Talk:Cannabis (drug)

Re: Cannabis ("drug"); hot burning photo deletion

Because the prevailingly misinformed public believes cannabis is a drug, this present title is instrumental in guiding readers to whatever has merit in the article, which has many more hits per day than any other cannabis-related WP source. However, there ought to be discussion, up to and including refutation, of the false attribution to cannabis use of health and behavior issues that arise from grossly improper hot burning use procedures which have been promoted by cigarette industry advertising for over a century and bolstered by anti-cannabis laws which make an easy-to-hide joint safer to possess than easy-to-detect harm reduction equipment.

Opposition to listing, in the photo captions, approximate dosage sizes (in milligrams) that give an indication of the gross disparity between a 25-mg. serving size (as in a miniature pipe) and a 500-mg. serving size (as in a hot-burning joint) appears to be based on the unfortunate fact that to date no studies can be cited addressing this issue or that of burning temperature (which has been found to be up to 700°-C. in a tobacco cigarette; the combustion points of tobacco and cannabis are not far apart). Absence of funding for such a study may suggest that the worldwide tobacco industry has enough power to prevent publication of any findings which would (a) discredit the profitable cigarette dosage size or (b) suggest that a substitution of cannabis for tobacco is in any user's interest.

Therefore the question remains, whether any inclusion of a photo of a joint serves any purpose other than that of advertising spam for the tobacco industry which benefits from the role of the joint in helping orient youngsters worldwide to a mythical notion of the normalcy of a 500-mg. joint rather than a 25-mg. low temperature serving device for cannabis use, from which many "graduate" to tobacco addiction (especially in Europe and the middle East where many are taught to mix cannabis with tobacco in the same joint).

Photos of a joint, including how to make one, are properly included in the article Joint, to which links are presently provided.

NPOV??

While there is some phrasing issues I don't see how this article presents a non neutral point of view. The only thing wikipedia can do about a subject such as this is describe the drug as it stands is society which this article does. However some will never accept this goal. Presenting a non neutral point of view is not difficult there are just too many opinions on this subject to generate a legitimate article free from tags of bias and assertions of other problems.

Schizophrenia link

I think the article should mention and elaborate on the recent studies which indicate a strong link between Marijuana and Schizophrenia

• https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=pw#hl=en&cp=13&gs_id=2s&xhr=t&q=Cannabis+Schizophrenia&tok=W9riYIfeX4apBemZHd70XQ&pq=cannabis+marijuana&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=webhp&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=Cannabis+Schi&aq=0&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=a832e4bee034e5be&biw=711&bih=453
• https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=pw#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=webhp&source=hp&q=marijuana+schizophrenia&pbx=1&oq=marijuana+schizophrenia&aq=f&aqi=g-c2g1g-c1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=80977l82374l3l82736l10l9l0l0l0l7l368l2664l2-5.4l9l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=a832e4bee034e5be&biw=711&bih=453

Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 13:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This is covered in some detail here, Effects of cannabis and here, Long-term effects of cannabis , I would suggest that this article (Cannabis) covers this topic in sufficient detail, however the citations and information from recent studies you mention should definatly be included on those articles regarding effects of cannabis. JamesGrimshaw (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this forum should be opened completely to all, including & especially the regular-users of cannabis (any form). M. Ali — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.255.27.234 (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

a gateway drug?

everyone is different with drugs its not a gateway drug nobody goes and try's new drugs because of weed its because they wanted to try it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.237.11 (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Marijuana is not a gateway drug because there has been no evidence that people who did marijuana were lead to harsher or stronger drugs — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJIT HUMpuneet (talk • contribs) 07:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If you look into the actual statistics you'll notice that more people who have started with tobacco or alcohol end up using harder drugs than those who started with cannabis. Cannabis as a NMDA antagonist painkiller facilitates the withdrawal from opiates. I personally know several people who have used cannabis as GATEOUT drug, to stop drinking alcohol/taking heroin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.82.248 (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

additional info for "Medical use" section

At the end of the "Medical use" section there is a reference to two US Supreme Court cases which seems to indicate the medical use of marijuana is illegal. However, there is another US Supreme Court case not mentioned which i think would bring more balance to this section, City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court of Orange County. Well, that's not an actual SCOTUS case, but the case was appealed to SCOTUS and SCOTUS declined to consider it, letting stand the lower court's ruling which found that its medical marijuana law was not preempted by federal law, and providing a precedence of state medical marijuana law over federal law.

Here is a little about the case on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Senate_Bill_420#City_of_Garden_Grove_v._Superior_Court and some further info: http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/07/scotus-declines-to-review-appeals-court — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.133.113 (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What's in a name?

