Please be calm and civil when you make comments or when you present evidence, and avoid personal attacks. Please be patient as we work toward resolution of the issues in a peaceful, respectful manner.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
Psychedelics, Dissociatives and DeliriantsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and DeliriantsTemplate:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and DeliriantsPsychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cannabis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cannabis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Should we have a separate article called "marijuana" that states "marijuana" is just one of the forms of the drugs produced from the cannabis plant. Specifically an article on the dried leafs and bud (flower) of the plant? Sources below:
David T Brown (2003). Cannabis: The Genus Cannabis. CRC Press. p. 48. ISBN978-0-203-30422-8. "THC, in cannabis products varies greatly depending on the type of preparation, geographical source, plant strain, quality and age of the preparation. Estimates vary, but according to Fairbairn (1976) marijuana contains up to 8% THC, hashish up to 14% THC, and hash oil up to 60% THC."
Nadia Solowij (2006). Cannabis and Cognitive Functioning. Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers. p. 18. ISBN978-0-19-513893-1. "the forms in which cannabis is prepared for ingestion, the most common of which are marijuana, hashish and hash oil."
World Drug Report 2009. United Nations Publications. 2009. pp. 97–. GGKEY:05LUB64SA7B. "The term cannabis, however, refers to different types of preparations derived from the plant Cannabis sativa. There are three main types of cannabis products: herb (marijuana), resin (hashish) and oil (hash oil)"
Health Canada "Marijuana, hash, hash oil, and hemp are different products coming from the (cannabis) plant"
Center for Substance Abuse Research) - "Marijuana, the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States, is taken from the leaves and flowering tops of the Cannabis sativa plant. It also comes in a more concentrated, resinous form, called hashish, and as a sticky black liquid called hash oil."
Support - There is no reason to treat the dried whole-flower-and-leaf preparation any differently than the other preparations of Cannabis, such as Hashish and Kief, which all have their own individual articles. Neelix (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose What I find most disturbing is that you have already moved this to Marijuana against a consensus (which I reverted), yet you have mysteriously left out that title in this discussion, seemingly as an end around attempt. I find it insulting to our intelligence. Additionally, you have decided to not list this discussion in any medical area, even though the title of the article clearly states "drug". You appear to be trying to be shaking the Magic 8 ball again, hoping for a new answer, in a method that I find both dishonest and cowardly. I expect more from an admin and others should as well. My reasoning for not starting a separate marijuana article is that it is a slang Mexican word imported by Harry J. Anslinger and in common usage describes the plant as a whole, not just the stuff in a baggie, so it would be in violation of our naming policies. Furthermore, as it is worded, the current RFC is so vague as to not be actionable so whatever name it did take would require an additional RFC, thus the RFC is fatally flawed for not proposing a specific action, nor being listed in the proper areas of interest. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment What I find most disturbing is that you are not assuming good-faith about me and have sloppily assumed that it was I who put in this RfC, instead of seeing that it was Neelix. If you want to refer to it as a drug, then by all means, let's call it Marijuana (drug)...though I am nigh positive that everyone who sees "Marijuana" thinks of the drug already (provided they know what it is to be begin with). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiphradicusEpicus (talk • contribs)
Please sign your posts, I had to dig to find out who this was. And of course it was Neelix that started the RFC. That is who my comment was directed to, not you. I assume everyone understood that except you, @LiphradicusEpicus:. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, okay. No worries! As for the signature...I was sure I had signed it...ugh. I'll be more careful on that next time. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე
Note Moxy has fixed some of the deficiencies in the wording since my original post, but my rationale stands. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Yes marijuana and cannabis are the same thing. Yes marijuana should redirect to cannabis. No we should not begin creating multiple articles about the same thing using slightly different names. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Sources need to be presented in this proposal for this RfC to pass. Thanks Moxy for sharing the link to some sources, but I do not find these persuasive. A succinct argument needs to be made and backed by some sources, which I do not feel has happened. Blue Rasberry(talk) 15:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
