Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 2

message: Why not add a section containing popular myths. With good source info on why they are not true. Zath42 22:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. --Benna 03:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also like it.  imho even things without good source info on why they are not true might have a place there- eg the sperm count thing, whether we can find sources on that or not.  But my opinion might be wrong, i don't know.  regardless, it's definitely a good idea.   --Heah (talk) 05:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion cant be wrong dude. hold your head high--Matt D 06:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Myths

message: Please see Talk:Cannabis#Etymology redux -SM 07:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymologies out of synch in [[Cannabis (drug)#Ancient history]] and [[Cannabis#Etymology]]

message: According to this article , a standard water pipe filters more THC than tar: Contrary to popular impression, waterpipes don't necessarily protect smokers from harmful tars in marijuana smoke, according to a new study sponsored by MAPS and California NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws). The reason is that waterpipes filter out more psychoactive THC than they do other tars, thereby requiring users to smoke more to reach their desired effect. The study does not rule out the possibility that waterpipes could have other benefits, such as filtering out gases, but it suggests that other methods, such as the use of high potency marijuana, vaporizers, or oral ingestion are needed to avoid harmful toxins in marijuana smoke. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bong article, also quotes this article as follows: "'"It appears that water filtration can be effective in removing components from marijuana smoke that are known toxicants... The effectiveness of toxicant removal is related to the smoke's water contact area. Specially designed water pipes, incorporating particulate filters and gas dispersion frits would likely be most effective in this regard; the gas dispersion frit serves to break up the smoke into very fine bubbles, thereby increasing its water contact area.'" AP 19:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Water pipes effect on tar

message: 172 says
:This is a matter of public health and serious liability for Wikipedia.
An interesting idea that if we don't follow the US gov line on this one the public health of US Americans will be adversely affected and wikipedian will be held liable. Do we have any evidence that freedom of speech is being attacked in this way in the US, essentially making pro-Cannabis sites illegal? If such a thing is happening I must say I am not surprised at all though given that we do stress it is an illegal drug almost everywhere in the opening paragraph I would like to know what more we are expected to do to ensure wikipedia is not held liable for contradicting the US gov in this case. And there was me thinking our job was the simple one of creating the most extensive encyclopedia in the world. To what extent are those who are not US citizens or resident in the US liable if they don't promote the US gov line in this article? SqueakBox 21:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia liability

message: this article needs a map that shows the legal status of marijuana around the world. Revolución 23:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Map of legal status

message: From the article: "Louis Armstrong became one of its most prominent and life-long devotees. Cannabis use was also a prominent part of 1960s counterculture". In Mezz Mezzrows book "Really the Blues" Mezzrow states that Armstrong never touched the stuff. However I do not have the book at hand, and I don't feel confident enough about this, to actually edit the article.
I'd be surprised if Mezzrow was right, since I've read an article that quotes Louis Armstrong as saying something like "We always kept a good amount of food in the studio, cos that herb we was smoking gave you an appetite".
:This question needs to be adequately answered, as I ran into this the other day. —Viriditas | Talk 22:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Louis Armstrong a proponent ?

message: It would be nice to see an explicit link to the THC article early on, and perhaps some mention of the more recent research on endogenous cannabinoids.  Also a reference to the very wide variety of psychotropic cannabinoids in cannibus could be useful, as well as the evolutionary puzzle this poses.
: See Health issues and the effects of cannabis --Howrealisreal 14:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Biochemistry

message: I gave a once-over to your paragraph on potency, but why was is there in the first place?  It didn't seem a large enough topic in the flow of Cannabis/History to warrant mention (too UK, too transient, too isolated from the general point of any of Cannabis reclassification in the United Kingdom, Revolution in cannabis cultivation due to prohibition blowback, or even the prohibitionist  this-isn't-the-pot-you-had-in-the-sixties argument.
Would you consider moving it to Cannabis reclassification in the United Kingdom? -SM
:I am not sure it is UK experience any more. I hear there are a lot of potent strains now grown in Jamaica and other places, different to the past, and I have read that it is very popular in the States so I would rather see it somewhere more universal than a UK based article. I do think it is important to mention these strong strains because they are a modern development that is clealry happening but would happily move the section somewhere else within the article, eg to a ==curremt== section, SqueakBox 04:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Skunk's good (not low grade), but California is known for much better strains.  London Skunk, a a good variety in its own right, isn't so skunky.  Never heard of dunk. We agree on the rather disagreeable prospect of Her Majesty's Cannabis Assay dealing out multiple classifications.  My original point remains: the historic issue is not potency, it's the cultivation revolution.  Do you concur with this?  -SM 15:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potency of Cannabis 

