Talk:Cannabis

message: can someone please revert the last three edits made to this article by the user Deisenbe? they've uncapitalised the genus name at various points in the article. the genus is Cannabis and a specific species would be Cannabis sativa etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.200.164 (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 11:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you!! :) 82.3.200.164 (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert required 

message: The taxonomic debate of whether the genus Cannabis is monotypic, or if any genetically distinct subspecies/varieties of Cannabis sativa are recognised, has previously been raised on these talk pages (most recent discussion in 2016, and the issue raised again without response in 2021). 
In addition to the 2021 genomic study provided earlier, the 2023 literature reviews (here and here) and some major taxonomic databases now support a single polymorphic species concept for Cannabis without recognising any subordinate taxa (FNA, POWO, WFO), and others split to ssp/var (CoL/GBIF, EoL, ITIS, NCBI) or separate species based on Hillig, 2004 (GRIN).
Previous discussions focused on renaming C. indica and C. ruderalis as ssp/var. Recent evidence suggests that they are now best considered as synonyms of C. sativa. Should the various articles now be merged to reflect this view?
Pinging previous discussion participants: @Plantdrew, @Peter coxhead, @Nosferattus, @MCEllis, @zzz, @Dennis Brown, @120minutes, @GeorgeLTirebiter, @Chondrite, @Centrx, @Djlayton4, @Simonapro, @Salix alba, @HighInBC. Loopy30 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than merging all the articles, perhaps it would be best to treat C. sativa, C. indica, and C. ruderalis as cultivars. Regardless, we really, really need to update our taxonomy to reflect the consensus view that all cannabis is a single species. Nosferattus (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's becoming impossible to maintain articles on separate species when the marijuana industry (at least in the US) uses "Indica" and "Sativa" with opposite meanings from how botanists have applied the terms. Potential readers are more likely to encounter the industry definitions than the botanical ones. My other concern with the industry terms is that they are used with genetic ratios that are biologically impossible (although this seems to be becoming less prevalent in recent years, AK-47 (cannabis) cites a 2001 source for it having a indica/sativa ratio of 65:35). Plantdrew (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

text: I see that Plants of the World Online now treats Cannabis as a monotypic genus with a single species Cannabis sativa. I think we should do the same. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated taxonomy (redux) 

message: My edit was rolled back by a bot, which was incorrect. It included valuable and highly relevant information, possibly the most notable in the article. It's quite extraordinary that a living organism is prohibited almost globally. There is no country where it is entirely legal, with only 3-5 countries where it is somewhat tolerated (semi-legal). In all other countries, this organism is destroyed wherever it is found. This is indeed something very special and more then noteworthy (central). Helpi679 (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Cannabis has been entirely legal for adults (much like alcohol) in Canada since October, 2018. Thoric (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand, but in 99% of all countries, it's NOT legal. Even in Canada, I don't believe cannabis plants are allowed to grow wild in local parks. So, the plant is illegal there as well. That's the point. The plant itself is banned across the entire planet, and even if there are 2-3-5 places in the world where it's legal or tolerated, it makes no difference.
It's very unusual and abnormal to say "organism xy is banned on the planet," regardless of its use. Think about it: it's a living organism, and this organism has essentially been denied the right to exist. Naturally, it would grow wild and live everywhere. But we don't allow it and instead, we pursue and destroy it. If that's not a significant, major, and unusual point, then I don't know what is. Helpi679 (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I wholeheartedly agree that no plants should be illegal or criminalized. It is a crime against nature, and a cruel and unusual oppression the constitutional rights and freedom of people. This is not limited to cannabis, but certainly cannabis is one of the main controlled substances around the world, thanks to the UN Convention on Narcotics (despite cannabis not being a "narcotic"), which is thanks to the American "War on (some) Drugs". These plants are not criminalized and destroyed because they are deadly or toxic -- there are plenty of highly deadly plants which are perfectly legal to grow and possess, but they are illegal because they are perceived to be a threat to the core industries of Government, Church, and Patent Medicine. These industries are also associated with those relating to policing, national security, law and order, and the industries built around chemistry and petro-chemicals, thus also having a strong connection to the oil industry. It's all connected, and much of the natural world is threatened by extractive and exploitive capitalist consumerist industries and practices. Our entire economy, ethos, culture, and even our state religion is built around this. Any substance which has the potential to encourage free thought is considered to be highly dangerous to the State, and hence why those most likely to encourage free thought (cannabis, MDMA, psilocybin, LSD, DMT, mescaline, Ayahuasca, Iboga, etc) are under the America Controlled Substances Act in Schedule I -- untouchable, forbidden and unprescribable. All the "dangerous street drugs" (such as cocaine, methamphetamine, and opioids like fentanyl) are in Schedule II -- dangerous, addictive, but have a prescribable  medical purpose. Please note that most of the substances in Schedule I are the visionary sacred plant medicines of all the indigenous peoples from around the world. Thoric (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Well, what this article (and ones abut other controlled substances) should have is a summary paragraph stating that Cannabis is a controlled substance, and a link into the Controlled substance article. Thoric (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal Plant