Talk:Cannabis

On adulterants

The article states that glass has been used in the UK to make marijuana appear more potent. It was in fact silica beads, not glass (although this was what was reported initially) and it was mainly added to increase weight and gain more money, not to make it appear more potent. Also, it was and is common in many European countries, not only the UK. Furthermore, cannabis contamination is far more common than this article portrays: most of the hashish and much of the marijuana sold in Europe is contaminated. See this article: http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4907.html

Where does this plant grow these days???

Where does this plant grow these days???? The Wiki article states where it came from (Central Asia, South Asia), but I would like to know where it is these days, and what sort of environments it is capable of growing in. For example, I'm told that it grows in British Columbia but not Alberta (Alberta winters being too cold). And I saw on TV yesterday that California provides the vast majority of the marijuana for the entire United States. Specifically, does anybody know what sort of maximum altitude it has been observed growing at? Also temperature. Also highest northern and southern latitudes. I was under the impression that this is a pretty sturdy plant - sort of like the cockroach of the plant species - is this correct? Any strange places it has been found growing in? (maybe some Pacific Island, etc). Thanks in advance to anybody that has any of the answers to the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.155.51 (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis is quite literally a weed and can grow under most conditions and in most geographic locations. Considering the fact that he can be easily grown indoors, it's safe to say that all continents (with the exception of Antarctica) actively grow it. Dmarquard (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There are videos on youtube which users film that show large, large fields of cannabis growing in places like Austria and Ireland. Tdinatale (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As others above have mentioned, cannabis is a weed and can grow everywhere except harsh arctic regions and deserts. A variety of strains are more suited to more temperate or tropical environments. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis is grow a lot in China, and some in Canada, mainly for seeds (i.e. seeds for eating, for seed oil, for hemp meal and hemp cake, etc.) Hemp for fiber is grown mainly in Eastern Europe and China these days. BTW there's a cool YouTube video of Hmong women making hemp cloth. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Error

If you'll go and look at the Wikipedia page for Cannabis, after citation number 75 it states that medical use of marijuana is not approved for any condition or disease in the Netherlands, while actually it is (since the first of september 2003). The Dutch Wikipedia page says so: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana#Medicinaal_gebruik .

Let me just translate the relevant part:

Since the first of september 2003 medicinal use of marijuana in the Netherlands is approved on doctor's prescription and available in pharmacies. Cannabis relieves people from conditions (Pain for example) in the following list of diseases: -list of diseases-

Canterwoodcore (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.36.17.66 (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC) 

Species

Are there really three species of Cannabis or not? Currently the article states that most taxonomy sources list it as one species. As these are WP:RS we should really follow what they say. This page is probably the most authoritive and lists 2 sub species and 2 varieties - I guess that this is the best one to follow. Also we need to decide whether or not to italicise Cannabis - as this is about a plant genus we should really do so throughout the article. It is a bit of a mess at the moment. I need to do some more edits before I'm allowed to edit it due to semi-protection but I'd like some comments before doing anything. Herbal Hi (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Related to this, we currently have an article on Cannabis sativa but it would seem as though this should be merged into this article. For starters it doesn't really have any different content as far as I can see and if we go with the above source then Cannabis only has one species and so should be categorised under the name of the genus. Herbal Hi (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In truth there is no definitive answer. Some authors say their are three species and other one species with three varieties. Biologically the notion of species is not always clear cut as in this case. The big plant databases are tending to list it as a single species with various subspecies for example ITIS have Cannabis indica as a non-accepted synonym of Cannabis sativa ssp. indica [1]. But some academics are quite reciently (2004) claiming it is better treated as three species[2]

Please read the archives as there has been a lot of past discussion on the topic especially Talk:Cannabis/Archive 4#Taxonomy.--Salix (talk): 18:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Just found a nice Darwin quote No one definition has yet satisfied all naturalists: yet every naturalist knows vaguely what hemeans when he speaks of a species--Charles Darwin 1859. The Origin of Species--Salix (talk): 19:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Herbal Hi: I have recently been in contact with the Cannabis indica "expert" for ITIS, and he informed me that ITIS follows the GRIN (Germplasm Resources Information Network) taxonomic treatment of the genus. If you search GRIN [3] you will see that they now recognize Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis as acceptable synonyms. Regardless of the number of species, I favor merging the Cannabis sativa article in with this one.

It is standard practice in the scientific literature to italicize latinized names. If we do it here it will look more professional.