message: How is drug defined here? Is it a proper term? Can plants be drugs? This is what dictionary.com says about the term (dont know if im allowed to post this):
   1.
         1. A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease or as a component of a medication.
         2. Such a substance as recognized or defined by the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
   2. A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction.
   3. Obsolete. A chemical or dye.
Cannabis is not a chemical substance, but a dried or otherwise processed herb. Maybe pure THC is a drug in this sense, but is cannabis? And Im a bit sceptical that a legislative body can define meaning of terms, especially of a US legislative body defining it for the whole world.
Im just asking for the clarification of the term, dont necessarely have an objection to it - that depends of the clarification the term gets. 
-aryah
First, rest easy, the dictionary.com post is fair use.  Second, the word drug is from the Dutch word for "dried substance".  Third, for the purposes of Cannabis (drug), it is only to talk about it as a substance consumed by people which has physical effects. See main article for the different articles in Wikipedia.
Finnaly, the problem is not that lawmakers make their own working definition for legitimate regulatory purposes, but that the regulation- and consequent propaganda- has been so consistantly ignorant and harmful.  Where this starts to get contentious at Wikipedia is the clash over things like drug abuse, where institutions have incorporated literally decades of biases into how they speak of drug use.  Consider the following different semantic maps,
* legal-illegal
* herbal-medical-illegal
* prescription-counter-illegal
* prescription-counter-supplement-abused
* soft-hard-pharmaceutical-herbal-alcohol-caffeine-chocolate-sugar
* medical-recreational
* pharmaceutical-herbal-medical-recreational-entheogenic-dangerous
* (many others possible)
Depending on which map informs ones thought, one is going to see issues differently.  See how often one cannot speak outside ones own map. Since Anslinger, Nixon and Reagan-Bush have welded cannabis to the demonised term drug, it is difficult to talk intelligently to government about it.  Often, drug abuse professionals see no difference between a drug of abuse and a recreational drug, because they perceive no legitimate use outside of medicine, or see legal problems as a sign of abuse, where often the problem is the law doing way more harm than the drug.
-SM 21:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Drug

message: There's one variety of cannabis for personal use called centre (russian центр). It may be (probably is) called something different in English. Preparing in involves running buck naked through a cannabis field. The pollen (maybe resin and other stuff) is then scraped off his sweaty body and dried, resulting in a fine greenish brown powder. It's supposed to be really potent. It's prepared for use by heating it in foil and then applying pressure, after which it is smoked like hashish. Anyone heard of this? Is there a website about it where I could find sourced info to add to the article? --chad 11:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I've never heard of such a thing (and I can't tell if you are joking or not) but it sounds like you are talking about the collection of kief. —Viriditas | Talk 04:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have. I read years ago (but no idea where) it was a traditional method from the Indian sub-continet for getting the very best hashish and I am sure it is true, and Kazakhstan is near enough so presumably it is a quite widespread practice, SqueakBox 14:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It stands to reason that such a substance would be smoked like hashish, since it is hashish.  It's got a bunch of human-originating contaminants in it probably, but it's just hash.24.33.28.52 20:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centre 

message: Users don't report residual high. How is that? Cannabis is physically addictive. How is that? I don't agree with either of those statements, please source (and just because one scientist is claiming these facts are so doesn't make them true. Users do report residual highs and it is highly disputed that cdannabis is physically addictive, SqueakBox 17:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest edits

message: Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.--Fenice 15:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: http://www.kubby.com/Guzman-Cancer-nrc1188.pdf  Has any one considerd the information in this report?? Zath42 01:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Active ingredients, metabolism, and method of activity

message: First should this even be in the "History section"?
Second, the second paragraph, in my opinion, is out of focus of "New breeding and cultivation techniques". Perhaps it could go somewhere else.
Third, the tone of the second paragraph is quite clearly POV. While statements made in the paragraph may be factually correct, the language contains a tone which is inappropriate.
:As a history section, it is very uneven. There is a huge gap in the mediaeval period (including the Islamic world: Sufis, Moguls, Greeks, Ottomans and Egyptians (Mehemet Ali), the Raj.  
:The section New breeding and cultivation techniques is valid in the timeline, but it has had inserted behind it various recent events making a problem of the headings (the medpot paragraph is a keeper, Denver is not).  The revival of prohibition (DARE, CAMP), the cultivation revolution (sinsemilla, hydroponics) and its counter-prohibition blowback (potency, resistance to decriminalization) taken together make for a historic moment.
:Other examples of a historic moment would be Haight to Amsterdam and Medical cannabis. Denver is early: the battle of city vs feds has yet to ripen. Historic moments overlap. 
:-SM 02:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that these are things which would be much more appropriate for a history section Andy 03:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding: 1.3 New breeding and cultivation techniques

