place here, end of story.  The Crow 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Medicinal use

message: I added a  tag to this section because it seems to be littered with related personal experiences and very few cited claims.  I feel very strongly that every listed effect should have a citation, especially considering there are volumes of data on the effects of cannabis use. -- Scientizzle 16:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently you feel quite free to consider your anecdote universal and state outright that anyone opposed is a "15yo shithead."  It's an encyclopedia, so a little more than your anecdote (which would be anecdotal even if you gave names and dates, which of course you can't since you made it up) is required for us "15yo shitheads."24.33.28.52 15:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 1. Unsourced. 2. Unencyclopedically stated. 3. Seems so be phrased in a way as to condone use. 4. Your own comments suggestOriginal research. ReverendG 07:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of effects

message: Is there a reason why "cannabis" was the only name mentioned in the intro?  I thought it appropriate to at least add the common alternative name "marijuana", especially since the article uses the word to refer to cannabis several times. G Rose 09:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to be there, people keep taking it out. --Rory096 19:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative names 

message: In the past month, the article has been taken over by vandals, false information, and bad format. I've reverted back to July 31, which was the last decent version I could find (then I went through that and fixed some things).  I'm sure not all of the edits in August were bad, though, so feel free to add back in any good faith ones.  I'll probably go through them later and do it myself, too. --Rory096 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large revert 

message: The 'contributors' and the 'topic experts' who find the most used supplements with cannabis not worthy to mention in the Wikipedia, please come forward with your reasons and lets discuss it here.
It should go in the smoking article. Tobacco at least is reasonably common, khoi isnt. I also disagree with some of your statements, ie it seems riddled with errors. Most tobacco use is to mix joints with hash which wont burn in pure joints (hence the commonness of a tobacco mix in Europe) and people get accustomed to it so they also smoke it with grass. The idea that tobacco improves the high is laughable so the content would need major changes to stay. Most people use tobacco because they are addicted. El Rojo 20:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with El Rojo. It's too specific for this article, put it either in cannabis smoking or tobacco.  You need to get sources for it first, though, see WP:V and WP:RS. --Rory096 22:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khoi and Tobacco as burning aids 

message: The list of effects section should be removed and replaced with normal paragraphs. These lists are contradictory, unreliable and hopelessly biased. El Rojo 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagged

message: Under the heading "Physiological effects" the statement regarding the dilation of blood vessels may benefit from some clarification.
By listing "Increased blood flow..." and "Reddening or drying of the eyes" as sub-compenents of "Dilation of blood vessels..." suggests that these points are addressed by the reference [21] when this is not the case.  The cited reference does support the idea that some cannabanoid receptors and substances may be implicated in some vasodialation responses; it does not make mention of increased blood flow, tachycardia or reddening or drying of the eyes.
It may be misleading to list "Reddening or drying of eyes" as a single statement since different physiological processes could likely explain each phenomenon independently (eg. reddening could occur as a result of vasodilation or as a result of a 'drying of eyes' [Keratoconjunctivitis sicca or otherwise]; reddening could occur independent of drying, but not neccessarily vice versa).  These statements would also benefit by including some references.
Although according to reference [21] there may be some involvement of cannabinoid receptors or substances in the vasodialtion associated with reddening of the eyes it may be worthwhile to note that carbon monoxide (CO) is produced by smoking marijuana (or any carbon based substance) and that CO can also result in vasodilation.
Great work on maintaining the ever-important integrity of this topic.
24.69.212.30 17:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physiologicial Effects 

message: I work in the field of cannabinoid research (making improved synthetic cannabinoids), and we known for a fact there are at least two Cannabinoid receptors in humans (possibly more).  I think when talking about cannabis as a durg we should at least say how they agonise the known cannabinoid receptors (CB1 and CB2) which are G protein-coupled receptor.  From a scientists point of view the overall feel of this article is very amateur - and it needs a more detailed content  on the science.
Lethaniol 15:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannabinoid Receptors 

message: There is no way this should be merged with hemp, i dont know who put up that suggestion but the context's of the 2 pages are completely different
Javsav 15:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: merged?

message: :According to The Guardian, cannabis is now the United States's number one cash crop.
I believe I found the Guardian article in question here, but the #1 cash crop estimate is attributed to an ex-narc.  Steve White used to be a DEA agent, and more recently trains law enforcement officers in undercover techniques (according to a PBS Frontline interview of White here), but other than that experience, I couldn't verify White's background or basis for making the claim.  The NORML study, however, is available in its entirety here, and I believe it's a stronger reference for the article.  For this reason, I replaced the above sentence (added 22:07, 7 July 2006 by 162.84.192.143) in the United States section with one referencing the NORML study, but I'm preserving it here in case there's a better Guardian article that I missed.  Matt Fitzpatrick 05:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: #1 U.S. Cash Crop

message: This entire section is worded very poorly and I just cleaned up some horrible spelling errors within. The article Cannabis smoking is a lot more professional, perhaps Cannabis can simply state the different ways to smoke marijuana and link to Cannabis smoking for more information? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Memorygap (talk • contribs) .
:You didn't make any edits, as far as I can tell.  The section isn't too bad, and exists as a short summary of cannabis smoking (which was broken off from that section a while back).  A few minutes prior to your post, I removed a couple non notable smoking techniques that shouldn't have been in that section, and it seems fine now. --Rory096 16:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Preparations for human consumption: Smoking

message: The article contains conflicting statements about the current legality of cannabis in Alaska, so I'll try to help sort them out.
:(→ United States) "The state of Alaska formerly allowed residents to legally possess up to four ounces for personal use, but it was criminalized on June 2, 2006; possesion of up to four ounces is now a misdemeanor."
:(→ Decriminalization and legalization) "Also, in Alaska, marijuana was decided legal for in-home, personal use under the Raven vs. State ruling in 1975. This ruling allowed up to four ounces of marijuana for these purposes. On July 17th, 2006, that amount was reduced to one ounce due to an 'increase in potency' since the Raven verdict."
By my understanding, Ravin v. State (1975) was the Alaska Supreme Court decision finding the Alaska state anti-drug law to be unconstitutional, at least insofar as the defendant's right to privacy outweighed the state's public health interest in banning marijuana.
This makes the June 2006 statute, basically, a legislative end run around the Ravin decision.  Subsequently, a superior court judge ruled, rather quickly (July 2006), that the June 2006 law is still unconstitutional.  This puts Alaska more or less back where it was in 1975, while the issue winds its way back up the appeals ladder. Matt Fitzpatrick 00:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I got the facts mostly straightened out and mostly cited, but the organization still has serious problems.  To be honest, my edits may have inserted a bit too much stuff about "legality" for a "medicinal use" section.  Part of it might need to be merged into a more appropriate section or article.  Unfortunately, I won't have time this week to clean up the organization.  Hopefully someone can pick up where I left off.  Matt Fitzpatrick 21:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal status in Alaska

message: can somebody compile a list/description of strains whether it be on this or a seperate page? if there is such a page can somebody link it at the bottom of this one? thanx.
:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS TO MOVE, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  strains? 

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Oppose Though marijuana may be a more casual term, Cannabis is more correct. For what it's worth, Cannabis gets 12 million hits in Google to marijauna's 1.9 million. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Jamie, which Google are you using?  I get more than 28 million marijuana hits (no pun intended) and 23 million for Cannabis.  Your numbers seem off, unless I'm doing something wrong.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mmmm, might have been using a different spelling (though Google didn't ask "did you mean marijuana?"). OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got 21.3 million for cannabis and 29 million for marijuana. ReverendG 04:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I missed the discussion, but I have to say that this argument has come up quite a number of times in the past couple years.  Maybe there should be a better way of handling requests for renames when the issue has already come up in the past.  Personally I cannot see why some people are so adamant at trying to rename articles to suit their political agendas rather than allow them to remain with proper neutral (NPOV) international scientific terminology.  --Thoric 22:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the editor who recently nominated the article to be renamed, and I'm confused how you're inferring a "political agenda" from anything that I wrote; please clarify.  The reason for my nomination was purely linguistic.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move, additional comments 

message: according to many sites, eg , eg "Marijuana must be heated before being consumed to activate the cannabanoids so one cannot simply eat raw grass.". Many sites including our own correctly state that marijuana is not soluble in wayter so needs heating with fats to release the psychoactive properties, SqueakBox 00:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eating raw grass is not psychoactive

message: I think it would be useful to add typical costs of cannabis, and the ammount of cannabis given for the costs, so it can be compared to cigarrette addiction.
Where? The price of cannabis varies greatly between places (which is part of what makes it so profitable for criminals transporting it between one place and another), SqueakBox 02:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole idea of listing prices is unworkable.  Not only will it be unverifiable, there is also too much variance.  Not only do prices vary from city to city, but they also vary considerably by quality.  Add to that the fact that any discussion would have to give equal attention to prices outside of the US and UK, which is absolutely unmaintainable.  Regardless, since you aren't going to get good, verifiable sources it can't be added anyway.  You could use price estimates from police/governmental sources, but those are usually quite a bit off-the-mark.  --The Way 11:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cost

message: this true, false?:
< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis_%28drug%29&diff=82143001&oldid=82142607 >.
Would that put the can into cannabis, or cannabis into can?  Or canknot?  I am certainly not familiar on the subject, as I generally avoid fertilizing weed.  I, generally, toss weeds into the dumpsters behind my home, rather than other dumps.  Getting high?
I do, occasionally, hear of the confluence of marijuana &  formaldehyde.  Is this worthy of an article?  Considering the other applications of formaldehyde, the consequences do seem important.
However, we, likely, put much more dangerous chemicals inside of our bodies all day.
hopiakuta ; [[    { %c2%a1 %c2%bf  %7e%7e%7e%7e  } ;]] 05:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is 

message: Can we get an accurate figure for the number of chemicals contained in cannabis? It states four under the 'Active ingredients, metabolism, and method of activity', which is obviously incorrect. 24.209.129.107 04:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Chemicals

message: Methinks there's a lot of IP vandalism recently.  What's some input on requesting protection/semi-protection for this article? Urania3 20:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi-protection seems like a very good idea.  -- Chondrite 05:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for protection/semi-protection? 

message: After reading sme of this stuff, it seems o me that this drug s beneficial to teh body and brain in several ways.  It also ave some negative effects, but so does motrin if you take enough.  I don't understand why this is illegal when cigarrettes seem to be much more harmful.  Anyone have an answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MADmike253 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be interested in reviewing Legal issues of cannabis and  Medical cannabis; try proposing critical  suggestions for improvement on those talk pages.  If you need a particular question answered, you may need to be more specific.  The talk pages are used for improving the article, not for general discussion about the topic. —Viriditas | Talk 03:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal? 