A quick search of the archives did not turn up any past discussion on the matter, but if I missed it please forgive me. The word cannabis makes me think of the plant from which people derive marijuana, the dried flower parts, and hashish, the plant's concentrated resin. People also derive hemp fiber from the cannabis plant. In other words, distinctive names exist for each of the plant's products, so I doubt that this article's current title is the most appropriate. Since this article describes both marijuana and hashish, but excludes hemp fiber, perhaps we should rename the article to something like psychoactive products of the cannabis plant or psychoactive preparations of the cannabis plant. Thoughts? KLP (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The archives might not be the most straightforward thing to look through, but we'd have related discussions many times before. The cannabis article describes the plant, while this article describes the drug usage of that plant. The basic issue is that this article describes marijuana/pot/weed/trees and a probe through the scientific literature reveals that "cannabis" is the most broadly used technical term e.g. in studies. But that's the point: sources using the term "cannabis" (e.g. "cannabis use") aren't referring to the plant, but specifically to recreational/medicinal uses of it. I appreciate that this might sound like sloppy use of the term, but "cannabis", especially in the scientific literature, commonly refers to drugs made out of the plant.--Louiedog (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I see the logic there, although I am not sure that we should rely on the prose of scientific literature for the title of a Wikipedia article. I would think that it is very clear from the context whether a given piece of scientific literature refers to cannabis the plant or cannabis the psychoactive product. Wikipedia has articles on both. Having the word drug in parenthesis appended to the title of the latter just doesn't feel like the most elegant option, especially when you take the lead into consideration as well:

Cannabis (drug)

Cannabis, also known as marijuana (from the Mexican Spanish marihuana) and by other names, refers to preparations of the Cannabis plant intended for use as a psychoactive drug and as medicine.

This opening implies that the term cannabis primarily refers to psychoactive preparations of the plant when, in fact, the meaning of the term depends very much on context. Now, here is my suggestion:

Psychoactive preparations of the cannabis plant

Psychoactive preparations of the cannabis plant, often referred to as simply cannabis, marijuana, and other names, are products derived from the cannabis plant intended for recreational or medicinal use rather than products without psychoactive uses, such as hemp fiber.

I'm sure that my suggestion requires some improvement, but, more so than the the current opening, it clarifies the use of the term cannabis, delineates between the two categories of products that one might derive from the plant, and provides the context as to which category this article addresses. The remainder of the article can, and should, continue using the term cannabis, per scientific convention and for readability.

With respect to the other ways that we might improve this article, I realize that this issue probably isn't very important. But every little bit counts, right? KLP (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is one of metonymy: "cannabis" both refers to a substance used to get high and the plant it's derived from. Calling this article "Psychoactive use of cannabis" or "Psychoactive preparations of cannabis" has two problems:

1. It creates an interesting contradiction in that "cannabis" as used in this article refers to the psychoactive substance in its many forms so the name would then be at odds with the content, especially when the first sentence says, "Cannabis here refers to psychoactive preparations of the Cannabis plant".

2. It is curiously at odds with the dictionary definition, which states that "cannabis" refers to psychoactive preparations derived from "a tall widely cultivated Asian herb", not to the plant (for which it uses "Cannabis sativa" and "Cannabis indica").

So the most I could support in terms of a move would be to move this article to "Cannabis (psychoactive use)", which would mostly just be a less succinct version of our current article title, while WP naming criteria values conciseness in a title. Other things to take into consideration from WP naming criteria include: (1) consistency with similar articles (see Tobacco or Opium); (2) recognizability, "Psychoactive preparations of cannabis" is not common terminology among users or researchers; and (3) naturalness, which title are readers most likely to look for to find the article? Overwhelmingly, I would expect readers to type "marijuana" (which redirects here) or "cannabis" if they wanted to read about the history, effects, and legality of the psychoactive substance. Moving to "Psychoactive preparations of cannabis" might make things a little cleaner for the editors, but the emphasis is on readers over editors and laymen over experts.--Louiedog (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

DEPERSONALIZATION DISORDER? BULLSHIT

It says there's 3 studies confirming this, but one of them is just a duplicate and the third one has nothing to do with cannabis whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.82.248 (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the studies says, and I QUOTE: "Each occurred in the setting of a stressful life event."

This is a psychological stressor and to assume a causal relationship so quickly is just ridiculous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.82.248 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC) 5

This is your opinion. Wikipedia is not about opinions. Read the articles in full (not just the abstracts), and you will see why they are cited.

No one is assuming a causal relationship. There are many scientific studies which provide evidence that cannabis use can precipitate depersonalization disorder, a permanent condition. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it hasn't happened to tens of thousands of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.77.211 (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

98.216.77.211, your conclusions are not supported by the full text of the studies cited or, frankly, anything else I can find in peer-reviewed literature. Depersonalization is certainly triggered by cannabis use - that WHY PEOPLE USE IT; it is the key psychological effect. Depersonalization disorder, on the other hand, is a long-term condition. The studies you cite, if anything, reflect that long term depersonalization through continuing, habitual use is likely a conscious choice to alleviate the symptoms of other disorders.