message: I feel that it is unnecessary to make an assertion such as "There has only ever been one.." about anything when it would be just as effective and more easliy supported to discuss the matter without the assertion.
Currently it is:
There has only ever been one recorded verdict of fatal overdose due to cannabis, however this finding was found on multiple professional reviews to be "not legitimate".
I propose:
One reported THC fatality was found upon multiple professional reviews to be "not legitimate":
:No. Your version bears the implication that there are others.  There are not, and this is a critical piece of information, therefore necessary to assert: how can you possibly conclude otherwise, when the topic is the lethality of cannabis?! -SM 02:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it possible for anyone to assert absence? Not just in this case but in general. Scientists avoid like the plague categorical assertions. It is better to imply than to make an assertion. Perhaps consider: "There has reportedly only ever been one contended case of fatal overdose due to cannabis, and this finding was found upon multiple professional reviews to be "not legitimate""Andy 03:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point on categorical assertions is well-taken, though Scientists avoid like the plague categorical assertions does border on a categorical assertion. Nevertheless there has only been one recorded case, regularly trumpeted as the first such (perhaps that should be reportedly). BTW, if you have another, please present it: by definition, it is recorded somewhere, and clearly somewhere that ONDCP hasn't found, else we'd have it (this should narrow your search dramatically). You will be a prohibitionist hero. -SM 11:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding: 3.4 Lethal dose (discussion of recorded related event)

message: In the picture at the top of the page, showing a lump of cannabis that looks something like Oscar the Grouch, it is lying on an open page in some book. Does anyone know what the book is, or if it's just where they took the picture? If you do, please tell me at WAS 01:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doping up by the Word 

message: Please see my request, and comment here. I have also requested semi-protection for Cannabis. -SM 17:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have requested and received semi-protection for this article 

message: As an anon, I can't edit the article, so I'll just point out that the "main article: cannabis cultivation leads to a disambiguation page, and should be changed to point to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_%28drug%29_cultivation
*Fixed
Also, I think someone should cite the "not legitimate" quote in reference to the alleged cannabis OD fatality, with one of the bracketed upper index link thingies. The citations for quotes seems to be very inconsistent. For example, in the section "Tolerance, withdrawl, and dreams", this part:
:Although use may become habitual, the extent of physical dependence to cannabis is unknown (DEA, 2004).
has a parenthetical citation, whereas
:A study has shown that holding cannabis smoke in one's lungs for longer periods did not conclusively increase THC's effects[3].
is upper-index cited.
Of course, I may be misunderstanding the format for citing things. Anyways, inter-article consistency goes a long ways towards a professional appearance. Jongpil Yun 06:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor correction 

message: This was added by an anon., take what you will. Makemi 19:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section added to Cannabis (not drug)

message: http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/MironReport.pdf
http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/Up_in_Smoke.pdf?docID=1081
http://sentencingproject.org/pdfs/waronmarijuana.pdf
Some interesting repots, maby beter for the war on drugs, but still canabis spesific.Zath42 20:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's debatable, though I'll throw in for good measure Terrance McKenna's notion that cannabis should be done only every seven days, for similar reasons. StrangerInParadise 23:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reports

message: one thing that pot smokers ought to have given them as a factoid is the issue of Shamanic periodicity. In some Systems, one of the protocols includes a rule not to use more frequently than once every three days. This checks out with simple brain chemistry, thats how long it takes the effected nueral synapses to reload.
To put it another way, Marijuana has a short term tolerance effect,
which is mitigated by refraining from smoking too often. You can't
get as "Hi" if you smoke more often, because there just isn't the nueroelectric energy potential.
Prometheuspan 21:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's debatable, though I'll throw in for good measure Terrance McKenna's notion that cannabis should be done only every seven days, for similar reasons. StrangerInParadise 23:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  periodicity 

