Talk:Cannabis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

From Talk:Cancer[change source]

11. Marijuana is the name of a drug. It is made through processing the leaves of the Cannabis sativa plant. It is consumed by inhaling or eating it.

12. Marijuana is not a gateway drug, it does not lead to other drugs, and is not mentally addicting

13. Marijuana is not physically addicting because people who smoke cigarettes become addicted where as pot smokers are not.

14. Marijuana is not addicting, therefore it has no withdrawl symptoms

15. Short term effects of marijuana have been known to cause memory problems, and learning problems as well.

16. Long term effects include a lack of motivation, lung problems, problems with the receptive ends of nerves, and increased leveles in stress patterns

17. Marijuana is highly illegal, and if you are caught with it, you can face up to 14 years in jail, or a Huge fine.

18. Marijuana is mainly grown in Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Guam. However people all over the world grown marijuana, legally and illegally. Some do it in closets with a black light, and where it is legal, marijuana is grown in backyards in warm climates.

19. When marijuana is smoked, THC, its active ingredient, is absorbed by most tissues and organs in the body; however, it is primarily found in fat tissues. The body, in its attempt to rid itself of the foreign chemical, chemically transforms the THC into metabolites. Urine tests can detect THC metabolites for up to a week after people have smoked marijuana. Tests involving radioactively labeled THC have traced these metabolites in animals for up to a month.

20. some interesting facts about Marijuana: the brain makes a substance similar to THC called Anadamide. Anandamide is the brains own THC (just like “endorphin” is the brains own morphine). Still, scientists are not sure what the function of Anandamide is in the normal brain. Also, it is interesting to note that there are NO documented cases of fatal overdose produced by marijuana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.10.176.20 (talkcontribs)

I'm insulted sounds like only U.S has tested these experiments as u call them I'm Aussie and don't have any medical downs or disorders. My point at the end of the day I have smoked for at least 15years and it comes down to wat u believe not wat u hear and that it was used for medicinal purposes before any other use or abuse.

Hi I'm 43 year s old and I have been smoken cannabis since age of 11years old I'm an asthma ic I have a bad temper but I haven't hurt any one yet alcohol has know nice thing about it

Cannabis for hemp[change source]

It is not clear for me, why this stub was deleted, not merged in this page comments? --Penarc (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Cannabis sativa Koehler drawing.jpg

Scientific name for marijuana or hemp. It is prefered for hemp the following name C.s. subsp sativa , and for hallucinogen variety C.s. subsp indica [1],[2] A content of 0.3 per cent of THC ((6aR, 10aR)-6a,7,8,10a-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl- 3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran- 1-ol),is licenced for cultivation[3]

Other websites[change source]

ruderalis[change source]

I will translate: this species (refering C. ruderalis) is not yet valid (probably considering Small et Cronquist assamblage)... --Penarc (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Alter Inhalt: '{{SLA|Die Art/Unterart ist nach neueren Systematiken nicht mehr gültig. Aus dem Artikel ist sonst nichts der Übernahme wert, da alles unbequellt ist und somit zu einer weiteren Verwertung nicht mehr taugt

Health Effects[change source]