message: I just changed an extremely apocryphal representation of source information.
What the source says:
Marijuana interferes with blood flow to the brain.  People smoking less that 70 joints a week will show improvement from the irregular state caused by the marijuana usage.
What the page said:
"Although studies have not proven altogether conclusive on the subject, recent work suggests that the cognitive effects of cannabis use under 70 joints a week are wholly impermanent, and that most afformentioned effects subside after about a month."
I scoured the article for anything remotely like that.  Nothing.  I therefore suggest that all cited sources be checked to make sure they say what they are represented to say.  Also, a page number needs to be on any source that has them.  The UK report, for example, is 179 pages long.  I've been trying to find where this report says "using cannabis is less dangerous than both tobacco and alcohol in social harms, physical harm and addiction", and I can't.--Loodog 05:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terribly misrepresented information 

message: http://www.umcutrecht.nl/research/agenda/2006/10/Ecstasy+leaves+memory+intact.htm
Occasional use of ecstasy (an average of a total of two pills) or frequent cannabis use (several marijuana cigarettes a week over a period of an average of four years) does not lead to long-term abnormalities in memory or ability to concentrate, or related brain activity. These are the main findings in Gerry Jager’s doctoral thesis. She studied the long-term effects of the popular drugs ecstasy and cannabis on brain functions (memory and ability to concentrate) using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).
Jager will receive her PhD from Utrecht University on October 31. The title of her thesis is, “Functional MRI studies in human ecstasy and cannabis users.”
When this article becomes available someone might want to add in some of the information in it.  Its useful for discussing long-term negative effects.
:I agree the thesis could be interesting once accessible. I included other references that indicate impairment of short-term memory functioning and abstraction in heavy users but no impairments or even improved test scores in light and intermediate users. It was problematic a little to access articles, but this conclusion appeared to be a common finding. I linked to one article (and one abstract of an article) that support it. --Ben  T/C  12:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Study Shows Absence of Long-Term Memory or Cognitive Impairment 

message: Is there a list of celebrities and famous people who claim openly they use regularly or are advocates?
I think there should be a list, for example, Bill Maher, Sarah Silverman, Willie Nelson, Snoop Dog, Bob Marley, Woody Harrelson, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.42.208 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Cannabis activists currently fulfills this role. —Viriditas | Talk 06:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Users/Advocates 

message: This article is not NPOV.  Sources have been carefully cherry picked to only pertain to one point of view.  Edits contrary to the view of marijuana advocacy are edited out.  Perfectly legitimate research data are contradicted with claims from spurious sources.  The scientific consensus is that cannabis is a dangerous drug with long lasting effects.  In my opinion, a group of marijuana legalisation advocates have conspired to control the information presented on Wikipedia so that it appears to support their beliefs.  Please consider adding more sources that identify the dangerous effects of marijuana to balance the bias in the article.  See below for examples:
http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/effects-of-marijuana.htm
http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/parentpg15-16N.html
http://web4health.info/en/answers/add-cannabis-psychosis.htm
http://ncadi.samhsa.gov/govpubs/phd641/
http://foxnews.webmd.com/content/article/100/105717.htm?src=rss_foxnews
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040309071927.htm
http://science.howstuffworks.com/marijuana4.htm
--Darth Borehd 23:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All these articles you have furnished us with appear to be politically motivated stuff from prohibitionists, ie it doesnt appear the kind of serious, rigorous stuff that is actually in the references section. Perhaps you should try to edit the article rather than just sticking a pov tag on it, and do so in a way that doesnt itself contradict pov. I disagree that a group of legalization advocates have conspired to do anything whatsoever re the article. The only scientific consensus is that there is no consensus and to try to claim that there is is simply to ignore the debate going on on the issue. Almost none of the claims in your articles have been scientifically validated, and certainly not scientifically validated in those articles themselves. An NPOV article takes in all sides of the debate, if you think the prohibition arguments are poorly presented then please edit the article but dont do so in a way that the article would conveys solely the prohibitonists pov, SqueakBox 00:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments support my statements.  You dismiss contrary evidence out of hand by calling them "prohibitionists".  Are you seriously trying to tell me that the NIDA, a government agency, is a political advocacy group?  And in response to your comment about editing the article, I have tried to revise the article to bring it more into line with NPOV but I have found myself stymied by the same group of editors changing it back to the biased condition.  So, now I'm trying to open a rational dialog in the discussion session and to bring attention to the egregious pro-marijuana bias in this article. --Darth Borehd 00:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, agree with squeakbox, and say that upon looking over NIDA's site that they seem to have formulated their opinions before reviewing the scientific evidence, and therefore present an extremely biased view based on preconcieved notion. A political advocacy group? Perhaps not, the other sites were however, and this one is a very politically motivated group. ReverendG 01:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's going to edit an article on marijuana?  People interested in it.  Bias is therefore unfortunately expected.  For example, some asshat keeps misrepresenting the article about blood flow to the brain to mean that it has no long-term effects.  As a occasional user, I assure you there are adverse effects.  It doesn't mean anyone editing this page will go out of his way to find articles showing that, like this one, this one, or this one, these were the first three results of a google search that somehow didn't make it to this page.--Loodog 01:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That wasn't meant as a personal attack.  As a fact of wikipedia, people will write about what they're interested in.  This creates bias.  E.g. someone from Los Angeles will take an interest in the Los Angeles wiki article and just might insert a few things about the better parts of LA.  This is why is article is biased.  There are no intended insinuations of brain damage. --Loodog 17:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Your continued characterisation of such studies as "prohibitionist" material is typical of the bias I am referring.  NIDA is a government agency attached to the DHHS (http://www.hhs.gov/).  Their continued stance, substantiated by research, is that marijuana is harmful.  Equating research showing marijuna to be harmful with prohibitionists of the 1920s and 1930s is not only inaccurate but misleading as well.  The consensus of medical and scientific experts is that THC may have some legitimate uses under medical supervision, but it's illegal use, expecially when done through the inhalation of combustibles, is dangerous to human health.  My point, which you have been so helpful in helping me make, is that the sources cited, the conclusion, the tone, and the diction in this article have been crafted in such a way as to give an impression of pro-marijuana legalisation bias.  --Darth Borehd 21:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because research is cited by prolegalisation groups doesn't make it false.  Similiar, just because research is "prohibitionist" doesn't make it false.  There are enough ad hominem circumstantial fallacies here to kill a politician.--Loodog 22:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I would add that if someone is pro-legalisation (which I am), they have probably experienced or witnessed adverse affects of canibus (I know I have) and should't pretend like they don't exist for political purposes.  The entire tone of the article seems to suggust that cannabis is less harmfull than alchahol and tobacco in every way, which is absolutely false, and provided pro-legalisation advocates have used these drugs, they should know this.  The article states:
"According to a United Kingdom government report, using cannabis is less dangerous than both tobacco and alcohol in social harms, physical harm and addiction."
This implies that if a person uses canabis instead of alchahol or tobacco they will have less social harm, physical harm, and addiction potential, but the report is really just an assesment of the drugs impact on society not intended to provide advice on an individual basis.  Not only is the statement not properly backed by the article, but it is not backed by what should be obvious to anyone who is familiar these three drugs.  Alchahol use in moderation is widely socially accepted and could beasaid to have posative social affects; tobacco use's only real negative social effect is a smell that is less strong than that of cannabis; one hit of cannabis however is enough to cause adverse social effects in many situations.  The article also has no mention of addiction other than to say it is less adictive than alchahol and tobacco even though their is a clear concensus among experts that Cannabis is highly adictive for some people.  The bigest problem with the article seems to be that it was written to push a political idea, but it is primaraly used by people looking for individual advice, and in that respect it is very misleading.
It might actually be best to write an additional article on "Cannabis Addiction" that could detail the unique charactoristics of cannabis addiction.--Theanonomous 12:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: But do you have any sources contracting the sources that say it is safer? I am sorry, but that is just what the citations say, it is safer then alcohol and tobacco. As for you idea for the article "Cannabis Addiction", show me which sources you will use? The sources I see cannot find evidence of it's addictive nature. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know the report says that cannabis is safer than alcohol and tobacco, but that's not what the article is saying.  The article states that cannabis has less social harm, physical harm, and addiction, which is not entirely true, and not entirely supported by the article.  Cannabis causes virtually no physical harm, but it definitely causes more social harm than tobacco, and it causes more social harm than alcohol in many situations.  That's really all I was trying to say about the health issues article, but it was late and I was long-winded and confusing in my explanation.  sorry.
As far as the suggestion to have an article on marijuana addiction, I wasn't basing that on any of the articles that had already been used, but on personal experience and hearsay advice from qualified experts.  I was hoping someone else would find some citations so I wouldn't have to, and I would look for some now, but it's late now too.  I do think there should be some mention of the article on Marijuana Anonymous somewhere in the section on marijuana.  There should be an article on MA until someone can wright an agreeable article on marijuana addiction--Theanonomous 13:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Can I reiterate that the Health Effects section of this article is supposed to be a summary of Health issues and the effects of cannabis article.  If the section in this article does not accurately summarize Health issues and the effects of cannabis then it may be an NPOV issue for this article.  However, if you dispute the content of Health issues and the effects of cannabis then the appropriate place to discuss your concerns is at Talk:Health issues and the effects of cannabis.  -- Chondrite 19:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having flicked through the larger article, I can say with great confidence that it does not reflect the larger article, since there is virtually no mention of the much more substantial content of negative effects (apart from a very non-descript sentence), and a relatively large incoherent (due to the lack of mentioning the negative effects) discussion of one section that promotes the idea that cannabis is "not as bad as tobacco".  This is the biggest issue I have with the section, although I have significant reservations of the conclusions on both pages. The reference used in the summary page should be the same as what is in the major article, since it is peer-reviewed, if not yet reproduced by another group. I believe that claiming cannabis has: (a) "fewer" effects on the lungs on the suggestion that it may be different for two lung function properties and more importantly, (b) the general public tend to treat the word "fewer" as implying that it is "safer". The tone of that section also encourage you to form that conclusion because of no mention of negative evidence, and no emphasis that fewer does not equal safer. I will post something on the other page, giving much more detail why I think that you cannot conclude cannabis does not cause COPD, nor other similar airway damage and disease from this abstract. Volantares 04:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do edit the health effects section of this article to accurately summarize the detail article.  Can I suggest that if you plan major edits to the detail article, it might be best to achieve a stable version there before attempting to summarize here?  Chondrite 06:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded some of the references and sentences used in that section, but I haven't gone through and provided a summary that represents what is in the more detailed article. I may do that at some stage, but this article is not strongly linked to my interests or knowledge, so someone else would be more than welcome to write it (and I'd be happy to agree or disagree with its content). Volantares 13:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As said many times above, do you have any source that shows what you say is true? We work by citation and references here. You can remove unsourced items if you think they are false, but if you want to introduce new information please provide sources. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is not NPOV 

message: Cannabis (drug)#Health issues and the effects of cannabis is a summary of Health issues and the effects of cannabis.  In keeping with the guideline, material pertaining to this topic that is included in Cannabis (drug) should be a WP:NPOV summary of the information presented in the detailed article.  Expansion should occur in the detailed article, and, if appropriate, summarized in this article with due weight.  A  dispute tag would be appropriate in the section (rather than a  tag disputing the nuetrality of the entire article) if the section does not properly summarize Health issues and the effects of cannabis.   I have replaced the dispute tag accordingly, but further discussion in this talk page should focus on whether the section accurately summarizes the detail article with appropriate weight.  Content of the detail article should be discussed at Talk:Health issues and the effects of cannabis. Chondrite 06:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary section dispute

