Talk:Effects of cannabis/Archive 1

message: I get the impression that Health issues and the effects of cannabis, Medical Marijuana and Cannabis (drug) all represent competing perceptions of cannabis related health issues. Laurel Bush 11:53, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Observation

message: This article is supposed to talk about medical effects which are not disputed.
So, I think a section on dependence is appropriate. I'm working on finding a published study or survey of rehab programs to find out how frequently people enter rehab when their drug of choice is marijuana. It definitely happens. I just want to be able to find a Wiki-worthy source to back that statement up. The fact that a 12-step program about marijuana exists is probably not sufficient, since such an organization isn't medical in nature even though it helps people with a condition that is (dependence).
Stay tuned Beanluc 20:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: SM, I was just wondering if you had any suggested reading I should look at. I've been finding it nearly impossible to find truly objective scientific research about cannabis because of its taboo nature, and the fact that all studies are conducted under the auspices of the federal government. And Don, I am very aware of MAPS attempts to grow better research grade marijuana and study its administration by vaporizers, I'm just not sure where/how to add it to this article. Any ideas? I'm seriously looking forward to more comments from both of you, with Squeak keeping us all in check and looking on, to get this article up to a pinnacle level of validity that makes it the most comprehensive and object resource out there on this topic. --Howrealisreal 14:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added a few points under relevant headings of this page, more later, SM 18:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dependence

message: The smoking section of the article seems to be based mostly on the assumption that smoking cannabis will have effects similar to  those of smoking tobacco. Eg the references to bronchitis and bronchial asthma seem based on this assumption.  I have been led to believe myself that whereas the effect of tobacco on lung function tends to be generally constrictive that of cannabis tends to be much more [dilative]. Therefore cannabis may in fact relieve symptoms of asthma and bronchitis. I believe also that in cases of tobacco addiction smoked (or inhaled) cannabis will tend to dislodge accumulations of tobacco tar. (Possible benefits may depend however on THC content, with low-THC cannabis being useless or worse.) Laurel Bush 16:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible benefits of smoking

message: This chapter, comparing cannabis to legal drugs, was deleted from the World Health Organization report, but later obtained by the New Scientist. The WHO denies that it deleted it due to political pressure. This may shed some light on the issue of respiratory diseases:
:The public health significance of respiratory diseases caused by cannabis smoking is probably greater than that for respiratory cancers. This is so for two reasons. First, respiratory cancers require a greater length of exposure to cigarette smoke (15 to 20 years) than is required to develop chronic bronchitis. Second, there are very few cannabis users who use the drug for more than 5 years. The exposure period for chronic bronchitis may be shorter still among those cannabis smokers who also smoke tobacco since there is good evidence that concurrent tobacco and cannabis smoking have additive adverse effects on the respiratory system. The contribution of cannabis to respiratory diseases is more a matter of morbidity than mortality.
SonicSynergy 03:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted WHO report chapter

message: The article on THC says:
" Other studies indicate a variety of negative effects associated with constant, long-term use, including memory loss, depression and loss of motivation. The long-term effects of THC on humans is highly disputed, [...]"
However this article says nothing about depression, and I can't find any references to studies on cannabis and depression.
It sounds like the THC article needs changing from what you say, as what you have quoted is opinionated rubbish, well not the highly disputed bit, SqueakBox 17:19, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
There are several citations on the efficacy of cannabis in treating bipolar disorder, of which depression is a phase.  Here is one on bipolar  and one on depression .  A common issue is that depression sufferers are self-medicating, and so self-selecting, causing some observers of the correlation to confuse cause and effect. SM 13:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  THC causes depresson? 