I think the conclusion abstract of your own citation says it best [emphases not in original]: "Depersonalization is a common experience during acute intoxication with marijuana, and these cases suggest that after the patients had experienced depersonalization, external stressors and intrapsychic factors may have contributed to [marijuana's] continued use as a defense mechanism." Also, Cohen[1], among dozens of others that you chose NOT to cite, concluded that "Medication-associated depersonalization symptoms typically resolve once the inducing drug has been withdrawn."

While I wholeheartedly disapprove of 80.109.82.248's tone, which is certainly not WP:NICE and maybe not even fit WP:GOODFAITH, I have to agree with his conclusion: At best, this is WP:UNDUE weight and the preceding paragraph covers it adequately with "the relationship, if any, of cannabis use to mental disorders..." Since your conclusions don't seem to be substantiated outside of one very limited, 25-year-old study and one of your own cites contradicts your conclusions, I'd say it probably falls under either WP:OR or WP:FRINGE.

Unless someone can come up with better citations and a REALLY good reason to keep this, I think it needs to go. PS: This is not currently mentioned AT ALL in Long-term effects of cannabis. Even if you do find a reasonable citation, that article will be the proper place for the info, IMHO, not here. Please discuss here and I'll delete after a goodly time for input. And PLEASE sign your posts... Kevin/Last1in (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Merit to mentioning death count or toxicity

I haven't found any mention in the entry that draws attention to the near-non existent death count attributed to marijuana overdoses. This may be an important piece of information to integrate into the article. Perhaps we could site this source, which mentions "cannabis has been shown to be effective for treating nerve pain without the risk of fatal poisoning", or this source, which states "deaths by overdose of cannabis are exceptionally rare. Fatalities happen most often after intravenous injection of hashish oil."

Death rates attributed to overdoses are mentioned in the general entries for other psychoactive and often-illicit substances, such as Cocaine, Amphetamine, Xanax, LSD, for instance. As such, there seems to be merit to integrating it into the entry for marijuana as well. Therewillbefact (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to get input on this before editing the page. Anyone? Therewillbefact (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's try it on for size, I guess. Part of me thinks that the absence of a death rate associated with marijuana is enough, but I suppose that a well written explanation using the sources you mentioned would benefit readers. KLP (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think an explicit note about the lack of toxicity-related deaths is valid and important. I suggest very careful phrasing to avoid edit wars. There are a number of studies that include proposed statistical links with non-toxicity deaths. For instance, a traffic death might be associated since THC appeared in the ME's tox panel; suicide might be related (whether causally or not) since drug use is higher among suicidal teens than non-suicidal ones, etc. Kevin/Last1in (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. We should be clear that these death rates are only associated with overdose. Perhaps we can summarize this text, which mentions "deaths by overdose of cannabis are exceptionally rare. Fatalities happen most often after intravenous injection of hashish oil." I think this unambiguously tells readers that this rate is associated with overdose only. Therewillbefact (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'e gone ahead and made the edit under the Long-term effects section (third paragraph), as it seemed appropriate there. If it could use rewording or moving to another part of the article, please don't hesitate to edit. Thanks, Therewillbefact (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nabiximols (Sativex): is it cannabis in UK law?

I have yet to find any UK government statement that nabiximols is cannabis for purposes of either the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA), where cannabis is class B, or the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 (MDRs), where cannabis is schedule 1, and government departments seem reluctant to respond to freedom of information requests on the issue

Generally, G W Pharma and the UK government are creating the impression that nabiximols is not cannabis, but for MDA and MDR purposes there seems to be nothing else it can be

See also Which ‘Controlled Drug’ is Sativex? at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/which_controlled_drug_is_sativex, Is Sativex cannabis? at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/is_sativex_cannabis and Sativex ingredients at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/sativex_ingredients_2

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has been adbvising since 2003 that 'Sativex' should be in schedule 4 part I of the MDRs

The MDRs are intended to regulate medicinal use of drugs classified as ‘controlled drugs’ in the MDA, and have five schedules, such that the degree of regulation is very high for schedule 1 drugs and very low for schedule 5 drugs

The opiates codeine and dihydrocodeine in ‘undivided doses’ of not more than 100mg, for example, are class B in the MDA and schedule 5 in the MDRs

There seems to be no crime of simple possession for schedule 5 drugs or schedule 4 part II drugs

Laurel Bush (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


See also my Sativex: a new tincture of cannabis article at http://www.spanglefish.com/laurelbush/index.asp?pageid=375588
Laurel Bush (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)