message: I happened to bump into this page and I have to concur that sections of this page is nowhere near NPOV. It is obvious that different sections have been written by different people, but the sections focusing on the medical effects of marijuana is not well written. My skin crawled when I read some of the stuff on this article.
I found the prose was sometimes too vague for a medical discussion. There is no clear cut (and simple) description for their effects. The section sometimes lacked the word "may" when it would be expected (such as in new or controversial research). There is no list or discussion on the official position of the medical (and scientific) profession, especially in regards to the dangers of smoking. At all. Instead, we get a list of all the beneficial things cannabis MAY have, with little on the other side of the coin or counter-evidence. This section should be rearranged into 1) indications of cannabis/THC, 2) known effects, 3) contraindications (there is nothing sensical on this, but reads vaguely towards anti-prohibition), 4) Adverse side-effects. All of these should be taken from the offical position of the medical profession. Then you should have separate sections to discuss controversial medical issues surrounding cannabis, and give both sides a section to present their case. Like all research, there are people and papers that disagree with that position, but it is unwise to throw the baby out with the bathwater when such research papers come along. Doing so is misinforming the very people many of us are trying to educate from the so-called "War on Drugs".
A good example of where this page fails completely is the misconception (that is, different to the position of the medical profession) by some cannabis users that cannabis is "less dangerous" than tobacco in regards to COPD and lung cancer. The only reference supporting this quite stunning claim is a website discussing a non-peer reviewed talk given at a low-profile conference. The second reference in another sentence refers to a newspaper article about the first reference. Since talks at even the best conferences are not peer-reviewed, I would strongly suggest that this claim be removed unless a peer-reviewed reference (or preferably two by two separate groups) can be given. It may still play a role in this article though, perhaps as a footnote in the controversy section highlighting the weakness of some "evidence" used to promote cannabis agendas. The point is that it needs a serious rewriting before you could justifiably say that this article deals with the medical issues legitimately. Volantares 19:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I reiterate that the Health Effects section of this article is supposed to be a summary of Health issues and the effects of cannabis article.  If the section in this article does not accurately summarize Health issues and the effects of cannabis then it may be an NPOV issue for this article.  However, if you dispute the content of Health issues and the effects of cannabis then the appropriate place to discuss your concerns is at Talk:Health issues and the effects of cannabis.  -- Chondrite 19:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having flicked through the larger article, I can say with great confidence that it does not reflect the larger article, since there is virtually no mention of the much more substantial content of negative effects (apart from a very non-descript sentence), and a relatively large incoherent (due to the lack of mentioning the negative effects) discussion of one section that promotes the idea that cannabis is "not as bad as tobacco".  This is the biggest issue I have with the section, although I have significant reservations of the conclusions on both pages. The reference used in the summary page should be the same as what is in the major article, since it is peer-reviewed, if not yet reproduced by another group. I believe that claiming cannabis has: (a) "fewer" effects on the lungs on the suggestion that it may be different for two lung function properties and more importantly, (b) the general public tend to treat the word "fewer" as implying that it is "safer". The tone of that section also encourage you to form that conclusion because of no mention of negative evidence, and no emphasis that fewer does not equal safer. I will post something on the other page, giving much more detail why I think that you cannot conclude cannabis does not cause COPD, nor other similar airway damage and disease from this abstract. Volantares 04:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do edit the health effects section of this article to accurately summarize the detail article.  Can I suggest that if you plan major edits to the detail article, it might be best to achieve a stable version there before attempting to summarize here?  Chondrite 06:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded some of the references and sentences used in that section, but I haven't gone through and provided a summary that represents what is in the more detailed article. I may do that at some stage, but this article is not strongly linked to my interests or knowledge, so someone else would be more than welcome to write it (and I'd be happy to agree or disagree with its content). Volantares 13:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As said many times above, do you have any source that shows what you say is true? We work by citation and references here. You can remove unsourced items if you think they are false, but if you want to introduce new information please provide sources. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About NPOV

message: Image:World-cannabis-laws.png may contain unsourced info. Can anyone confirm the info in it? While I agree that Hondurass has laws that for the most part arent enforced I think the Honduran government would not be happy with this. Please can wee get a source for it or I'll remove the map, SqueakBox 00:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the creator of this map.  Where shall I list the sources?  This map doesn't have its own page...  I suppose if there was a page called "International Cannabis Laws" I could put them there... CL8 01:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The source for the Honduras map is from the Medical cannabis page.  It says:  "Sick people caught with cannabis are claiming it is for medical purposes but the government and the law does not recognise this and punishments remain harsh, though enforcement for consumption is lax." CL8 01:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Source list has been started.  Please view, comment at:  .  CL8 04:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: Colorado's Amendment 44 didn't pass. This means that marijuana is illegal to all ages in any amount when it comes to recreational use. I am unsure of whether or not it legal in medical usage. The world map showing where it is legal and illegal is wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1950salvador (talk • contribs) 06:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, marijuana is decriminalized here in Colorado which means essentially that it's only 'kinda' illegal.  If you get caught with an ounce or less it isn't even a misdemeanor, all you get is a $100 fine.  I'm not sure how that should be reflected on a map, however. --The Way 19:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it is somewhat misleading in that even if it is decriminalized by the states, it isn't decriminalized by the federal government, and maybe that should be shown as different from when it is decriminalized on all levels of government.--Theanonomous 13:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colorados amendment 44 

message: There is currently no discussion whatsoever on the subjective psychological effects of marijuana.  There used to be.  Why was this removed?
I noticed too but didnt put it back as it was always very controversial but by all means do so. i have no idea whether the removal was well or badly intentioned, SqueakBox 20:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychological effects 

message: "Isopropyl" is mentioned in this article as a type of chemical. However, no such chemical exists. This word is more like a prefix for naming a chemical. I suspect someone ment to put isopropyl alcohol, but since I am uncertian, I will leave it to someone else to fix.
Preparations for human consumption
Cannabis is prepared for human consumption in several forms:
[stuff deleted for space]
* Hash oil, resulting from extraction or distillation of THC-rich parts of the plant with isopropyl or butane.
What do you mean for space, it hardly takes up any, SqueakBox 18:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Chemistry 

message: I unprotected the page from anonymous editors, if the IP vandalism gets out of hand, contact me on my talk page. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and I archived this rather long talk page. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the same problem continued so I have semi protected the page again. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Cannabis articles all receive a constant barrage of vandalism.  I think they should all be permanently semi-protected.  Maybe we should start an unprotected "Cannabis Playpen" for the goofballs among us. GeorgeLTirebiter 13:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: Cannibis drug?First of all cannibis is a plant. Not a drug.Deriving its name from the greek canna for cane and bi for bisexual having both male and female sexes.Canna-bi.....cannabis
the female cannabis plant produces both thc and cannibinoid oil among other chemicals during the flowering cycle.
Perhaps this subject should be looked at from a biologically molecular level to truly understand why certain aspects of the active ingredients are psychoactive and some are analgesic and pain releiving...right? for example just do a google search for ajulemic acid and you will see that the compounds responsible for the analgesic and pain releif have been isolated from the psychoactive compound in the tetrahydrocannibinol.so why not seperate them? So those who use it for pain releif can do so and those who want psychoactive effects can also specifically use that?also one last thing...its a question.Why do humans have cannibinoid receptors in their brains if nothing in the body is endogenously produced to bind to it? Is it so that this plant which has been around thousands of years was meant for humans and their brains?Prove me wrong-
hope this helps- I am a first time user of wikipedia-but not cannibisBodazifa 05:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all cannibis is a plant. Not a drug. You are quite correct. How did this happen? I'm going to propose a merge. --Bill Huston  (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge tag removed, requested move opposed.  The topic is split into at least three different primary articles: the plant genus Cannabis, the use of cannabis as a psychoactive drug, and non-drug cultivation, Hemp. —Viriditas | Talk 10:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can oppose the merge, but please do not delete the merge tag, to allow discussion from other users. Cannabis is not a drug, it is a plant genus. The drug, which is contained in the cannabis plant, is called THC. --Bill Huston  (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: He is right to oppose the merging of a 46KB article into a 43 KB article, that would make 89KB yet both articles already have warnings that they are too long and to create such a masive article would fly in the face of wikipedia policy on article size, SqueakBox 15:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to comment on this "Why do humans have cannabinoid receptors in their brains if nothing in the body is endogenously produced to bind to it?". With a little research you can notice that the receptors are indeed used by body, namely through endocannabinoids. It seems like most of the articles written here are pro-drug, and I would consider them harmful for, for instance, youth looking for information on the effects of drugs. It is true that pot does not cause strong physical dependency, but - as we can see on the comment and the writing on the article - the psychological addiction is severe. Maybe you should ask yourself: if I'm not addicted to it, why do I still need to find the time to use it and try to convince yourself and others, that it is OK? That is, why do I need to mess my head up? As I've visited many geeky discussion-boards (incl. wikipedia), I could say that psychedelics are "brainwash" drugs. They are just as mindlessly pro-drugs as they accuse "authorities" of being against them.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.23.12.60 (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What discussion?  No valid reason for a merge or move has been given, so I have removed the tag. —Viriditas | Talk 12:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK I think I understand what happened here. This was all part of a very long article at Cannabis, and it was decided to split this into three parts, the plant genus, the drug/medicinal use, and hemp fiber. The problem I have is with the naming of this article. It is quite a misnomer. "Cannabis (drug)" doesn't make sense to me, and evidently to others as well. I think the article should be renamed to "Cannabis (drug use)", but I really don't like the word "drug". Is there a single word which includes "medicinal" and "psychoactive" while avoiding the word "drug"? --Bill Huston  (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See disambiguation.  The article is titled appropriately. —Viriditas | Talk 12:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not everyone thinks so.  Some months ago I proposed that the article be renamed "Marijuana."  As I recall, I was not the only one in favor of such a move.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, forget about the merge. I agree that would be a mistake. I like the idea of renaming this article to Marijuana best. "Cannabis (drug)" is a misnomer. Cannabis is NOT a drug! --Bill Huston  (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, of course it is a drug. What definition of drug is being used here, because I have always used A drug is any substance that can be used to modify a chemical process or processes in the body,. The substance Cannabis is a substance that can be used to modify the body, it contains drugs but that does not stop it from being a drug itself. THC is but one of many drugs in the substance cannabis, and calling it Cannabis (drug) refers to the drug effects of what is contained in Cannabis. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cannabis is a drug under any standard use of the term drug.  While there are parts of the plant that aren't psychoactive, much of the plant contains THC which is a part of, not separate from, the plant.  Thus the plant itself is a drug since the TCH is a necessary component of the plant.  Anyways, our naming policy here is to use standard, common names.  Cannabis, marijuana, pot... is considered a drug in every day conversation.  This is no different than calling salvia, magic mushrooms, coca and coffee drugs. --The Way 19:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannabis is not a drug 

message: The source that has been removed:
* ,   
--BMF81 11:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting scholar sources is close to vandalism 

message: I removed the semi-protection from this page a little while ago. Do people think it is needed again? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Where is marijuana the most common preparation? This needs impeccable sourcing, certainly in Western Europe hashish is more common as in many other countries, SqueakBox 17:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Marijuana most common preparation