They don't teach that in school as far as I know. It was an American that introduced the word "marijuana" into popular culture, and while some may use it to describe the stuff in a bag, just as many use it to describe the plant as a whole, even to describe hemp, "a type of marijuana/cannabis which has virtually no psychoactive ingredients and is grown for fiber". It isn't that it is incorrect to say "the stuff in a bag is marijuana", it is just incorrect to say "only the stuff in a bag can be called marijuana". ie: while most will know what you mean, the slang word is still used to mean "cannabis" in the most general terms: as a drug plant, as a fiber plant and as a drug. Sources bear this out. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with what your saying - as in the term is used for different things. So why don't we have a article that explains all this? We are here to inform people - not suppress the facts because of the terms origins. We should tell both sides...the fact it is used to describe the whole plant by the general population (mostly the USA) and the fact "marijuana" for statistical (labs, police, education) purposes is not the plant as whole but a specific part(s). -- Moxy (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Since the proper name is "Cannabis", then this article should be the place it is explained, as Marijuana is redirected here. I'm not against more information, I'm against misleading information, and saying "marijuana is only the stuff in the bag" would be misleading, even if unintentionally so. It could be argued that "weed" or "pot" only means "the stuff in the bag" (when used in a drug context), but not the term "marijuana". Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I see your POV very well now - and except its a great argument that will lead to just this article. After all this is done would love to work with you on adding content of this nature here. -- Moxy (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I would like to see the topic expanded, including with more articles, but we have to be careful to be accurate. I can envision a cultural article on the history of the word "marijuana" itself, and its introduction into popular culture (a proper fork with more details). And a section here on the uses of the term "marijuana" here. You and I aren't on different sides, we both more more info, we just have to find a way to do it within policy and consistent with sources. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment What content would the proposed new article contain? We shouldn't create new articles just for the sake of it - we're essentially debating WP:WHENSPLIT. Unlike hash and hash oil, the leaves and flowers don't require any processing, so I don't see what could be included that isn't already in this article. Frankly, this RFC just seems to me like a ridiculous continuation of the renaming debate, and this endless arguing impedes improvements being made to the content. SmartSE (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Support & Comment As the editor who started this particular discussion, I will put in my two cents. First of all, to anyone wondering about this proposal...(forgive the caps please), THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION TO MOVE CANNABIS (DRUG) TO MARIJUANA...THAT WAS AN EARLIER RFC/RFM! This is ONLY about the creation of a new article, SPECIFICALLY about the dried flowers and leaves of the plant. I proposed the title, "Marijuana" because of the common name of the dried flowers and leaves; HOWEVER, I do not oppose calling it something else, provided that the "something else" is properly referenced, etcetera etcetera. As I was telling Dennis, if we wanted, we could call it, Dried flowers and leaves of the Cannabis plant...or something to that effect. The reason I put this is because from reading the comments in this section, it seems people are beginning to think that this is yet another RfM to move this page to a different title—and it is not. I personally think that after two [failed] RfM's, the current title for THIS page is just fine. This information is definitely for you, Doc—the marijuana article would not be the same as the Cannabis (drug) article; it would be much shorter, talking only about [ultimately]: how Cannabis is dried, how it is smoked, the penalties for having "marijuana" in the U.S. (and ultimately globally), what the etymology of the word is (thereby moving Marijuana (word)→Marijuana as a subsection), and the effects of smoking Cannabis (not to be confused with using, that's in a different article). That is more than enough information to make a full article, as leaving it all on this page would make for a very awkward, long, section...in which case we should also take away the separate identities of Kief, Hashish, Green dragon (tincture), and the other articles referring to Cannabis preparation. Hopefully now everyone understands this particular RfC. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 20:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose at least until it can be demonstrated that the new article would not be a WP:POVFORK or have a WP:UCN problem. What I could see is if sufficient reliably sourced content were to be developed that shows that this one sub-aspect of the Cannabis (drug) topic has enough to support it as an independent stand alone article, then it could be spun off per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. But, that hasn't been demonstrated yet. Zad68 12:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
You're not sure there might be enough reliable sources out there on the topic of Marijuana to justify an article? You doubt it's WP:NOTABLE and think it would fail WP:GNG? My goodness. What should at least have become clear from the RM debate is that are literally millions of reliable sources for both terms, cannabis and marijuana, and that not everyone believes they mean the same thing. Of course a separate article is justified. Msnicki (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Nope, you're not responding to what I actually said. Zad68 18:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure I am. I don't see how WP:POVFORK, which refers to "another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view" applies. What is this other POV you object to? To make a WP:POVFORK argument here, I think you need to show that the new article would have basically the same content as this one except for that injection of POV. I don't think you've done that. More to the point, User:LiphradicusEpicus has offered examples of exactly the sort of easily sourced content that the new article might contain that probably would not be within the scope of this article. Clearly, the articles would be different.
