Talk:Effects of cannabis/Archive 2

message: regarding the disclaimer:
I had made some edits that Smaines felt were too big to make without discussion, and they were reverted.
As a newcomer to the article I felt that the disclaimer at the top was unnecessary, and distracting. Disregarding my previous statement, however factually accurate it may be, the disclaimer uses highly POV language which is unhelpful.
I think the points being made should be wholey contained by the "Legal and political constraints on open research" section
regarding the "Legal and political constraints on open research":
I think haveing this section at the top of the article distracts from the focus of the article. It is important information, but I think it would serve the article better by comming at the end. Thereby making the actual research more the focus rather than the difficulties of research in this field.
Thoughs are appreciated
::Andy 00:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Edits 

message: Does anyone else feel that this title is a bit wordy? Any opinions on whether it should be changed, or what it could be changed to?
how about:
* Medical effects of cannabis
or 
* Medical research on cannabis
Andy 08:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Medical research on cannabis, but it drifts into Medicinal use of cannabis.  The article is presently focused as the health ramifications of cannabis use, regardless of one's reason for using it (and so doesn't talk about its efficacy for particular things, another topic of research).  The driving section is a bit stuck-on, and I think cannabis (pharmacology) should be in its own article (howrealisreal broke it out, then put it back, so we are having a think).  There is a good refactoring opportunity here, but it is complex and must be done carefully. -SM 09:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point, this is what the summary in Cannabis (drug)#Immediate effects of human consumption should be, but isn't. StrangerInParadise 01:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hash is just another form of cannabis.  Cannabis contains a number of cannaboids, not just THC. Anarchist42 19:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: One issue is having a proper balance between Cannabis (medical marijuana movement), Cannabis (medical), Cannabis (pharmacology), Cannabis (drug), and Cannabis (health). -SM 21:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It's very common in the US, actually. siafu 04:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title? 

message: I thought there was plenty for Cannabis (pharmacology), though not all the subordinate articles on cannabinoids had been tied in. The volume of subordinate cannabinoid articles suggest it should be anchored ni a separate Cannabis (pharmacology) article. Also, did you bring the doorstep material in from other articles? I did not like the B&W pictures so much, but I thought we were on the right track. -SM 21:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some things to ponder: I'm not completely sure what you mean by "doorstep material". If you have some things that you think belong in this article, I'd suggest that you just be bold and go for it. On the other hand, the opinion of renaming this article presents a new challenge: do we want to continue to work within the large framework and focus of this article's title, or do we want to break off the material here into other articles with a more limited scope? There is already an article about medical marijuana, and I want to warn against merging too much information that is here with that, since it'll be hard to be taken seriously, and seen as objective, when you're trying to establish health issues and general effects of cannabis while also advocating for medical marijuana. In the same respect, I'm a bit confused about what you mean when you say "subordinate cannabinoid articles" versus  the pharmacology of cannabis since it is those cannabinoids (and related compounds) that produce the biochemistry involved with the drug's effects and health issues. Lastly, the pictures can stay or go, I'm fine with whatever consensus says about that. --Howrealisreal 22:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking out to [[Cannabis (pharmacology)]] 

message: Putting this here for safe keeping Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic StrangerInParadise 00:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smoking and harm 