message: recognizeability?Is that a the word?Think i like it.Once upon a time there was a bong that would filter out the bad things in smoke and only allow good things right?Using water for the filter?Lets examine this a little more closely...What if a device could split up the thc from the cannabinoids from the harmful things in combustion process?Through a complex filter and progressive heated air system.Now that would be one pure bong hit of filtered cannabinoid oils (essential)and vaporized THC.....without anything harmfull to the body.Can such a device exist?Perhaps some of the lab equipment big tobacco uses to figure out the assimilation rate of nicotine into you?Get it?Someone invent this please...and mass produce it.But not in the form of a drug that the govt and big pharma can mass produce and in the form of taxes and pills......and control.Lets keep it private and where you can grow it yourself anytime anywhere and research it saving yourself possibly thousands of dollars in medical cost any way you can to solve these issues right?A vaporizer comes real close but do you really know exactly what you are inhaleing on a cellular level?Matter or energy?Only then can we finalize the argument for drug or?Should it be in drug form controlled by govt and pharma or controlled by you the consumer of it?Ultimately it is up to the private morality of the individual in my opinionBodazifa 06:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bodafiza 

message: On the question of whether the article should begin with "Cannabis or marijuana...",
I think a tally of opinions in the above discussion shows a clear preference one way or another, and that ample evidence has been presented for anyone to make an informed decision on the matter.
Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.
=== Supporting votes ===
Vote here if you think the article should begin with "Cannabis or marijuana..."
#Support --Yath 19:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree we need a cogent explanation of this whole issue in the opening. At the end of the day we need to have an opening that makes sense to both our North American and non North American readership, we cant exclude one group while pandering to the other and to include both is NPOV, though I also think the word ganja does appear somewhat similar to marijuana, so we need something much more complex than your proposal, SqueakBox 19:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how this will not make sense to non North American readers especially if it begins with Cannabis, often called marijuana in North America... HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment: Here are several dictionary definitions: Marijuana  These are reliable sources, not blogs; I can confirm that the transcription from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary is accurate; I have it here in my office.  In all of these dictionaries, definition #1 equates marijuana to the cannabis plant; definition 2 narrows it down to just the dried leaves & stalks.  We don't need any more personal opinions about whether this definition is valid worldwide, but I would be interested in a citation from some dictionary somewhere that differs with this.  My strong preference would be the OED, but any dictionary of the English language from any Commonwealth country would be useful. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The current opening sentence mentions marijuana and ganja, which are likely the two most common synonyms used in the English-speaking world. I removed the sentence which seemed to suggest that hashish is called marijuana in North America because hash it suggests that the word "marijuana" is used instead of "hashish" in NA, which is not the case. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm in agreement with the qualification you just added. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh hell, Squeak, we were converging on a good version, and you just changed it to something I can't support.  Marijuana in North America and in many other places is understood as a synonym for Cannabis sativa.  You just edited that out again. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And removing the "in its herbal form"? Its how we deal with cannabis resin that appears to be the sticky issue (lol) here, SqueakBox 20:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem goes away if we take Hashish out of the opening sentence.  We can make a case for marijuana and ganja being synonyms for cannabis in various parts of the world.  Hashish, on the other hand, is the name for a particular preparation, so it should be given lesser prominence. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. i think a l;arge percentage of what is consumed as the drug cannabis is hashish and to leave it out of the new opening is confusing for non North American readers. Where I grew up cannabis was always pretty much synonymous with hashish and I dont believe the UK is substantially different on this than it was a few years ago, or Spain for that matter, and to ignore this in the opening doesnt feel right, but for mwe this has always been at the heart of the issue, SqueakBox 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall reading in a number of reliable sources that hashish production is the largest type of preparation and use of cannabis consumption in the world. —Viriditas | Talk 21:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have long felt that hashish should be merged into this article but I am not convinced other editors would agree, but it really should be here even if we have to take other stuff out (into other articles) to make way for it, SqueakBox 22:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That's very interesting, but it sounds like historic information that doesn't need to go in the introduction. --Yath 00:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it belonged in the introduction, just that it should be noted.  --Thoric 18:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Cannabis has been used for its medicinal qualities for many thousands of years.  --Thoric 18:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As soon as everyone turns their heads we have young kids filling the opening full of their local slang term for cannabis. This was inevitably going to happen, and without commitment from other users to revert back to not using any slang terms I suggest we go back to the pre Angr version, ie just keep it at cannabis and if people are ignorant and dont know that cannabis is marijuana etc, well as an encyclopedia our job is to inform, SqueakBox 17:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha. I see why you reverted. I understand your concern, although the last part of your last sentence contradicts everything that precedes it. Unless you're being sarcastic. Wahkeenah 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey: begin with "Cannabis or marijuana..." 

message: Vote here if you think the article should begin with "Cannabis or marijuana..."
#Support --Yath 19:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supporting votes 

message: Vote here if you think the term "marijuana" should not be included so prominently.
# No, an edit like that is confusing and should not be allowed to stand as all non North Americans will think the article is making out that cannabis resin is called marijuana. This may be true in the US but it isnt true elesewhere and therefore we would need a much fullerr explanation of the whole naming issue in the opening, which I support. I am not sure this straw poll will work because it fails to give a full range of options. Also what about ganja, if marijuana is in the opening then so should ganja be and cannabis resin at the very least but the proposal doesnt comment on this one way or the other, SqueakBox 19:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposing votes 

message: The term "cannabis" to an American has several meanings, of which "a drug" may not be the most prominent depending on who you ask. It can mean "a genus of plant", "a plant", or "an alternate name for marijuana used as law-enforcement jargon". On the other hand, it is no more surprising as a name for a drug than the term petrol is as a name for a motor fuel. So its use as the name for this article is not a big deal, any more than aluminium.
However, "marijuana" is the primary term - and less subject to confusion - for a vast chunk of Wikipedia's English-speaking readership. It doesn't make sense to exclude it from the introduction, and force people to wonder for several sentences or longer whether they're reading the correct article. --Yath 19:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree we need a cogent explanation of this whole issue in the opening. At the end of the day we need to have an opening that makes sense to both our North American and non North American readership, we cant exclude one group while pandering to the other and to include both is NPOV, though I also think the word ganja does appear somewhat similar to marijuana, so we need something much more complex than your proposal, SqueakBox 19:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how this will not make sense to non North American readers especially if it begins with Cannabis, often called marijuana in North America... HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment: Here are several dictionary definitions: Marijuana  These are reliable sources, not blogs; I can confirm that the transcription from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary is accurate; I have it here in my office.  In all of these dictionaries, definition #1 equates marijuana to the cannabis plant; definition 2 narrows it down to just the dried leaves & stalks.  We don't need any more personal opinions about whether this definition is valid worldwide, but I would be interested in a citation from some dictionary somewhere that differs with this.  My strong preference would be the OED, but any dictionary of the English language from any Commonwealth country would be useful. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The current opening sentence mentions marijuana and ganja, which are likely the two most common synonyms used in the English-speaking world. I removed the sentence which seemed to suggest that hashish is called marijuana in North America because hash it suggests that the word "marijuana" is used instead of "hashish" in NA, which is not the case. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm in agreement with the qualification you just added. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh hell, Squeak, we were converging on a good version, and you just changed it to something I can't support.  Marijuana in North America and in many other places is understood as a synonym for Cannabis sativa.  You just edited that out again. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And removing the "in its herbal form"? Its how we deal with cannabis resin that appears to be the sticky issue (lol) here, SqueakBox 20:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem goes away if we take Hashish out of the opening sentence.  We can make a case for marijuana and ganja being synonyms for cannabis in various parts of the world.  Hashish, on the other hand, is the name for a particular preparation, so it should be given lesser prominence. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. i think a l;arge percentage of what is consumed as the drug cannabis is hashish and to leave it out of the new opening is confusing for non North American readers. Where I grew up cannabis was always pretty much synonymous with hashish and I dont believe the UK is substantially different on this than it was a few years ago, or Spain for that matter, and to ignore this in the opening doesnt feel right, but for mwe this has always been at the heart of the issue, SqueakBox 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall reading in a number of reliable sources that hashish production is the largest type of preparation and use of cannabis consumption in the world. —Viriditas | Talk 21:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have long felt that hashish should be merged into this article but I am not convinced other editors would agree, but it really should be here even if we have to take other stuff out (into other articles) to make way for it, SqueakBox 22:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That's very interesting, but it sounds like historic information that doesn't need to go in the introduction. --Yath 00:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it belonged in the introduction, just that it should be noted.  --Thoric 18:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Cannabis has been used for its medicinal qualities for many thousands of years.  --Thoric 18:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As soon as everyone turns their heads we have young kids filling the opening full of their local slang term for cannabis. This was inevitably going to happen, and without commitment from other users to revert back to not using any slang terms I suggest we go back to the pre Angr version, ie just keep it at cannabis and if people are ignorant and dont know that cannabis is marijuana etc, well as an encyclopedia our job is to inform, SqueakBox 17:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha. I see why you reverted. I understand your concern, although the last part of your last sentence contradicts everything that precedes it. Unless you're being sarcastic. Wahkeenah 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: I have added a substantial amount of information on the medical uses of cannabis, so please let me know what you think - ClemsonTiger 20:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we were to have uploaded our consciousnesses in digital form and sent copies to every planet in the galaxy long before old Sol burns us up... but what has that got to do with medical use of Cannabis? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we could mathematically populate a planet from a few people in a few millenia so having billions of trillions of us is mathematically possible but it doesnt have anything to do with cannabis as a drug so should be terminated here, SqueakBox 00:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to spoil all the fun, but you might want to check out the doomsday argument. —Viriditas | Talk 03:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medicinal use 

message: I think the “Marijuana Myths” section my not be totally accurate. Here’s a links that suggests evidence to the contrary  . Also what are your sources for the statement that Marijuana does no damage to the brain? Thanks! 71.112.106.203 05:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you find original research articles to support the claims in that article I will find research on any possible neurotoxicity of tetrahydrocannabinol and post it in its proper place.
Eyejuice 09:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: All of the info displayed on the "marijuana myths" section which now I see was taken down, is available and backed up on this book "The Benefits of Marijuana: Physical, Psychological & Spiritual" by Joan Bello.
Youlookadopted 08:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What sources does he use? Eyejuice 18:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: "In order to release its psychoactive properties hashish can be eaten raw or mixed with water but marijuana will only be absorbed into the bloodstream by blending it with ethanol or lipids."
This isn't true. Marijuana consumed raw will work within anything from 1 to 10 hours, but it does work, and well. Though it bothers me that this myth is still perpetuated, my edit would probably count as 'original research'. 84.53.74.196 17:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oral consumption 

message: The following appears unattributed in the health effects section:
The most consistent believable study results show that regular usage of cannabis has some toxicity to the hippocampus and may interfere somewhat in some short term memory tasks, and so usage with a diet high in neuroprotective antioxidants is recommended (many fruits and vegetables).
I am not aware of any reliable study showing toxicity in the hippocampus - I may be missing something right in front of my face.  I tagged this for citation needed, but my tag got reverted in an unrelated edit squabble.
The antioxidant claim, while making sense, is also unattributed.
These are strong and significant statements and should not appear unattributed.  I do not want to flag the whole section for accuracy dispute, so I am simply going to remove these two statements until citations are given for each of them.  RadicalHarmony 15:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, we need more people removing unverified information from this article. Cannabis is surrounded by bad science and mistaken preconceptions. This article needs to be regularly pruned. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toxicity?  Antioxidants? 