Salix:See my comment above concerning ITIS. Also, your link to the 2004 study leads to a book published in 1975. Duh'oh!

GeorgeLTirebiter (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

By generaly recognised definitions of species sativa, indica and ruderalis are Cannabis sativa. However I feel it is most important that all sections agree to one system. currently the section on recreational use is using a different classification often used by amature growers, that is actualy incorrect on all counts. It is integeral to ensure that such general ignorance is kept out of these articles. be it that sativa, indica and ruderalis are one species or three they are scientific names and therefore should not be subjected to the whims of slang. (apart from the inability of taxonamists to agree on any one name for more than a century that is)--MarcusHawksley (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging Cannabis sativa into this article, per the reasoning above and the fact that there isn't any content in C. sativa that isn't already in this article. Herbal Hi (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion will end December 19th, 2009 at 11:28 am, (UTC−5)

Support

1. I support this merger proposal, but it should be done with a great deal of care. There is a complex of articles relating to the species and its products, it is all a bit of a maze. Hemp, Cannabis (etymology), Cannabis (drug), Medical cannabis are some of the myriad of topics, some of the facts may refer to a species, subspecies, cultivar or strain. Aspects of Cannabis production and use outlines other topics, lumping them together may be problematic or inaccurate. The plant may be a single species, but an extensive history of cultivation has resulted in forms suited to their purpose; fibre, fodder, etc. This article may require a split to infraspecific taxa or cultivars, and discussion of the changes to infrageneric arrangements. Or perhaps this is unworkable, unverifiable, and RS were always talking about the same thing. cygnis insignis 10:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

1. I support this proposal. They're virtually the same artcle and can be merged. Tdinatale (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I totally agree that the whole area is a maze and that it is hard to find what you want. I found that we have Hemp (disambiguation) but not Cannabis (disambiguation) - should we make this page to allow readers to quickly find each of the main articles, such as those that you list? I think that on this page we should say that taxonomic authorities state that it is one species. It is clear that it has been cultivated for thousands of years to produce many different varieties (similar to in Brassica oleracea) but it still may be one distinct species in the first place. I know of all the problems determining what a species is and I believe we should improve our information on all the separate sub species/varieties/strains. Creating Cannabis (taxomony) may be a good solution to this. Herbal Hi (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

1. I definitely support a merger. Botanists might still need to clarify if the different types are species or subspecies, but for the purpose of this encyclopedia, it is unnecessary to have a page for Cannabis Sativa, because we don't yet have enough detail to make seperate pages also on Cannabis indica etc. All we need is the clarification between Cannabis (drug) and Cannabis (plant).Gregcaletta (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Support Most readers using the headword cannabis will be wanting information on the plant in a drug-related context and so we should merge in Cannabis (drug) too. The dispute about species seems a comparatively minor matter which would be best covered under a title such as Cannabis (taxonomy). Colonel Warden (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose : Since "Cannabis" has multiple possible meanings, but "Cannabis sativa" has only one meaning, a merger is not appropriate. Also, as the Cannabis article itself notes, there are possibly one or more other species in the genus. Without a consensus in the scientific community on that issue, a merger would be premature. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the term Cannabis is unambiguous because it includes all plants within the genus, period, end of story. Cannabis sativa, however, means different things to different people. Cannabis sativa sensu Lamarck, for example, is not the same as Cannabis sativa sensu Small and Cronquist (sensu is latin for "in the sense of"). It is quite possible that there will never be a consensus within the scientific community regarding the species issue in Cannabis, because there never has been, and probably never will be, a consensus on the definition of a species. GeorgeLTirebiter (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I also oppose merger. Cannabis Sativa would be the plant page that distinguishes between different subspecies and primarily deals with botanical information. Cannabis can be like a disambiguation page and link to topics like cannabis drug, cannabis etymology, etc... (also note people are discussing this on the other page Quickmythril (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose: As others have stated, this is still an important ongoing field of research involving plant genetics.--Metalhead94 ^{T C} 19:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose Given the lack of legal scientific research, most info on putative subspecies is based on pseudoscience derived from popular magazines not the scientific method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.154.221 (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand these oppositions. The discussion is whether we have three separate articles on cannabis sativa, cannabis indica and cannabis ruderalis, or whether we instead include information on all three species under the genus of Cannabis. There is a separate article for Cannabis_(drug). Currently the articles for indica and ruderalis both redirect to the article for the genus "Cannabis", while there is a separate article which covers just sativa, where the information almost entirely overlaps the information for the whole genus. I dn't see how it is relevant whether botanists have defined these as three separate species. The question is whether or not we have enough information for three distinct articles. It seems clear that we don't (yet), so it seems to make sense to merge "Cannabis sativa" into this article, at least until we have enough information for three separate articles. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Strong oppose Given that cannabis comes in various forms, including c. sativa, c. indica and quite a few (percentage) combination's of the two species, as well as . Merging the cannabis and c. sativa would be grossly misleading to readers. While they share a common genus name there are various forms of cannabis that exist. In short cannabis is the genus and c. sativa is the species of that genus. Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Strongly oppose Would conflict with wikispecies: [[4]] They have different genetics, different appearances and grow best under different natural light from different climates in different soils using different amounts of nutes and water, they also have different potencies. This cannabis article should mention all three in a section maybe, but should definitely not be merged. Ruderalis, for example is hardly psychoactive and grows like a weed in places like Russia. It isn't as often used as a recreational drug, nor medicinally so would conflict with some of the information given on the cannabis page.--J05HYYY (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral or comment