message: I really do think this article is skewed. It reads like cannabis is harmless and the prohibition is completely political. One thing which I really cant believe is that this article claims cannabis has negligible effects on a users driving ability.
As a regular smoker I know that one shouldnt attempt to drive untill they are certain all traces of the drug have left their system. Is there really anyone who would claim cannabis doesnt effect reaction times?! —This unsigned comment is by 87.232.1.49 (talk • contribs) .
:If you're incredulous, you should read the studies cited.  If you don't think the section as written reflects reality, find some sources to include that take that POV and cite them.  However, you can't refer to your personal experience as evidence here. siafu 00:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Selectively citing information from just the Executive Summary (by no means an accurate portrayal of the entire study) is far from NPOV. I have read almost the entire study in full, and have supplemented your edits to show with greater validity the conclusions and challenges associated with cannabis use and driving. You may feel that having a quantitative value associated with cannabis intoxication is important, but in reality it doesn't mean much because alcohol and cannabis are two drastically different substances. Whereas alcohol intoxication can last hours on end, making individuals at times unaware of the limits on their abilities, cannabis intoxication is not similar:  Drivers "peak" at intoxication an hour after smoking (even at large doses), and are most of the time aware and compensate for their mindstate. While cannabis intoxication clearly changes driving behavior, many times the effects are not always associated with raising the risk of traffic accidents. Thanks for your comments. Regards --Howrealisreal 16:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Pop-eye, I'm sorry if my comment came across as talking down to you. That was not my intention. I was just commenting on how your edits seemed to pay most attention to the impairment in laboratory-based tasks, while glossing over the fact that the study fails to directly correlate cannabis use as a traffic accident risk factor and why. Particularly, the quote in your version that was taken from the summary "Specifically, 4-12% of accident fatalities have detected levels of cannabis..." trails off right after the important next statement that most of those cases have alcohol present as well. Additionally, you also removed a statement from the section that cannabis "intoxicated individuals [tend] to drive slower and more cautiously," which is proven in the study as well. Your edits, although alarming to me, were an improvement in some ways and I'm sorry for not making that point clearer previously. --Howrealisreal 23:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectivity 

message: Please add something about how organizations such as the DEA constantly publish baseless claims concerning the dangerous of marijuana while sourcing back to themselves.
One example..
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html
They make claims concerning the dangers of marijuana while the sources they use don't even support what they're saying.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.70 (talk • contribs) .
:I'm sure someone could, assuming it was NPOV, naturally. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add something about this... 

message: The "July 2006 study by Ellgren et al" seems to prove little beyond what happens when one forces mice to use heroin.  Since humans usually use heroin (and cannabis) by choice, I see no scientific validity in this study's claim of the validity of the (still unproven) "gateway theory". I suggest that we remove the citation as not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchist42 (talk • contribs) 
Intentionally bad methodology is a great way to make a study say most anything. In this subject specifically we must take the methodology of the studies into account. I say chuck it. HighInBC 18:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gateway theory vodo 

message: Hi. I am a user from Germany and i just read this article. I noticed that this artice is, sorry, a bunch of crap.
I think that such a topic should be discussed a neutral way and not as bad as this artice does. 
my two cents, do whatya want, people find out anyways... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.135.150.163 (talk • contribs) 
:Once again, which fact do you object to? Which citation do you not find valid? Do you have a citation that conflicts? Just because the article says something different than you were taught does not mean it is wrong. HighInBC 02:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 163 is having the same problem as 147. 163, please see "Most biased article I've seen" if you're questioning the neutrality of the aritcle. If it's something else please just feel free to say it rather than making random accusations, please~ 74.139.38.43 22:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Although, HighInBC, I agree that the results cited are compelling, that isn't really what we should use to establish the tone of the article. There are many mainstream opinions that we can draw on. Statements from bodies like the CMA or AMA are mostly supportive of legalization, so why not use them? Then the critics will realize that their views have been largely shaped by propaganda, junk science, and compliance with state agendae. In other words, I also support the notion that the article needs further work with respect to neutrality.rmbh 06:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  oh lord 

message: The following link from the largest US Government study ever done needs to be included:
http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncchap2.htm  Marihuana use and its effects.
DEA Judge Young's ruling on medical marijuana http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/YOUNG/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfman97 (talk • contribs) 
::NO IT DOESN'T! US-governement generated science cannot be considered NPOV. It is clearly against the DEA's interests to characterize marijuana as safe (a position advocated by the Surgeon General, who doesn't have a conflict of interest.)rmbh 06:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV is a rule for wikipedia articles, not sources. 68.40.167.60 15:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not true, read WP:Reliable sources#Issues_to_look_out_for, it clearly states that sources that have a bias should be avoided. HighInBC 15:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Link

message: First, there is no drug that will magically give you a craving for other drugs you have never had. That is a belief in witchcraft, not science. 
:Nice straw man. 68.40.167.60 05:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info, the section about gateway drugs in the article seems to mostly deal with the danger to rats. HighInBC 16:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gateway Myth 

message: Come to think of it, that could be a whole page in itself. I only hit the high points in that summary. 
Wolfman97 17:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Come to think of it