message: Hi, I've inserted this twice, and within seconds it's been removed.  The second time I included a reference to a printed work that says this is true ( where I learned of it ), although even a passing glance should be enough to convince most people this is true.  The second time I added this, the page's history log called my addition "vandalism."  I'm baffled at how anybody could reach this conclusion, but more to the point, I'm trying to add a fact I believe to be true to an article where that fact is worth mentioning.  Perhaps there needs to be a consensus here, on the article's talk page, for others to realize that I'm trying to improve an article that's of great personal interest to me.  This comes from Flashbacks, an autobiography by Tim Leary, who did much research in the tradition of a Harvard and University of California Berkeley professor into the history of ganga, to use at his trial for having possessed the stuff.  I consider this to be a valid source, even if a friendly one, because the man, having earned and handed out Ph.D.s, certainly knew how to do valid research.  SeattleChronic 00:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a citation saying it is Sanskrit for Hemp. Timothy Leary is not really an etymologist. Perhaps we should look at more sources. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that Leary wasn't an etymologist.  But the fact that his research led to this conclusion means you couldn't be more right when you say Perhaps we should look at more sources.  This definitely makes me curious for the truth of the matter.  SeattleChronic 22:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it would be acceptable to add that Leary came to this conclusion and the name of the text in which he mentioned it.  RadicalHarmony 04:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, but alongside the reference to the ancient origin to the term. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you wait for 4:20 to post that?  Cheers!  SeattleChronic 19:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Lol, no that was unplanned HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ganjes river > ganga 

message: Ummm, has anyone taken a good look at the US map of legality?  The caption for yellow (i.e. Arkansas) reads: "States with BOTH rednecks and redneck law."  I'm all for a sense of humor, especially at the expense of rednecks, but this to me smacks of nPOV violation.  Is this how the author made the image or has it been vandalized somehow? User:IrishJew (having trouble signing on) 140.180.166.176 23:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, this map appears without the yellow on the Legal issues of cannabis page.  Avraham 23:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, someone did that as a joke. Now fixed to point to the same map as the page you pointed out. "Irish Jew"? Oy, begorrah! Wahkeenah 23:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  Sorry to hear your ancestors were Protestant, but admitting it is the first step to recovery.  :p Avraham 07:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV map

message: Not an expert at either wikipedia or pot, but in my area we call half of an eighth a "dimebag" or just a "dime."  Two dimes making an eighth and two eighths making a quarter, etc.
I put my comment here rather than changing the page because I am not sure, but I did want to raise the point.
Peace! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.87.40.207 (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dime bag 

message: I removed to section on addiction as it lacked citations and contradicted current research. The article Health issues and the effects of cannabis deals more with this and has the following citation:
"Addiction to cannabis does not involve neurotoxicity such as it was defined in chapter 3 by neuroanatomical, neurochemical and behavioral criteria. Thus, former results suggesting anatomic changes in the brain of chronic cannabis users, measured by tomography, were not confirmed by the accurate modern neuro-imaging techniques. Moreover, morphological impairment of the hippocampus [which plays a part in memory and navigation] of rat after administration of very high doses of THC (Langfield et al., 1988) was not shown (Slikker et al., 1992)."
Please provide citations for such claims, and understand that Cannabis has a lot of bad science attached to it, remember to search for the name of the study to see if it has been debunked(many have). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addiction 

message: I would like to remove the following paragraph:
There is no scientific consensus as to the level of possible harm caused by cannabis consumption. A UK parliamentary commission found it overall less harmful than tobacco and alcohol. The available research has so far made no clear reproduceable conclusive results showing permanent damage of any kind to the brain or nervous system. Whether there is possible damage to the short term memory areas, and the level of harm, has not yet been established conclusively, and some studies point to enhancement of particular types of memory.[1] Clearly cannabis has a complicated effect on memory, but its effects have been shown to vary from case to case, and whether it is in total harmful or beneficial is still unknown and may depend on the user's biology and point of view. What is known for certain is that it has effects on the hippocampus[citation needed] and memory, as this area of the brain has receptors for cannabinoids, both those produced by the body itself, and those consumed through cannabis.
It seems to me to say "cannabis is not harmful, but it is. Studies have shows it to be, but studies have shown it not to be, here's some assumptions that have no citation." The 'information' contained therein seems to be otherwise discoverable from the rest of the article, and seems to have very little actual facual content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sim (talk • contribs) 01:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph does seem to say much without claiming anything. It looks like 80% original research. If you remove it, see if that citation in it has any useful information for the article. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange paragraph 

message: It would be great if you added this (or a smaller portion of it) paragraph:
A 1998 French governmental report commissioned by Health Secretary of State Bernard Kouchner, and directed by Dr. Pierre-Bernard Roques, classed drugs according to addictiveness and neurotoxicity. It placed heroin, cocaine and alcohol in the most addictive and lethal categories; benzodiazepine, hallucinogens and tobacco in the medium category, and cannabis in the last category. The report stated that "Addiction to cannabis does not involve neurotoxicity such as it was defined in chapter 3 by neuroanatomical, neurochemical and behavioral criteria. Thus, former results suggesting anatomic changes in the brain of chronic cannabis users, measured by tomography, were not confirmed by the accurate modern neuro-imaging techniques. Moreover, morphological impairment of the hippocampus [which plays a part in memory and navigation] of rat after administration of very high doses of THC (Langfield et al., 1988) was not shown (Slikker et al., 1992)." Health Secretary Bernard Kouchner concluded that : "Scientifical facts show that, for cannabis, no neurotoxicity is demonstrated, to the contrary of alcohol and cocaine."[9] (from Health issues and the effects of cannabis)
right after this statement:
Cannabis has a complicated effect on memory, and its effects have been shown to vary from case to case. Rats who were exposed to THC daily for 30% of their typical lifespan showed neurodegeneration of the hippocampus, an area of the brain associated with memory and learning.[40] Similar findings in humans have not yet been established, and some studies even point to enhancement of particular types of memory.[41] Additional research has shown that cannabis has neuroprotective effects, further demonstrating its complicated action.
for making the issue of hippocamal neurotoxicity in humans (which does not exist) clearer..
Thanks alot.. 88.154.134.38 18:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! have a nice day everone 88.154.134.38 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It would be great 

message: Please do something about all the NIDA crap that is being put into this article, thanks. 80.178.135.23 16:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it isn't, it is about science, and the studies cited there are no science.. they were conducted with substandard methodology and are obviously biased. 82.81.208.217 19:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, and the new additions to the health paragraph are certainly not sourced from reliable and credble scientific source, check it. most of the studies there have been debunked. 82.81.208.217 19:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: look at this  82.81.208.217 20:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  and this  and this  82.81.208.217 20:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  and it also contradicts some of the much stronger evidence in the oringinal paragraph.. 82.81.208.217 20:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well feel free to change it, SqueakBox 20:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah? and what NIDA is? a neutral researche center?! 82.81.208.217 20:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Peer review? like this? 
 82.81.208.217 20:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you show where these studies have been debunked? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I ask you to look through are archives, some of the citations you are using have been found to have failed peer review, I can dig up the debunking of those later, but I have the flu now, they are in the talks archives. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Should I feel free to remove all the NIDA assertion from the article? Did you evernotice that all the research that found adverse health effects of cannabis came from the united states goverment? 82.81.208.217 21:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is much value in the slow revert, wait till he is done, then we can remove what is not supported by reliable sources. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As I already mentioned, several of these citations have been addresses in the past, you can find the research in the archives. This has nothing to do with smoking pot or not, it is about citations. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Evidently.. If  you actually belive all the stuff you wrote in the article you know absolutely nothing about the phenomenon, and obviously never even saw someone under its influence. Oh, and for god sake would you stop calling it Marijuana!? it's called CANNABIS. the fact that a 'scientific' assey refers to cannabis by a derogatory nickname given as part of a propoganda program only indicates its author's bias. 82.81.208.217 22:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (as to your murder question, why do you think people spend years learning criminology?)
Yeah.. very much involved.. drug cravings and all.. I'm heavily addicted to marijuana, can't live without it 2 hours.. fact is, I havn't smoke cannabis in a long long time (half a year or more), and trust me, I do not have nor did I or any of my many friends have cravings or addiction whatsoever.. it's all propoganda.. we didn't have any adverse effect what'soever, and we smoked for years.. now we are just more moderate.. 82.81.208.217 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: of course it isn't scientific, but if you'll check, you'll see that you can find innumerable people that would tell you the same, and when a scientific study contradicts reality, it is flawed. anyway, you're studies are biased. 82.81.208.217 22:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 82.81.208.217, a person's experience with Cannabis is not relevant as any information drawn from that would be original research. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 13:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do something! 

message: Cancer of the respiratory tract and lungs may be promoted by marijuana smoke.[41] A study comparing 173 cancer patients and 176 healthy individuals produced strong evidence that smoking cannabis increases the likelihood of developing cancer of the head or neck, and that the more cannabis smoked, the greater the increase.[42] A statistical analysis of the data suggested that marijuana smoking doubled or tripled the risk of these cancers.
The first of these studies have been debunked by Tashkin himself  (Evidence appears on the article), the second study is debunked here .
Cannabis has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens.[43] In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 percent to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. [44] It also produces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form, levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells.[45] Cannabis users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking Cannabis may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco does.
This is harshly debunked by these studies:   , again, by Tashkin himself.
:Thank you, I was going to look those up myself. I think it is safe to say we can reject those studies. Unlike most subjects there is very much bad science surrounding this one, and peer review and debunking needs to be taken into account. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 13:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  True.. very true indeed :-)
Some adverse health effects caused by marijuana may occur because THC impairs the immune system's ability to fight off infectious diseases and cancer. In laboratory experiments that exposed animal and human cells to THC or other marijuana ingredients, the normal disease-preventing reactions of many of the key types of immune cells were inhibited.[46] In other studies, mice exposed to THC or related substances were more likely than unexposed mice to develop bacterial infections and tumors
What do you know.. another rebuttal.. ' “There is no evidence that marijuana users are more susceptible to infections than nonusers,”
conclude Lynn Zimmer, PhD and John P. Morgan, MD, in their book Marijuana Myths,
Marijuana Facts (Lindesmith: New York. 1997). They devote a chapter to claims of immune
system damage. Citing over forty studies published in professional journals, Zimmer and Morgan
conclude that “scientists have consistently found no difference in the transformation in T-cells
from marijuana users and nonusers,” and “using other tests of cell-mediated immunity,
researchers have also found no consistent difference in the immune responses of cells taken from
people who use marijuana and those who do not.” '
One study has indicated that a person's risk of heart attack during the first hour after smoking cannabis is four times his or her usual risk.[49] The researchers suggest that a heart attack might occur, in part, because cannabis raises blood pressure and heart rate and reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood
and here we go again: 'This study was presented at the American Heart Association conference held in March 2000, but was never published. An American Journal of Nursing article (April 2001) by Mathre, notes that the study, (Mittleman MA, et al "Triggering of myocardial infarction by marijuana." Circulation 2000:101(6):713; concludes that further study into this possibility is needed.'
now, about the gateway drug thing that he writes there, there is a paragraph for it, and the study already appears there.
about the addiction thing, it needs more looking into, and I got to go now.. but anyway, you can't put into such a (supposed to be) short paragraph such behavioral complexity. see you later, (-: 88.155.49.10 13:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you HighinBC.. it looks much better now. 88.155.49.10 13:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed all the debunked stuff. The NIDA website contained no information to back up the information added to the article. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 13:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  True. and you'd better keep the paged locked, it is and always have been constantly vansalised. 88.155.49.10 13:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: moreover, the bernard coushner report seems to contradict this statement. 88.155.49.10 13:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that these studies are reported by the U.S. National Institutes on Health makes them reliable enough for inclusion in this article. Argos'Dad 22:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  debunked studies 