1. I think we should split off Cannabis (taxomony) leaving a summary section here as there is too much detail for an overview article. I'd also recreate Cannabis indica[5], Cannabis ruderalis[6] and possibly Cannabis rasta[7]. But maybe rename them to Cannabis satevia ssp. indica etc. there is sufficient diferences in the subspecies to warrent seperate articles, these would also provide better targets for those who look for indica etc. --Salix (talk): 19:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Not sure. I've looked at Cannabis#Ongoing research and unless my read was too cursory I'd say it would be a stretch to call this genus monotypic. While nothing seems to be conclusive, there seems to be significant evidence for multiple species. By the way, ITIS is not an especially good source for such matters (although efloras is better and most of the floras there also say one, or 1-2, or 1-3). Now, even if there are (arguably) 3 species, perhaps it would be easier to treat them in a single article (especially given the lack of consensus). That's what I did at Littorella (a much more obscure genus, but one in which people disagree on whether there are two or three species). Kingdon (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Comment/FYI: -- Per WP:FLORA and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants#Plant_article_naming_conventions --

"Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following, as determined on a case-by-case basis through discussion on the WikiProject Plants talk page:
1. Agricultural and horticultural cases in which multiple different products stem from the same species (eg. brussel sprouts, cabbage & broccoli). In such a case, a separate page with the botanical description of the entire species is preferred (eg. Brassica oleracea).
2. Plants which are economically or culturally significant enough to merit their own page, using the common name as a title, describing their use. Example: Coffee. (A) separate page(s) with the botanical description(s) of the taxa involved, using the scientific name, is preferred.
3. Where a genus is monospecific (has only a single species), the article should be named after the genus, with the species name as a redirect. If a family contains only one genus, the article should still be at the genus name, as that is more likely to be commonly recognised."

-- Not sure whether this is likely to smooth or ruffle the waters. :-) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Description

It says "cannabis, like many organisms is diploid...." um aren't all organisms diploid? Tdinatale (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ploidy NJGW (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not always. There are quite a few organisms, especially plants, which are not diploid, particularly if they reproduced asexually. As an example, the bananas you might buy in a grocery store are triploid. Cannabis seeds (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Tdinatale (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It says that cannabis is an annual. Surely, this can´t be right? They grow cannabis as street trees in China, and I seriously doubt they plant new ones each year! My vote goes to "perennial shrub". --Ronja R (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Cannabis seeds talk

How Cannabis seeds are coming!

Cannabis is called in Latin cannabinus

Actually in Latin it's called la:Cannabis. The adjective is cannabinus. --Ioscius ^(talk) 14:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Regions of these plants in all the shops unnd century there will be widespread since user is this plant

in industry or medical!

marihuana seeds —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannabinus (talk • contribs) 11:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

new chart

Here is a new chart of drug dependence potential and active/lethal dose ratio based on well-referenced data.