message: This is currently a redirect here. I believe we should create a separate marijuana article. It would effect this page as it would mean taking material from here into marijuana. For my reasoning see Talk:Hashish/Archive 1#cleanup tag. The other option woukld be to merge hashish here but the separation of hashish from marijuana with the main cannabis article covering marijuana and not hashish is a flaw in wikipedia that must be fixed. Comments please (won't do it for a bit), SqueakBox 16:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What would go in a potential marijuana article that shouldn't belong in this one? --Muugokszhiion 19:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it makes more sense to cover marijuana and hashish in this article. This article can easily cover all aspects of cannabis as a drug - adding articles for the different forms it takes would likely get confusing and be more difficult to maintain. AP 21:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should not be an article entitled Marijuana.  Although marijuana even appears in scientific papers in the US, it is was a term popularized by racist attempts to demonize cannabis users (see Harry J. Anslinger for more info), which demonization has continued to the present.  The proper term is cannabis, and is common outside the US.  StrangerInParadise 15:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marijuana

message: I need to find something out for a friend and I can't seem to find it in the article itself. The question is: how long does marijuana stay in one's system after use? As in, since tests can detect marijuana in one's hair even if it's been a couple years after last used, approximately how many years will pass until the evidence of marijuana use will disappear?
The solution to your troubles lies --PetterBudt 01:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is chilling when one considers how these tests are often used to establish driving impairment.  For those unfamiliar, to suggest that one should be required to wait a week after smoking to drive is beyond absurd. StrangerInParadise 15:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: a question

message: mention should be made of pot's potential to exacerbate schizophrenia symptoms in those prone to it.  For a real case history of this, read Mark Vonnegut's biography Eden Express.
:See Health issues and the effects of cannabis.  Note also that sativas are said to be more likely to exacerbate schizophrenia, but indicas are said to help. StrangerInParadise 23:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schizophrenia link 

message: If you would like to have this on your userpage, just add  to your userpage, and the box at right will appear on it. Also, if used in your user space, the page will be listed on :Category:Pro-cannabis Wikipedians. If you would like to share it with someone else, type 
Also, consider weighing in on the Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll.
Stand up and be counted while you still can,
StrangerInParadise 20:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Pro-cannabis userbox

message: I dispute the origin of the word "cannabis" from the Hebrew bible.  The word for drug in Hebrew is in fact "samim" but that is not the word used in Exodous 30:23; the actual word found here is "b'samim" which means "spices" and would be detrimental to the meaning of the verse if we mistook it for only "samim." The famous medieval commentator to the Hebrew bible Rashi deems "kneh bosem" not marijuana, but a cane of aromatic spice. I would like this to be changed or deleted from the article if no substantial and reliable evidence is brought forward.
:Notably absent from the discussion of ancient history of the drug is information about the origin of the word "assassin" as a derivation from the Arabic word "hashshashin" which refers to one who is "addicted" to Hash.  You can look it up in the dictionary.  Apparently there was group of ancient Persians who ate "Hash" and who were greatly feared as a gang of killers.  Their fearsome reputation survives to this day in the word assassin.  I think this would be a good addition to the section on the ancient history of the drug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmorford (talk • contribs) 
::Actually, it's mentioned under the "Spiritual Use" section, and again in the Spiritual Use main article. --Rory096 04:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient History 

message: I use pot to treat depression, but lately ive found myself stoned, but still depressed, any Ideas?
Prometheuspan 22:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The best person to ask about depression is a person qualified to diagnose and treat it: a psychiatrist.  IMO, marijuana should not be used to treat a chemical imbalance when there are drugs out there developed for it.  Loodog 22:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have had experience with both marijuana and depression (separately), and I agree that depression is usually caused by your life situation. Unless your depression has been diagnosed as strictly chemical (in which case you probably already have a perscription for it), the real solution is long-term. Personally, I have found that the most significant turnaround in my life was when I was introduced to personal development. I suggest you pick up a few books like Think and Grow Rich, The Purpose Driven Life, The Slight Edge, and The Power of Positive Thinking. Since I have started reading books such as these, my outlook on life has completely changed. I definitely think you owe it to yourself to to spend some time with these books. If you don't know where to start, I reccommend The Slight Edge by Jeff Olson. It's a fairly short book compared to the others, and it's very simple and straightforward. It explains one principle you can start applying in your life today, to create the kind of life you want to have a few years down the road. The book is published by Momentum Media, and can be purchased at http://www.tapesandtools.com/The_Slight_Edge_Book_P440.cfm for just $12.95. Dansiman 05:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: now what?