message: In Europe, there is currently an epidemic of marijuana cut with Taiwanese roadmarking materials, and ground-up glass, silica and sugar. In some areas of France and the United Kingdom, it is difficult to get marijuana that has not been cut with these substances. (March 2007) The health effects of smoking these substances is not yet known, but the French government's health ministry has issued an official warning and has a telephone hotline for people who do use this marijuana, recommending them to see their doctor and have their throat and lungs checked. People have been hospitalized with symptoms such as coughing up blood.
Quote from the UK Department of Health "The Department of Health has recently received information suggesting that batches of herbal and 'skunk-type' cannabis have been contaminated with microscopic glass-like beads (or possibly ground glass). Laboratory testing has since confirmed a number of cases from a number of different parts of the country, in which cannabis appears to contain microscopic particles of glass. We have no information on other types of cannabis such as resin." (March 2007, see link below)
Would someone please help me add something about this? I don't write very encyclopedic
* UK governement official warning <http://www.info.doh.gov.uk/doh/embroadcast.nsf/vwDiscussionAll/297D9740D0412C9D802572650050A4A0?OpenDocument>
* French government warning reiterated by CIRC <http://www.circ-asso.net/paris/pages/alerte.htm>
* UKCIA on hashish adulterants <http://www.ukcia.org/activism/soapbar.htm>
* UKCIA on weed with ground up glass beads <http://www.ukcia.org/library/contam/default.php>
* Images of European marijuana cut with different powdery substances <http://www.droguesnews.com/album-314209.html>
: i've added some info. there's also a stub of a separate article regarding this worrying development, which will either get merged in here, or developed further --Kaini 18:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut gear

message: I have some better pictures of marijuana that are very high detail and resolution. I think I will post them instead of the one on the site. Does anyone have an opinion.
Bold text== Sativa is rope, indica is dope ==
There are three recognized subspecies of Cannabis sativa: Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa, C. sativa subsp. indica, and C. sativa subsp. ruderalis[25]
Where does the link say anything about subsp. ruderalis?  According to the taxonomic treatment that most people adhere to (which disregards the last 30 years of scientific evidence), there are two subspecies of C. sativa and four varieties.  According to this model, so-called "ruderalis" is really C. sativa subsp. sativa var. spontanea.
dghjhjhjhjhjhjhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhjjjjkjkklujgjhyhjhjhjyjyjyjyjhgjhjhjhh
It's ironic that most Cannabis aficionados adhere to this model when its chief architect was overtly biased toward treating Cannabis as a single species because the laws at that time (1970s) prohibited C. sativa, but not C. indica or C. ruderalis.  In fact, he didn't even include any wide-leafed "indica" strains in his studies!  What most Cannabis users call "sativa" is really "indica", and what they call "indica" is something else.  Sativa is the stuff they make rope out of.  GeorgeLTirebiter 03:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please point out the assumptions that you think I am making.  From my perspective those are conclusions that I reached after reading the scientific literature.  What I am saying is that recent scientific evidence shows that the narrow-leafed drug strains (like the Mexican, Jamaican, and Thai strains of the 1970's) and European hemp and are not as closely related as you and others apparently assume.  If that is the case, then it makes no sense to call them both "sativa" (if you don't think industrial hemp is "sativa," then what is it?)  If that is not the case, then what scientific evidence can you point to to support your position?  Lamarck concluded the same thing over 200 years ago and assigned the name C. sativa to European hemp, and C. indica to narrow-leafed drug strains from India, but apparently he wasn't familiar with the wide-leafed drug strains.  Now we know there is this other group from the Hindu Kush.  Does it make sense to call them "indica?"  Like I said before, what most Cannabis users call "sativa" is really "indica", and what they call "indica" is something else.  Sativa is the stuff people make rope out of.  Whether they are assigned to different species, subspecies, varieties, biotypes, or some other category isn't particularly relevant to this discussion.   GeorgeLTirebiter 13:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Pictures 

message: The Health issues and the effects of cannabis article isn't about tobacco, so why is the summary we have here? -- General Wesc 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're objecting to the other article then take it to that talk page. The fact that it mentions tobacco is not relevant. When it does mention tobacco what it says is for instance "Unlike tobacco, cannabis has not been shown to cause emphysema or lung cancer." which is showing it doesn't cause emphysema or lung cancer. Simply using tobacco as an example doesn't hurt POV.Wikidudeman (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find information not supported by it's citation please point out specifically what it is. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Complete rubbish.  Most users inhale it as a combustible substance, which includes Carbon Monoxide and a host of other chemicals.  There is no reason why marijuana would not also cause or contribute to lung disease and cancer.  --Darth Borehd 01:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health issues section is not NPOV 

message: Please dont add slang terms for cannabis to the opening. We could fill the whole page with people's slang but then it wouldnt be either readable or encyclopedic, plus its a violation of NPOV. There are at least 100's of slang terms and the consensus is to only include non-slang terms, ie those used officially, in order to remain within NPOV and not generate problems, SqueakBox 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a suggestion: make a page of cannabis's slang names and make it a new article. That way, everyone would be happy. 24.11.106.133 22:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: edit of my above comment... Also, replace all slang terms referring to cannabis as a drug with one word to make the article more uniform and more believable. 24.11.106.133 23:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slang

message: This page is getting long in the tooth.  I suggest we put it in the Archives and start a new one. GeorgeLTirebiter 11:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and archive it, I can use my bot to make a single page index of all the archives. I do agree with making each archive fairly large, Archive 3 has plenty of room. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have added the archive index, it will automatically be updated as new items are archived. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to archive this page? 

message: If there is a good reason not to keep this article permanently semi-protected I would like to hear it.  It is constantly vandalized.  Why do we put up with this?  GeorgeLTirebiter 16:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a good reason. Anyone can edit a semi-protected article.  Why do you think we have the ability to request semi-protection if we aren't supposed to make use of it?  GeorgeLTirebiter 17:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So do I , but what is ideal in not always practical.  Whenever I post an edit, first I have to examine all those other posts to see if any of them have anything useful to contribute. I have better things to do than be a spam filter for all those irrepressible goof balls GeorgeLTirebiter 19:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support a semi-protection for a few days at this time. I would do it myself if not for being involved in a content dispute. A request at WP:RFPP would get the attention of an uninvolved admin. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have made a request that an uninvolved admin review the need to semi protect this page at WP:RFPP, the gentleman I am currently in a content dispute with has an account old enough not to be effected by this semi-protection, so that is one concern gone. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection requested 

message: It took a lot of deabte to agree to include martijuana and ganja in the opening. Neither is a slang term, the first is the word for cannabis the drug in the US and the second is the word for cannabis the drug in India and Jamaica. it took a lot of effort tor each this consensus, please read the archive before reverting me again annd be assured it was iother users who insisted in putting in marijuana and if it is deleted they will put it in again, SqueakBox 22:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember the debate, I agree, they are good there. Perhaps the citations used in that debate can be used to cite those statements when they are returned. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, especially since they're both well-established terms and we have redirects for both "marijuana" & "ganja" to this article. -- Scientizzle 22:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm off to go be busy in the "real world", but I'd ask you to check out, if you haven't already, Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 3 for the looong discussions that occured on this topic just a couple month ago. Many of your points were discussed back then. -- Scientizzle 23:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think regionalism is very important in wikipedia. Ganja and marijuana are, along with cannabis, official terms, eg those used by law enforcers who certainly dont use slang terms. And it is for this reason that we reached the consensus to include these terms. As for hashish, this is also known as cannabis resin (the legal terminology in the UK where resin is more common than bush), so to describe it as cannabis in resinous form seems enmtirely correct to me given that thisa rticle is about cannabis as drug (which isnt the remit at hashish), ie different articles requitre different descriptions, SqueakBox 23:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You are the only one who has misscalled cannabis cannibas in this section. I'll get some sources. I dont think we are here to prove as if this were a science lab but the fact that so many editors have insisted on introducing the word marijuana in the opening is enough for me, and they ahve endlessly sourced this in the now archived discussion, SqueakBox 01:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do read Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 3#"Marijuana", revisited which took place very recently and just because it is archioved does not mean it is not relevant. its highly relevanyt and indicates that a lot of editors are arguing a different line from yourself, SqueakBox 01:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)I dont believe we contradict the hash article. The hashish article states "The resin reservoirs of the trichomes (sometimes erroneously called pollen) are separated from the plant via various methods." indicating that it is indeed resin which from our point of view dealing with cannabis as a drug, we certainly shouildnt mention the "trichomes" because they are emntioned at hashish (though I have long adviocated merging hashish here), SqueakBox 01:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We are not a democracy but we base our decisions on consensus. And hashish is called cannabis resin, eg . You are ruight that slowly this article makes its way forward and if you delete marijuana someone will replace it soon enough, it always happens, SqueakBox 01:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RE: "slang" vs. "scientific term", in Archive 3 you'll find that I did plenty of searching on PubMed for various terms, and marijuana was very common, often absent of "cannabis" (vice versa as well). I've no opinion either way on "ganja"--it's rarely used in scientific publications--but marijuana is, and should be in that first line...especially since marijuana redirects to this article. -- Scientizzle 03:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged slang

message: This really walks on my nerves that this is considered a good article. Indeed it is one of the worst in the whole wikipedia. Maye throughout editing in time it has lost its cutting edge because people actually change little details and this leaves no space for a good and general view for the user. As a doctor I was really disapointed how useless the part on medical complications was. Drugs with history of less than ten years and usage not at all comparable to a widespread usage of Cannabis are much better documented throughout Wikipedia.
How about some actual WRONG data?
Look at the legal bits... There's a map showing for example it is decrimminalized in Iran. HUH? Are you sure? In iran if police arrests you with half a gram of canabis, you will be fined AND beaten by strap AND go to jail! I guess it is the toughest penalty for it in the world.
Alright, we are all here to make Wikipedia more reliable, but more and more people discussing a page does not necessarily mean it is growing better and better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.15.21.141 (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree those maps are very outdated and based on dubious, or unknown, definitions. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it is fine as it is. Do you have any specific suggestions? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can a good article include totally wrong data? 