I think it might be appropriate for inclusion on this page. Thundermaker (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the other chart is nonsense. Relakit (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This chart is interesting, but the caption is not an accurate description of the data it provides. It does not relate physical harm to dependence, it relates the ratio of active dose to lethal dose to dependence potential. This seems to be a comparison of overdose potential to dependence potential, not a measure of physical harm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.194.180 (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

      To follow up, I've just finished reading the cited article, and I can confirm my above suggestion.  This chart is about potential for overdose, not "physical harm".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.194.180 (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 

This chart is inaccurately captioned in the article. Lethal dose is not a measure of the physical harm that a drug causes. This should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.162.150 (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from DuckieRawr, 21 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} For the price of marijuana in Vancouver, BC, the cost of 1 gram is 10$ and 70$ for a quarter ounce. The price dealers buy the marijuana is private. Although I know the dealer's price, sorry I cannot reveal this information. DuckieRawr (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a price guidebook. :)

N Not done ^Avicenna_sis @ 09:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

request to change error by benson12345

In the Taxonomy section there are several mistaken references to cannabis as an intoxicant, however this is a serious error. Cannabis is an antioxidant and contains no toxic chemicals no matter the potancy of its drug form. The euphoric "high" a user experiences is not regarded as intoxication, thus the difference in even legal phrasing, ie. DUI vs DWI driving while intoxicated (alchohol, a toxic chemical) vs driving under the influence (can be anything, wording changed to include marijuana which is not toxic) intoxicants include alchohol, cocaine, heroin, even the ingredients in tylanol.

im requesting for the sake of wikis accuracy that the wording in this section be altered

5/24/10 benson12345 please give feedback

Benson12345 (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Please explain exactly why Cannabis is not an intoxicant? It's an exogenous compound that crosses the blood-brain-barrier and effect central receptors to cause abnormal physcoactivity? -Anderson

Intoxicant doesn't mean its toxic. Relakit (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Orwell would be very proud! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.92.34 (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect spelling of the Hebrew name for cannabis

In the article, the Hebrew spelling of the name for cannabis is listed as 'קַנַּבּוֹס' which reads 'qanas', not 'qanːa'boːs', which is the correct pronunciation.

However, the proper Hebrew spelling of the name is 'קנבוס'

Medical Uses Section

The medical uses section should be pared down to its absolute minimum and redirect to Medical cannabis. It is dense, hard to follow, and full of information that is better covered in Medical cannabis. That way it does not need to be updated twice when there are updates to be made. I suggest bullet points for common ailments to the relevant sections in Medical cannabis :-) Geodanny (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Yowzemz, 4 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Cannabis was manufactured and sold by U.S. pharmaceutical companies from the 1880s through the 1930s. For example, in a 1929-30 catalog, Parke Davis & Co. lists Cannabis, U.S.P. (American Cannabis), Fluid Extract No. 598 for $5 per pint; Cannabis, U.S.P. (East Indian Cannabis), Fluid Extract No. 106 for $36 per pint; and Cannabis (Tincture No. 14) for $3.60 per pint. Cannabis is listed as an active ingredient in Parke, Davis & Company products for cough, colic, neuralgia, cholera mordus and other medical conditions, as well as a "narcotic, analgesic, and sedative." Cannabis, U.S.P. fluid extract "is prepared from Cannabis sativa grown in America. Extensive pharmacological and clinical tests have shown that its medicinal action cannot be distinguished from that of the fluid made from imported East Indian cannabis. Introducted to the medical profession by us." Yowzemz (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 08:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/sbq079 Schizophrenia can be recovered from in five years in 14 percent of people, but they did a study on those with it and the usage of Cannibus.

Malawi

Why is this strain mentioned at the end of the subsection on speciation? It seems irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.34.100 (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.168.75 (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Panic Attack Clarification

Maybe I am confused but when I looked at the two references to this particular line they did not appear to support the sentence “and evidence could suggest that if a user experiences stress, the likeliness of getting a panic attack increases because of an increase of THC metabolites [89][90]." I noticed that reference number 89 is summarized in the first paragraph as "Sydney, Australia: The elimination of the marijuana metabolite carboxy THC is influenced by the body's reaction to stress or dieting, according to a forthcoming study in the British Journal of Pharmacology." and that reference 90 is summarized as such "Acute cannabis use can be associated with the onset of panic attacks and panic disorder, and panic disorder which develops after cannabis use is responsive to pharmacotherapy". The article referred to in 89 is talking about stress and diet increasing the levels of the carboxy THC metabolite in relation to detection times where 90 is talking specifically about the consistent and heavy use of Cannabis by those who already diagnosed with PD or PDA, they are unrelated and it seems that this is purely speculation on the writers behalf. Again maybe I am misunderstanding something.