Basically, it's just not a WP:POVFORK if there are reliable sources for both terms and in good faith, not everyone believes they mean the same thing. That clearly justifies an article on each topic to explain what it is, with all the usual proportionate reporting (not deciding) in each article of any controversies. Msnicki (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose The proposed fork should be a section of Cannabis cultivation and does not require its own article until or unless it becomes a significantly large section which requires expansion without overwhelming the cultivation article with detail. —Sharavanabhava (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Weak oppose-- per someone's previously raised concern about POVFORK. This article (and many related articles) have been subject to POV-pushing in recent history, so better to keep such closely related content in as few places as possible where it can be more effectively maintained. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate Moxy's intentions in amending the proposal, although the amendment conflates two issues separate issues: 1) Should the section about the dried whole-flower-and-leaf preparation have its own article? and 2) Should that article be called "Marijuana"? I think it far more important that we have an article about the dried whole-flower-and-leaf preparation than that we have it called anything in particular. It seems to me that most of the users opposing this proposal are objecting to the title "Marijuana", but the essence of this discussion is the question of whether or not the most common preparation of Cannabis should have its own article just as all of the other preparations of Cannabis have their own articles. Neelix (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
If you aren't going to call it "marijuana", what would you call it? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
This is what we are asking (specifically you, Dennis). What would you like us to call it?! Ha ha! მაLiphradicusEpicusთე
My oppose above should make it clear that I don't see a need for a separate article to begin with. This article is already designed to cover cannabis that doesn't have the more sophisticated preparation as to render it a unique product. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
But Dennis, there is a preparation required! You can't just whack off a branch and light it up! You have to dry it out—with care—then weight it out. You have to take out the seeds and stems, and package it. I can promise you that there is a ton of information about this that can easily make its own article. In fact, it would be a longer article than Kief! მაLiphradicusEpicusთე
Wikipedia is not a how to guide, so we don't focus an article on how to cure cannabis. This is what I'm talking about, the reasons you keep giving for the article are de jure reasons to not have the article, according to policy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I did not say a "how to guide"...I am referring to an encyclopedic, informative article with facts about the dried up variety of Cannabis. It could be implemented into this page, but if we did that, then it would only be logical to compress all the articles on the preparation of Cannabis into this one page. Have you seen how short those articles are? They are barely more than stubs as it is. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე
That's already covered in Cannabis cultivation (cannabis production would probably be a better title for it, since it covers more than just growing it). SmartSE (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
By the way, as it is, our policy states that, "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept." This is a
LE (based on diffs), you are trying to find a way to "win", and as I said, that isn't how discussions work at Wikipedia. No consensus means that status quo is kept, but that doesn't matter. The point isn't winning or losing, it is finding a path forward to provide the most info within policy, not to keep score and one-up someone. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Then let me phrase it this way: why delete a new article whenever it is the expansion of a small stub of knowledge in the main article? Are we not here to give out information? მაLiphradicusEpicusთე
You're just being argumentative. The rationales are all posted clearly above. There is more to policy than a topic passing WP:GNG and having a bunch of sources, A host of other policies come into play, many of which have already been explained and linked above. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Pot. Kettle. Black. This from the editor who argued, "You appear to be trying to be shaking the Magic 8 ball again, hoping for a new answer, in a method that I find both dishonest and cowardly. I expect more from an admin and others should as well." This reads more like brazen personal attack than a "host of other policies." Msnicki (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
You might want to go back and see what the RFC looked like when I posted that. Moxy changed it. And there has been several attempts, so yes, this does look like an end around attempt considering the attempts keep coming. That isn't looking for an consensus or compromise answer, that looks like trying to have it your own way, keep shaking that 8 ball. That isn't commenting on someone's character, it is commenting on their methods. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
It's also questioning their good faith and it's unnecessary. Anyway, we decide things based on guidelines and consensus. Most of us are anonymous and anyone on the planet is free join the discussion and offer an opinion. Better to deal with someone's arguments rather than speculate why they made them. Their motives and suspected secret agendas don't make their arguments one bit better or worse. Msnicki (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment I guess I'll just be dropping out of this discussion, as it turned into an argument...I guess we will not get a consensus; at least not enough of one to make a new article from the stub. Maybe this stuff is best covered elsewhere—but I never dreamed that expanding a stub into an article would meet such fierce resistance. If someone is so heart-set on keeping an article out of the encyclopedia, then so be it; I will simply leave, my interference is done. I shall be improving th other articles. Thank you. For those of you still interested and here, should you gain consensus for the new article, I will be more than happy to re-instate the information I had previously given. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 20:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I have added the globalize template to this section. While it is true that cannabis is generally illegal worldwide (vis a vis the UN) the hardships of US researchers do not reflect global cannabis research. This section could be improved by focusing less on the US and more on others. For example Israel.