It appears the "Heath Effects" section in this article is not factual and there is no consensus as to what it should say and if it should even be here. I propose that it be removed until a more acceptable section can be constructed. --EpochFail (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious to how the references are not factual... could you expand? Respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The current citation list for the section includes the following:
  • A political publication: Addiction, Center on; Abuse, Substance (1995), Legalization: Panacea or Pandora’s Box, p. 36
  • Another political publication: "The Marijuana Controversy", Rockville: American Council for Drug Education, 1981
  • A letter to the editor in the New York Times: Nahas, Gabriel G.; Letter, Nicholas A. Pace (1993), "Marijuana as Chemotherapy Aid Poses Hazards", New York Times: A20
  • A book that has long been out of publication: Inaba, Darryl S.; Cohen, William E. (1995), "Uppers, Downers, All-Arounders: Physical and Mental Effects of Psychoactive Drugs", Ashland: 174
Why is it that citations from medical journals are removed in favor of these? --EpochFail (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The medical journal THORAX has some information. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Citation please. --EpochFail (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I also dispute that those are political publications. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
If you can show me a study that they performed themselves and had published in a reputable scientific journal, I'll agree with you. --EpochFail (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I also have some concerns about this article. I'd agree that the American Council for Drug Education is a politically backed organization. Basically the safety of a substance such as Cannabis (which is used both as a recreational drug and also as a therapeutic medicine), needs to focus on multiple aspects of the issue. For instance, smoking Cannabis obviously has health risks associated with the action; although these have not been researched very well at this point. Other safety issues needed to be dealt with are the safety of the constituent cannabinoids. The cannabinoids themselves are very safe drugs. The article also needs to discuss the safety of the drug is various other ways. These include safety to operate machinery, safety in terms of addiction, mental health, memory loss, interactions with other drugs, effect of disease states in people. There is much to consider in the determination of safety for such a substance. We also have to ensure that quality publications are used to support assertions. Many governments have proven to have conflicts of interest in providing drug information and historically many incidents of incorrect information or even straight out lies have occurred. I think, therefore, the article should limit itself to neutral and well know academic publications. Even information from drug advocacy groups is potentially problematic. fr33kman talk 21:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
As a compromise, I will remove the disputed assertion until stronger referencing can be developed. Will this work for you? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done} in rev. 1662151. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
It appears you have re-added a health effects section without discussion. I feel it does not represent NPOV. --EpochFail (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain in more detail why this is not neutral? NonvocalScream (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I think it would be most appropriate to remove it until we have had a chance to discuss it. --EpochFail (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
How is it not adherent to neutral point of view? NonvocalScream (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
"Cannabis can also affect short term memory. With smoking, it can be difficult to remember things." These are the immediate effects of smoking the drug and do not belong in this section. "It may also change the way sperm act." This sentence gives no useful information to the reader. How do they act differently? Why is this part of the essential health information? "Cannabis has many items in it that would cause cancer." So does every plant in the world. This is not specific to the Cannabis plant. Why no information on the wealth of studies that have not found the expected correlation between cannabis smoking and lung cancer? Why no information on the lasting effects cannabinoids have on the mental state of the user? All in all, the section is incomplete, dishonest and uninformative. You should remove it until a better one can be formed. --EpochFail (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(<-outdent): Okay, the simple solution is to use reliable sources. Since this is an article of a medical nature, reputable medical journals should be used. Information from other sources can be included, but if they are contradicted in another reputable source then this should be stated also. ALL assertions MUST be backed up due such citations and anything that is not MUST be removed. This is a well researched topic and we should be able to find sources easily. MEDLINE searches can aid us greatly. If access is needed to full journal articles, I can help with that. Let's work on what we want to say here on the talk page and then migrate it when we have agreement that it is reliable. Note: agreement does not have to on what is said, just that it is reliably sourced. fr33kman talk 17:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the entire section. I will begin citing medical journals, and I intend to cite the positive health notes as well. EpicFail, does this work for you? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good step forward. Positive and negative things can both be said about any subject. For instance, the enwiki article on diabetes contains lots of things I (as a doctor) think are false and ludicrous, but because they are reliably sourced, they are rightly included. I'll be available to help sourced stuff for either of you. fr33kman talk 17:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I think most important is to clarify what reliable sources are. Sources from governments or well known universities are imo reliable sources. Did someone checked if the enwiki version of this article has good sources about this topic? Barras || talk 17:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
On the subject of the health effects of cannabis, many government agencies has shown to be unreliable sources. I know that is a strong statement, so I only propose that when medical research and government agency press releases disagree, the medical research is preferred. The enwiki version has some pretty good sources and information. It seems that the content there could be simplified and brought here. --EpochFail (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

More general comments[change source]

  • Cannabis (Hemp) has been used to make rope, to toe ships, etc

Given the fact above, we might need to mke a difference between the following:

  • The plant itself (and perhaps other, similar ones)
  • Its uses (to make rope, to make clothes, and perhaps a source of fibre)
  • Its health effects (space cake is better because it isn't bad for your lungs)

Of course, if possible, sourcing is nice, esp. good sourcing (scientific publications, government-sponsored information;...)

  • Keep the language good for our audience

But all these comments are probably commonplace; I am stating the obvious. --Eptalon (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

enwiki has a separation between en:Cannabis and en:Cannabis_(drug) in order to draw apart these details. Maybe a similar article split would be appropriate here? --EpochFail (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Health effects[change source]

Part of the section on health effects reads as follows:

"It is a common belief that people who use marijuana are less interested in life and may not want to go to school or work ("amotivational syndrome"). However, many reports show that people who use marijuana do just as well as or even better than people who do not."

I do not have access to the cited studies (which seem old and outdated; are there any newer studies?), but the statement "do just as well or even better" is very vague. What exactly is meant by this, and more importantly, what, exactly did the studies conclude? Kansan (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I also have a question about the sentence "Unlike with alcohol, tobacco, and hard drugs, people who use marijuana can stop taking it when they want, while experiencing only minor withdrawal symptoms." This directly contradicts the previous sentence about it being psychologically addictive. Also, people who drink alcohol in moderation can stop as well, so I think this sentence is directly untrue. Any objections to removing it? Kansan (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)