In advance, I appreciate your response and apologize for the poor grammar my copy and pasting left in its wake.

TriXteR Phillips — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.168.75 (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Reference 95 Broken Link

The link to reference 95 Low-Dose Pot Eases Pain While Keeping Mind Clear, http://www.mpp.org/news/low-dose-pot-eases-pain-while.html, is broken. I went to the MMP.org website and searched, briefly, for the title in the link address and the reference name. Is there any way to get this broken reference corrected? I would love to see the original article but I do not have the time to dig through the site to find it.

Thanks again in advance.

TriXteR Phillips

--72.161.168.75 (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

-

No deletions from Discussion without permission

"The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

I am posting this because an editor deleted an entire section, with multiple editors' comments removed.

"It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards...".

Please follow the basic rule of not deleting "the comments of other editors without their permission."

Thank you.

Misty MH (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• It has been removed again pls see WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:CPI

Scientific classification of Cannabis

I am just a student of Botany, but I'm really sure the Order that appears on the article is wrong.

Cannabis belongs to Urticales Order and not Rosids.

Also, take a look at Spanish wikipedia article and observe the dicotomy of this problem.

Kingfacundo (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Addiction, and Addictive qualities of cannabis and of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)?

Why is there no mention at all of potential addiction?

Or of addictive qualities of cannabis? of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)? of marijuana use? or of hash (hashish)?

No form of the word "addiction" appears in either the article or the Discussion. Very, very strange.

Misty MH (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It is mentioned in passing in the chart File:Drug danger and dependence.png. This is because we have the article Cannabis (drug) that talks about its usage as an intoxicant. This article is about the plant genus in general not the drug its self. Moxy (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY PROVEN ADDICTIVE "qualities" OF CANNABIS! GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.104.193 (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

One of my family members has been addicted for over 30 years. And notice, I didn't say it was addictive. I asked a question about it, and mentioned the potential of addiction. Your yelling and accusation are unwarranted. Misty MH (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Documentary

View documentary on the Marijuana Business: http://wb.vu/93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.249.55 (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Conservation Status

The side panel claims that the conservation status is "least concern". While I'm sure you sourced this from someone it is quite clearly and objectively false. The illegal status of cannabis has led to a massive loss in the genetic pool of the plant. Many of even the common cultivars from only a few decades ago are either completely gone or hybridized with no breeding quality stock left. Pure landrace breeding material is very scarce 97.91.179.137 (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

edit request

the last line should say "one of" not on of:

Popular usage

The scientific debate regarding taxonomy has had little effect on the terminology in widespread use among cultivators and users of drug-type Cannabis. Cannabis aficionados recognize three distinct types based on such factors as morphology, native range, aroma, and subjective psychoactive characteristics. "Sativa" is the term used to describe the most widespread variety, which is usually tall, laxly branched, and found in warm lowland regions. "Indica" is used to designate shorter, bushier plants adapted to cooler climates and highland environments. "Ruderalis" is the term used to describe the short plants that grow wild in Europe and central Asia.

Breeders, seed companies, and cultivators of drug type Cannabis often describe the ancestry or gross phenotypic characteristics of cultivars by categorizing them as "pure indica," "mostly indica," "indica/sativa," "mostly sativa", or "pure sativa."

On of the most popular and potent sativas in Africa is Malawi Gold, locally known as chamba. It is internationally known for its potency and its flavor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.219.6 (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Y Done and thank you very much! – PIE ( CLIMAX )  23:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Missing information regarding autoflowers

Autoflowers are very important type of cannabis with many new growers choosing to try autoflowers before or instead of photoperiod plants. I feel that it is very important that this wiki article contains both a sub section on autoflowers as well as links to the new article on autoflowering cannabis. Autoflower is a search term which is very common and im sure there are plenty of people reading this cannabis article whom are interested in growing them and would appreciate the added information — Preceding unsigned comment added by HomeGrownRx (talk • contribs) 01:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggest merge

It has been suggested that Difference between Indica and Sativa be merged into this article, in the Difference between Indica and Sativa article's AfD discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not that anyone requested comment, but I for one would not object. This seems a good place for such a topic. JonRichfield (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Could we benefit from an article at Terminology of cannabis?
It might reduce confusion due the large number of cannabis-related articles we seem to have, and encompass discussion about sativa and indica differences
See eg precedent of Terminology of the British Isles
Laurel Bush (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)