message: It's pretty clear that this section needs to be much improved... preferably by a medical professional rather than some pro-pot crusader. Prior to my removal of a paragraph, the section was claiming there haven't been many studies linking pot use to mental health issues. This is false. There are many many studies. As it stands, the section reads more like a list than an essay and the list items don't seem to be the most relavent. Memory and ambition loss are proven results of sustained use of cannibis as is increased apathy. These are perhaps the most serious side-effects of usage and little is said about them. Unfortunately, I do not have as large of a background in this area to have a general feel for the results of all studies. The results of these studies must be reported without bias. It seems to me that the pot pages on the wikipedia have been sanitised by people who justify their own usage with questionable standards of inquiry.
:Please sign your statements.  Regarding studies of the related effects of mental health and cannabis, there actually have not been so many.  Those that have been conducted have had mixed results, though many strong claims have been made by the NIDA, including the recently popular claim that marijuana use causes schizophrenia.  Certainly, there have been studies, however there is not much substantive data either way. siafu 21:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are misunderstanding me.  I have not made any edits to the article section in question. siafu 22:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Effect on mental health section

message: I had done a pretty extensive research paper and presentation about marijuana physiology for a Biology seminar class back in April 2004. The previous state of this article was seriously lacking objective peer-reviewed sourced information, so I did my best to increase the level of validity by integrating some of my work. There's still definitely room for improvement but I think we're now at a better jump-off. --Howrealisreal 17:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an exceptionally good addition to this article.  Perhaps now would be a good time to consider listing for peer review as a first step towards FAC, or is that still premature? siafu 17:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not suggesting making it FAC in its current form, I'm suggesting peer review.  Is that appropriate right now? siafu 17:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised 

message: 1. "Effects on Mental Health" is a vastly better section heading than "Mental Effects".  The former is very clear, Mental Health is very clearly defined, and effects on it can be demonstrated and explained; the latter is rather vague and at best misleading-- is it "effects on mental state"?  "effects cause by mentation"?  "Effects on Mental Health" is something concrete, and is what is clearly addressed by the information in that section. 
2. Timothy Leary's theories on psychology are not widely accepted (or even narrowly accepted).  We don't include statements about using marijuana to enter the spirit world in the article, and Leary and Wilson's theories have no more weight than those.
It would be best to not include this information in the article, and moreover, to not change the section heading on mental health.  This article provides a clear, factual, and encyclopedic discussion of the health issues and effects of marijuana and should not diverge into the realm of crackpot theories and folk psychology. siafu 14:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, while I agree with the first point, that the previous header title is more appropriate, I must say that I'm kinda alarmed by your second contention. Your POV on Timothy Leary is of course valid in your own right, but to generalize and dismiss him and his ideas from this article doesn't seem to be fair. It is not our duty to figure out what material is subjectively valid or not. I have taken both a literature class and a criminal justice class on the undergraduate level that included a subtantial section about Leary, his reasearch and ideaology; He's defintely notable. Even though I might not susbscribe to all of what he believes, I still think that it would be incomplete to write him off as a crazy just because that's how his image is perpetuated today. To make wikipedia the best resource, we may want to include Leary's conclusions, but ensure that readers can get the complete picture about him, and his work, so they can make up their mind on their own. C'est vrai, non? --Howrealisreal 20:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree that the man is notable, just not relevant to this article in the same way that Alister Crowley doesn't need to mentioned in an article about goats.  Timothy Leary's thoeries on the structure of the mind are not accepted in modern psychology, and very much unheard of in the field of mental health.  The part that I labelled as "crazy" (I actually said "crackpot") was the theory, not the man; there I'm not about to speculate.  In short, it's important that wikipedia include the information on Mr. Leary's theories, but in Timothy Leary, not in an article on the health issues of cannabis. siafu 21:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: I'm against using the heading "Psychological effects", especially with "Mental Health" as a subcategory.  IMHO, mental or behavioral health is a more accurate and less ambiguous way to describe both chunks, but it's long enough that it needs dividing somehow.  So, suggestions/objections, before I get bold? siafu 00:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to alter anything you think. I just put that out there because I couldn't think of anything better. --Howrealisreal 01:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, it seems that mental health is in something of a limbo state when it comes to wikiprojects, so that section isn't likely to be affected much. siafu 22:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Heading