Feel free to fix. The fact that it is illegal in many areas makes it difficult to study in many countries not just the USA.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The claims are mostly an U.S. issue. Studies have been made in several counties in the European Union, I have never seen any complains that it blocked studies in the EU.Dala11a (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
This article doesn't cover what's colloquially known as a "bad high", a reaction to cannabis consumption involving intense anxiety, paranoia, derealization, and depersonalization. It was my most recent experience with the drug, prompting me to kick it for good, and my impression is that it isn't rare. Is there any reliable medical literature on the subject? Tezero (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Ljgua124 moved the history section to the beginning of the article in this edit. Jmh649reverted with the edit summary, "Moved back per WP:MEDMOS.". I could find no indication in MEDMOS that any particular order is specified and asked on his talk page why he felt that guideline applied. I waited 3.5 hours for the first reply and another hour for additional followup in a second reply. So far as I can tell, he cannot cite any part of MEDMOS that specifies the ordering and pointed out that in those articles which include a History section, that section is usually near the top and advised him that I would be reverting him and taking it to the talk page.
Based on that, I reverted with the edit summary, "WP:MEDMOS was incorrectly cited in Jmh649's revert. It does not offer guidance on where the history section should go. Please see talk page." I then came here to write this section. Before I could finish, Jmh649 reverted me, again incorrectly citing "Restored per WP:MEDMOS." I reverted him, he reverted me again (using his WP:3RR) and I have reverted him again (using up my WP:3RR). I think he could have waited for me to finish my comments here. Msnicki (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes per WP:MEDMOS the usual ordering of sections is with the history section near the bottom of the article and the health effects section coming first. One can look at FA to see this pattern. There is no consensus for this change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Should not be first as per the norm here (effects/Usage always first in drug articles). We actually talked about removing the section all together or at the very lest trimming it down. Should be restored to stable version as per other drug articles like Lysergic acid diethylamide etc....-- Moxy (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The disambiguation notwithstanding, I don't believe this is like "other drug articles". If this were an article about a pharmaceutical product like Sativex or even just about a chemical compound used as a druge, I think you'd have a point. But it's not. The topic at hand encompasses a lot more and should follow more traditional ordering, where history is near the top. Msnicki (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there is any consensus. For now, it appears to be split. This is a matter that should be settled by discussion, not by edit warring. I gave you a chance to explain your reasons and you don't have any. MEDMOS does not specify an ordering. Period. It just doesn't. And I'm not sure it would apply even if it did specify an ordering given that the content in this article doesn't look at all like the sort of traditional medical article seemingly envisioned by the list of topics at WP:MEDMOS#Drugs, medications and devices you cited on your talk page. Msnicki (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah so cannabis (drug) is not a drug? And "The given order of sections is also encouraged" says nothing about ordering of sections? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
You're selectively quoting. Here's the rest of it: "... but may be varied, particularly if that helps your article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition. Do not discourage potential readers by placing a highly technical section near the start of your article."Msnicki (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure and that does not really change anything. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Might I add that other drug articles, such as Psilocybin mushroom referring to the drug have the history section above the effects section. I think in relation to the active ingredients, the effects should be listed higher in the page but for drug articles outside of compounds, an historical overview prior to the effects makes sense. Don't forget, this is an encyclopaedia, and encyclopaedias tend to list the history prior to effects. Even look at the marijuana article on the Encyclopaedia Britannica . Ljgua124 (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
In fact, main reason I performed this change was an easy way to combat the neutrality issue of this article. Providing the history of a drug's use prior to its effects gives a reader an overall conception of the drug's historical use, and follows thus to its medical effects. To make the history of the drug subordinate in the article detracts heavily from what the reader thinks when they read the article and there is no doubt that only one side of the medical facts are shown. Although I agree this is the real problem, the use of cannabis is so wide spread it must be acknowledged that it is not like other pharmaceutical drugs, and it has no need to follow the same template. The idea that people are interested in mainly the effects of the drug are simply not true. This article will be used, for example, by students doing projects on drugs and hence it is important to provide historical context to something so widespread yet illegal in most countries. Ljgua124 (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
It is reasonable to think that readers coming to articles about medical interventions like drugs and procedures are most interested in their effects, which is why WP:MEDMOS prescribes the order that it does. Nobody is arguing that the History section be eliminated, and the reader interested in history first can click right to it from the TOC. The argument provided at the start of this section for changing the order doesn't sound any different from "I just want the history section where I want it," which isn't an argument at all. Zad68 01:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Use medical ordering I came here from WikiProject Medicine so I have a bias to present the medical viewpoint, but I think I am justified here. The majority of this article is about the use of cannabis as a drug, and for that reason, I think that applying the medical manual of style is best to present that sort of content. It is true that this drug has a role in society separate from its use as a drug, but since that is not emphasized in the current article content, I think that it should not be emphasized in the current layout of that content. Blue Rasberry(talk) 17:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)