message: please outline your reasons for putting on the dispute tag (otherwise my bet is someone will remove it), SqueakBox 01:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant and mean specific examples. Generalisations wont help at all as we dont know how to improve the article in order to get the tag removed. What squatters? I trust you dont refer to wikipedia editors as squatters, see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Certainly cant see what the article has to do with squatters? SqueakBox 01:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. I'm signing off now but will respond in the morning, as I am sure will other editors. I think the more examples you can give the better, SqueakBox 02:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Testerer, you raise some good points.  I went through and edited some of this article so it would be more readable, but tried not to throw out too much stuff because I didn't want to step on too many toes without consulting other editors.  I tried to define the use of the term Cannabis in this article, but met with resistance and I don't want to get into an editing war.  I don't think statements that are undisputed have to be referenced. If you find false or misleading statements in this article, then be bold and change them.  You don't have to ask us for permission.  I agree that those maps are clearly wrong and should be updated or deleted.  There are plenty of references that show Cannabis has been used since pre-history, but the part about it increasing in use in the 20th century is poorly worded.  The statement could be qualified to indicate that marijuana (hashish, etc.) use increased in the USA and certain other countries in the 20th century.  I do not know the statistics.  This article should not focus primarily on the USA, but there do not seem to be many editors here from other countries who can fill us in on the details about other locations.  You are correct that non-authoritative sources should usually not be referenced (I won't say never), unless one is specifically referring to information that appears in the popular literature.  Some of the references are to newspaper articles that report on recent scientific findings.  If an article interviews an author of the scientific report then it can be informative, but in general it is better to reference the primary source.  The journalists who write newspaper articles almost always get a few things wrong.  There was a big splash about Rasta several months ago that fizzled, apparently because the authors released their findings to the press before they were published in professional journals and (I am guessing here) the Rasta claim didn't make it through peer-review.  Thanks for pointing out some of the deficiencies in this article.  Now how about doing some research yourself and contributing to it?  GeorgeLTirebiter 14:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute

message: I see the sentence stating that Cannabis seeds can be openly purchased throughout much of Europe was removed by HighInBC because of a lack of reference.  As far as I know it is a true statement.  Here is one reference:  Baker, P. B., Gough, T. A., and Taylor, B. J.  1982.  The physical and chemical features of Cannabis plants grown in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from seeds of known origin. Bulletin on Narcotics 34(1): 27-36.
Seeds from which Cannabis can be grown in the United Kingdom may be derived from three principal sources: (a) from seed sold within the United Kingdom for fish bait or bird seed...  Seeds sold legally within the United Kingdom have been shown to have poor germination rates ... 
It is my understanding that viable Cannabis seeds can be purchased openly in the UK, but it is illegal to plant them (I realize this is an old ref and maybe things are different now).  Someone told me that Cannabis seeds can be purchased at pet stores in Holland as bird food.  They are even in some bird seed mixes sold in the USA.  I don't know about elsewhere in Europe.  Perhaps HighInBC thinks the sentence was referring only to viable Cannabis seeds of drug strains?  GeorgeLTirebiter 13:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for finding the reference, feel free to re-add the information with the citation. I only removed it as it has been marked as needing a citation for some time. Good work. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannabis seeds  

message: I don't think that because a terminology dispute the whole article should be tagged as disputed.
if you think that there are factual inaccuracies in the article, do fix them. Let The Sunshine In 18:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the tag is not needed. Most of the disputes here are without basis, and the few that are, are being handled very well. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  then remove it please Let The Sunshine In 19:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no room for unreferenced series of studies in wikipedia.. please remove it and state that cannabis temporarily impairs short term memory (i'd do it but the page is locked) Let The Sunshine In 19:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Original reseach? are you serious?! it isn't even disputed. but if you want, I'll give you a link.. Let The Sunshine In 12:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hashish should by rights be merged into this article, IMO, SqueakBox 17:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed? 

message: Over the months people, mostly stoners, added a lot of crap into this article... it requires urgent attention. Let The Sunshine In 15:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with you.  My edits have been reverted in hours and at least a few times within minutes.  I have other articles that need my attention and I am fed up trying to clean up the pro-bias prevalent in the article.  --Darth Borehd 01:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs urgent cleanup 

message: I would like to start  a article on cannabis intoxication but i am not a stoner so i have little idea what its like, so if there are any stoners that could help that would be good.The Right Honourable 09:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very good idea (there is also an article about the psychedelic experience). I'll help if I find the time. Let The Sunshine In 12:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That sounds like more than just cannabis, surely cannabis is what you get every time and mental hallucinations like that are rare, SqueakBox 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I can tell you the only actual scientific study to date was done through a unified effort of UoO and UoW. The only real effect is an acceleration of the metabolism (hunger, fatigue, and bliss) and a layer of THC induced fat that lines the cells of your brain (minor psychosomatic effects in some people). The fat is temporary for anywhere to day to a few months after smoking, depending on your rate of metabolism. All other articles are based off of this research and as with all 'retelling' of stories, they become misconstruded. ~BK 134.39.114.194 17:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cannabis intoxication]] article 

message: Why is a knife considered to be part of the "Variety of cannabis-smoking paraphernalia." I could see scissors, but a knife? Chewbacca1010 18:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe someone uses a knife to finely dice the weed? Babylon pride 23:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The grass? I was gthinking more along the lines of cutting the hashish, SqueakBox 00:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But only a dealer would have the need to do that. Perhaps we should remove the pic? SqueakBox 00:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I regularly use a jack-knife to clean my steel bowls when they get completely full of resin, and know many others who do also -Moss Ryder--71.97.162.13 15:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry but what is a jack-knife? SqueakBox 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agghh! Clever man, its been so long since I've seen hashish I plain forgot about that, though one would need 2 knives, SqueakBox 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What rubbish! The knife is far too big and anyone desperate enought o scrape a pipe for resin knows yoyu dont do so with a knife lol, SqueakBox 15:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lol I love these people.. Let The Sunshine In 12:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One, Squeakbox, I don't think it's right to censor the person. If they want to swear and look like a moron, let them. Especially since they misspelled things. I reverted it. You took out major parts of the comment which isn't right - stupid idiot, for example, isn't something that should be censored. If you really /need/ to censor it, do it with *s. (I mean, we're commenting on a Cannabis (drug) article for crying out loud and with you being the main commenter. I'm guessing you've heard fuck and shit before.) Second, you can scrape a pipe with a knife. You just need to be careful. And it can be that big. Just you use the tip. It's not like a five foot knife. Babylon pride 15:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not censoring, I am removinga personal attack which is policy. Do not re-add it or you could be considered to be making a personal attack yoyurself. We absolutely need a nice atmosphere to discuss things here. Just because we discuss cannabis does not mean we are all tokers etc! SqueakBox 15:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually we do have a no personal attack policy "stupid idiot" is not allowed. This isn't about censorship(that is when someone tells you what you can't say on your website), this is about having basic rules of civility. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: With the tip of the knife you would scrape the tip of the pipe and perhaps the bowl. A needle or ideally a long very thin metal object would be what one would use to clean a pipe, SqueakBox 15:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally would not want to scrape a pipe with that knife, that is not kosher. You would have far more progress with a paper clip unfolded. ~BK 134.39.114.194 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That would take 2 knives and I would wager that kinife in the pic has not been exposed to heat because it would mark the knife, SqueakBox 19:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Knife in the picture?

message: I know a ton of weed users are probably writing up this article but still. This makes weed sound like almost always a good thing. It needs to be balanced, especially since the final word about it has not been made yet. More mention needs to be made of it's negative effects. It's too slanted to the so called "positive effects" or "no terrible effects" of weed. I know there are probably a ton of weed users online but still.
bootleg42 2:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not supposed to encompass all the health effects because it would be way too long. there's the Health issues and the effects of cannabis article. When you refer to the terrible effects, what effects exactly do you mean? can you source them? Let The Sunshine In 12:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are often told this article is bias. But which facts are not supported by citation? Which negative effects can you attribute to a reliable source? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bootleg, you're perfectly welcome to edit the article to include any and all negative effects, so long as they're relevant and you cite reliable sources. Pubmed is a great place to do research. Jolb 18:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been pointed out previously, all attempts to do so in the past have been reverted within hours.  Sources that support the scientific and medical consensus that marijuana, especially in combustible form, is dangerous to human health are straw-manned as "propaganda" by proponents and excluded in favor of the few sources that counter the viewpoint.  I have edited the article in the past including sources from NIDA, the AMA and others only to have the original text re-inserted despite of its flagrant violation of the NPOV policy by the marijuana advocates that monitor it.  Until something is done to reign in the obvious pro-bias in the article, attempts to correct it to a proper NPOV article are an exercise in futility.  --Darth Borehd 01:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I keep hearing people say that, but I don't see this actual scientific research. Sometimes people call up certain studies that have been considered unreliable by peer review, but the studies that are actually supported by reliable sources are already included. The fact is there is a lot of bias, and down right phony research in this field. You can usually type in the name of a study into google and find out what other scientists think of the methodology. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article too bias 

message: One of my friends says it can, but my mum said not to worry about it.  I need to know 82.19.66.37 22:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See all I want you to do is be my love. My love. My love. And I know no woman that could take your spot. My love.--Loodog 00:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can weed affect your love? 

message: The top pic was inappropriate. This article is about cannabis as a drug and as we all know you cant get stoned off of fresh leaf. We need a pic of cannabis as a drug at the top of cannabis as a drug. Feel free to replace what I have chosen but only with something ready for the smoking or oral consumption for guarenteed effect and not with a load of unsmokeable, indigestible leaves that wouldn't get one stoned anyway, SqueakBox 03:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Top pic

message: How about a section about how much weed is consumed worldwide? I was reading the United Nations 2006 World Drug report , and made this map from the usage statistics:
I find some of the statistics in the report dubious, so it would need further explanation. I'd do it myself, but I'm not that versed in the field of statistics. --GSchjetne 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage statistics 

message: Why is this page unprotected? It should be protected from IPs and new users. --Meaneager 16:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have such good faith in humanity we believe new users can add something contstructive to make a better article, SqueakBox 02:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well, good faith only goes so far. the article is semiprotected again now after getting heavy ip vandalism over the last few days. --Kaini 18:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected!? 

message: The first paragraph says, "The official marijuanna day is April 20th."
I'm quite familiar with 420, but can we really say it is "official"?  What office made this so?  How about "The popularly-recognised marijuana day is April 20th"?  That would seem more accurate.
Allixpeeke (not signed in) 136.160.189.197 18:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its clearly not official and I removed it. Would that it were. We get so many days nowadays, workers, mothers, the planet et al but nothing for cannabis users yet. Of course were it legalised it would happen overnight, IMO, SqueakBox 19:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The official marijuanna day is April 20th." 

message: Hi,
I was reading on [this page] about how dangerous it is to eat street cannabis, especially if you havne't cooked it.
"Eating/drinking cannabis can be extremely dangerous due to the presence of contaminants and/or pathogens, given the high possibility of adulterants in imported cannabis, you should really think twice before using a nonsmoking method.
There is no reliable way to clean contaminated cannabis, for example, boot polish will survive and this will screw your liver in no time and may lead to permanent damage. If your grass comes from sprayed crops there's nothing you can do about that. Crops in the producer countries are being sprayed by the US government (and probably by ours as well) with cancer causing herbicides."''
Slighyly worrying Supposed 01:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You havent given us a link but one should always be aware of the danger of contaminants, especially in the developed world. Smoking the glass in the grass isnt healthy either but of course the authorities still refuse to contemplate legalisation of supply though it is the only solution to this porblem, SqueakBox 19:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not really a health effect of cannabis then. If you put shoe polish on potatoes, you get the same problem(thats what you get for buying potatoes off the street). HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eating and the danger of damage to the body from contaminents. 