message: No trustworthy study has ever shown that marijuana use damages the reproductive system, or causes chromosome breakage. Studies of actual human populations have failed to demonstrate that marijuana adversely affects the reproductive system. Claims that marijuana use may impair hormone production, menstrual cycles, or fertility in females are both unproven and unfounded.
Therefor I request that the "Reproductive Damage" section should either be removed or revised that no trustworthy study has LINKED to repreductive damage
: First off, I agree with you. The relevant section in the article is not entitled "Reproductive damage" but "Reproductive effects". I have added "alleged" to the list of negative effects in the first part of that section to make it clear that these are not empirically proven, while two sourced statements directly proceeding indicate that reproductive damage associated with cannabis use is not objectivly proven at this time. --Howrealisreal 21:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reproductive Damage 

message: I tried to write an intro to the article that brings up the monopoly federal goverment has on marijuana research. I get the feeling now that it may be too US-centric for a topic that is international. --Howrealisreal 18:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks and I'll keep an eye out for other non US examples. Perhaps something from the World Health Organization could be used but on the other hand, that is really just a front for westernized thinking anyway. --Howrealisreal 00:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been several studies centered in Jamaica and the Netherlands, surely we can find some of those to cite? siafu 00:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Reproductive Damage -SM 18:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Thats really funny. I had just finished reading another reproductive research study in Jamaica and just finished adding it to the article without even reading this yet. --Howrealisreal 18:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With further investigation, it seems like the study SM speaks of is related to the one I added to the article so I included the 1994 study abstract to help explain the 1991 study result. Thanks for pointing that out. --Howrealisreal 19:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: I removed an anonymous addition to the article about Cannabinoid Hyperemesis from an austrailian doctor named JH Allen. My problem is with his methodology (as indicated in his report): He found people who had this so-called "marijuana morningsickness" disorder— characterized by cannabis use, vomiting, and compulsive bathing— then had some of them abstain from smoking marijuana to find those individuals to get better. His sample was not random, and thereby does not really prove anything aside from the fact that those subjects that he investigated have some sort of psychological disorder which may or may not be caused or a consequence of marijauna use. It is another example of a researcher creating a hypothesis and then going out and finding subjects that fit that prediction while ignoring everything else. --Howrealisreal 13:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannabinoid Hyperemesis 

message: I am not impressed with So far, no "marijuana only" smoker has been found to have gone on to get lung cancer from their cannabis smoking. The causes of lung cancer in individuals is not always clear, and such a statement is almost certainly not true as it would imply cannabis protects 100% against lung cancer in all cases. Please source the c laim if you want it back in the article, SqueakBox 16:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cancer

message: "Most studies that have taken factors such as age and alcohol intoxication into account have concluded that cannabis' effect on driving ability is negligible, noting in fact the tendency of intoxicated individuals to drive slower and more cautiously."
This seems unlikely. Is it certain? If not, it is highly irresponsible that it appears here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.33.38 (talk • contribs) .
::It is indeed certain.  A recent study (which I don't have bookmarked, sorry) showed that high drivers are 1/10th as likely to be in an accident than drunk drivers, or about the same as a driver who has had one drink. Anarchist42 19:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See this U.K Department for Transport report. The executive summary states: "Most studies report that the majority of fatal cases with detected levels of cannabis are confounded by alcohol... In short, the research strategy to evaluate the effect of cannabis has been piecemeal. Consequently, firm and reliable conclusions cannot be drawn." In Chapter 7 it reads: "The style of driving performance after consumption of cannabis can be interpreted as cautious. Evidence of increased caution includes fewer overtaking attempts, larger distances required for overtaking, slower speeds, and larger headways." Understandably, this is just one source on the issue but I tend to agree with the sentiment that cannabis-only intoxicated individuals will not drive as reckless as those under the influence of alcohol. --Howrealisreal 02:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The bottom line: driving under the influence of anything (including your cell phone or even when tired) increases the risk.  The effects of cannabis are tricky because they are so dynamic depending on the person and the situation. The paranoia aspect is possible, but there's insubstantial evidence to make that connection. The most troubling aspect seems to be that many who happen to be getting into accidents while intoxicated are on alcohol and cannabis. Overall, there needs to be better research done globally to understand this phenomenon. --Howrealisreal 19:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Driving