message: In regards to the "gateway drug" theory:
"Many researchers conclude that this model of behavior has little basis in fact, though others have found veracity in these claims.[33]"
I've examined the citation provided and the conclusion is flawed and heavily biased.  The artice describes a study in which early marijuana use is strongly correlated to hard drug use, but I see NOTHING to establish causation.
To find evidence to support or refute marijuana's role as a gateway drug, researchers surveyed 311 Australian monozygotic or dizygotic same-sex twins who were discordant for early marijuana use.
Translation:  (I could be misreading this; it's oddly phrased) they surveyed only "discordant" youths who were *already in trouble* for early marijuana usage.  They did not attempt to survey marijuana users that kept their habbits hidden and under control (and thus, never got in trouble with their parents or other authority figures.)  This alone completely invalidates their conclusions, I think.
Most twins who reported use of other illicit drugs had used marijuana first. Early users of marijuana were more likely than late- and never-users to use other illicit drugs and to meet diagnostic criteria for illicit drug abuse or dependence or for alcohol dependence.
Their implication (and ultimate conclusion): That marijuana somehow compels the usage of other illicit drugs.
Of course, they ignore the fact that marijuana is extremely widespread compared to other illicit drugs--it's simply the first one they're exposed to, and thus the first one they are able to try.
And I'm sure that youths who are able to *get ahold of* marijuana (I never even saw it until college) are more likely to be able to get ahold of other drugs, too.  I mean not as a general, nebulous "environmental" factor (which they claim to have adjusted for), but as a straightforward matter of "Bob hung out with some potheads, while his twin Jim did not.  Bob was able to buy pot, while Jim could not (and since he lacked the "peer pressure" of Bob's friends, his compulsion to try was probably less.)  Bob eventually met, through his pothead friends and dealers, a crack dealer.  Bob got to buy crack, whereas Jim had never even seen the stuff."
In other words, youths who have the social connections to try pot are more likely to have the social connections to try crack as well.  The fact that they share the same house or genes has nothing to do with it (or please, PLEASE why don't you show me a case study where one of the twins "abused" marijuana and the other never even tried it, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD THE EXACT SAME CIRCLE OF MARIJUANA-USING FRIENDS.  In all of the 300+ participants in the study, I'd wager that never happened once.  The "environmental" factors were NOT controlled for, because the non-pot using twin in all liklihood didn't not hang out with potheads all day long.  In fact, in all liklihood the non-pot using twin is in fact lying, and did at least TRY marijuana but doesn't see any point in admitting it, but that's another problem entirely...)
I guarantee you that if you went out right now and (without any previous experience or knowing where specifically to look) tried to track down a dealer of *anything* but pot, you would run across at least a dozen pot dealers along the way.  (I live in suburbia, so inner-city might be a bit different in this regard.)
In adjusted analyses that considered family, social, and individual factors (including psychiatric disorders, early tobacco use, and early alcohol use), early marijuana use remained significantly associated with higher odds of: sedative, hallucinogen, cocaine/stimulant, or opioid use; marijuana, cocaine/stimulant, or opioid abuse or dependence; any illicit drug abuse or dependence; and alcohol dependence.
Comment: So, does early marijuana use cause later illicit drug use? If the researchers effectively removed genetics and environment from the equation in this twin study, then the answer is yes. 
This is the baseless conclusion.  Control variables do not automagically establish causation.  What the hell kind of teenager goes out into the world and says "I'm gonna get me some heroin!" and doesn't touch anything else until he finally manages to find, buy, and shoot up some H?  The marijuana isn't really a compelling or driving factor; it's merely a natural step along the way towards "harder" drugs (yes, this is my own biased theory--my point is that this study utterly fails to address it.)
The study proved that illicit drug users (and alcoholics) are more likely to have tried marijuana early in life, period, and I don't think that any reasonable, unbiased scientist would agree that it suggests one ounce of causation.
The man was simply drawing unfounded conclusions based on someone else's work.
--Lode Runner 02:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EDIT: I considered the matter carefully, and I guess there are a lot of people drawing unfounded conclusions based on these studies, and I suppose that merits inclusion in the article.  However, I still don't think that the author was directly involved in the study, and I've rephrased the line accordingly. --Lode Runner 02:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the aim of wikipedia, and consequently anyone who edits on the site, regardless of opinion, is to present facts. there have been many studies which have discredited the gateway drug theory, but the fact remains that this theory was a VERY big deal (and continues to be in the more conservative areas of the press), and hence deserves coverage in the most neutral and factual way that we as editors can  manage. [/soapbox] --Kaini 02:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, which was why I ultimately left the citation in.  However, I reworded it to reflect the fact that the researchers themselves (apparently) made no such claim about causation.  I still believe that this one man's conclusions are completely unfounded, but I recognize that it is indeed a "big deal" and the pro-"gateway" theory needs a voice, even if it is a completely unfounded one. --Lode Runner 02:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Good work. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rephrasing"Gateway Drug" B.S. 

message: We have some bogus editing going on here.  Here is what the reference says:
"For some individuals they experience pleasure, about four out of five individuals. But for one out of five individuals cannabis is quite anxiety provoking," says Mallet.
Here is what was put into the article:
Some experience pleasure, but four our of five experience a great deal of anxiety.[50]
What that should have said was "Most experience pleasure, but for one out of five cannabis is quite anxiety provoking."
The person who put this in was so eager to find something bad about cannabis that they didn't even read what it said, and reversed the percentages.  No one said that cannabis is for everyone.  What we are saying is that it should not be prohibited from everyone.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.125.109.133 (talk • contribs).
:I have fixed the statement (after confirming with the source) & unprotected the page. Feel free to correct any other problems you find. Also, please assume that the editor that added the erronious information simply made a mistake--there's no evidence of malice. — Scientizzle 00:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm the one who put it. If you went to my userpage, you'd see that I'm a member of NORML... aka I ENJOY MARIJUANA, and think that others should as well. I want to add more info about "the high", whether positive or negative, and I just tried to maintain neutral for the encyclopedia entry, and I simply misread the source. Thanks for correcting my wording and misinterpretation! - hmwithtalk 16:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad.  I hear that marijuana is the US's biggest cash crop today, bigger than all others combined.  Not sure it is quite that big, but it is certainly the biggest. 199.125.109.60 14:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The High

message: I find this misleading under Immediate effects of consumption - the high:
"Decrease in nausea when administrated orally (used medicinally for this)"
Cannabis can decrease nausea no matter how it is administered (I know from experience)
4.131.36.243 21:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannabis only has anti-nausea effects when eaten?? 

message: There should be a list for street names for cannabis. All I know are: Puff, hash(ish), weed, shit, marijuana, ganja, dope, trees, chronic, grass, hemp, pot-
:That would take up more space than the current article and isnt a good idea, so I have removed said paragraph from the opening. Wikipedia is not the place for long lists of slang terms and the list was transferred to one of our sister projects, SqueakBox 00:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Street names 

message: The suggestion is to move Legal history of marijuana in the United States to 'Legal history of cannabis in the United States.' Opinions are requested, SqueakBox 00:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on [[Talk:Legal history of marijuana in the United States]] 

message: First, let me say I am all for avoiding anti-drug hysteria.  However this article reads like an issue of "High Times."  What about this study that says marijuana smoking may contribute to tumor growth?
What about these references?
Sridhar, K.S.; Raub, W.A.; Weatherby, N.L., Jr.; Metsch, L.R.; Surratt, H.L.; Inciardi, J.A.; Duncan, R.C.; Anwyl, R.S.; and McCoy, C.B. Possible role of marijuana smoking as a carcinogen in the development of lung cancer at a young age. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 26(3):285-288, 1994.
Hoffman, D.; Brunnemann, K.D.; Gori, G.B.; and Wynder, E.E.L. On the carcinogenicity of marijuana smoke. In: V.C. Runeckles, ed., Recent Advances in Phytochemistry. New York: Plenum, 1975.
Cohen, S. Adverse effects of marijuana: Selected issues. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 362:119-124, 1981.
I suppose all these studies are biased.  I am going to commit to come back and work on this page with the intent of having the most accurate article possible.
Ursasapien 07:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marijuana has no carcigenic effects? 

message: Resolved"Botanists have determined that Cannabis is native to central Mars, possibly extending southward into Olympus Mons."
where did this info come from?Yakwhacker
:Vandalism reverted. — Scientizzle 06:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marijuana on Mars? 

message: i've requested semiprotection (again) due to the ongoing heavy anon vandalism this article is currently experiencing --Kaini 17:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  semiprotection 

message: This seems to be "weasel wording" and makes the article inherently biased.  As a matter of fact, there have been zero (0) recorded medical deaths from the use of tobacco.  There have been "medical deaths" recorded for lung cancer, emphysema, heart attack, and the like as a result of smoking tobacco, but there have been zero (0) recorded medical deaths from the use of tobacco.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ?
:You have got to be joking.  Smoking tobacco causes all those things, and leads to what 440,000 deaths a year in the United States alone.  There have been people who have died for example driving while talking on the phone and marijuana was found in their car.  Has any death due to health effects from marijuana ever been documented?  None that I have ever heard.  In The Lancet study three factors were evaluated for physical harm, Acute, Chronic, and Intravenous.  Since neither Tobacco nor Cannabis are taken intravenously they were both given 0 for Intravenous on a scale of from 0 to 3.  On Acute harm, which is what you are referring to, Tobacco and Cannabis both received a score of 0.9, not very harmful.  However, on Chronic harm, Tobacco received a score of 2.9 and Cannabis a score of 2.1, indicating some long term effects of Cannabis, but nothing like the long term effects of Tobacco.  In fact the Chronic harm of Tobacco exceeds all other drugs evaluated.  Heroin came in second with a Chronic harm of 2.5.  Similarly, Alcohol was given a score of 1.9 for Acute harm and 2.4 for Chronic harm, the third highest, behind Tobacco and Heroin.  Alcohol was given a score of NA for Intravenous.
:It is also interesting to draw a circle around the three most common social drugs in the figure shown and note that these fall in the upper left quadrant, i.e. those that are the most addictive and least harmful.—199.125.109.99 (talk • contribs)
::Well, I guess when you phrase it this way, you're saying there's never been an overdose on marijuana.  In a convoluted kind of way.--Loodog 17:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tobacco in the oral form is much more toxic than cannabis and can kill, ie eat a packet of cigarettes and you are in serious trouble, eat an ounce of hash and you'll likely feel ill but you wont die from the toxicity, SqueakBox 17:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you do have a point in  that in the chronic sense tobacco does kill and I am sure so does cannabis, SqueakBox 17:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If so it is a whole lot less than Alchohol or Tobacco.  Just think of the millions of lives that would be saved if people used Cannabis instead of Tobacco. 199.125.109.99 18:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  Everyone in the world should get high and the world's problems are solved.--Loodog 01:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Huh? Find a reference and put it into the article if it is important. 199.125.109.107 21:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There have been zero (0) recorded medical deaths from the use of cannabis? 

message: In the section "Health issues and the effects of cannabis", the chronolgy of research findings were worded to make a reader think that findings linking marihuana use to cancer to be the most up-to-date findings.  It is clear that the original wording does not want to make any light of the latest findings in 2006 by the UCLA Medical Center.  Most of the links pointing to marihuana and cancer risk reference articles linked to the 2000 study by UCLA Medical Center, which has been revised to show that marihuana use does not appear to leave the user at a higher risk for cancer or tumors. --Nly8nchz 07:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical Studies Chronology 

message: There is a theory (of which I am a firm believer) among my friends and family that cannabis (heretofor refered to as weed) doesn't actually make you hungry, but it makes all types of food sound really good. My own addition to this theory is that since weed increases all physical stimulation by tenfold (especially when you start out) that if you are already hungry, it becomes more apparent. So I guess my argument is this: the munchies are mostly psychological, and have very little to do with your actual appetite. My reason for posting this is that I would like to maybe tweak the munchies section, but not without consulting everyone else first. Any and all feedback will be appreciated.  --MKnight9989 13:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Munchies Theory