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.

Cannabis use damaging DNA

I'm fine with not using the previously cited source. Here are some better sources we can use:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090615095940.htm http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2926/marijuana-smoke-more-damaging-thought JoelWhy? talk 13:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why there can't be a sentence mentioning that cannabis smoking has some risks that are similar to smoking other vegetable substances (especially since there are sources), but the string of "cannabis vs. tobacco" comparisons removed yesterday was obvious anti-drug propaganda that doesn't have a place in a neutral encyclopedic article. Belchfire (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

History: dope vs rope

In the last paragraph of the section "History", does anything after “In 1937 in the United States, the Marihuana Tax Act was passed” actually relate to marijuana? Isn't “and prohibited the production of hemp ... material.” referring to rope? The first sentence of the article has “intended for use as a psychoactive drug and as medicine.” Isn't the Mellon/Hearst/DuPont angle a plausible, but unrelated, urban myth? It is common now to hook unrelated garbage on to the end of a bill, these three were certainly aware of the idea in '37, correct? The law was aimed at getting high, these guys just got greedy? Two birds with one stone? Enough real controversy here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.25.10 (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• This section has not been addressed since 31 Jul 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.25.10 (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You've phrased that as a series of questions, but it seems like you think some action ought to be taken. Can you be clearer about what action you think is called for? Looie496 (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I propose that everything after "In 1937 in the United States, the Marihuana Tax Act was passed" be deleted. In addition, reference 101, 102, and 103 only mention the act in passing, focusing on the "conspiracy" instead. Although they do source the act's passage, could a cleaner (less conspiratorial) source be used?

The act of '37 may need elaboration, but is corporate greed the way to go? Just an opinion.

I hoped to promote a discussion, other parts of this article are active. But that's about my limit, I cannot effectively edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.25.10 (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Two topics not covered

This rather comprehensive article is missing a couple of topics that may be touched on elsewhere but should perhaps be touched on here as well. First is the topic of passive/second hand exposure. When Ross Rebagliati was briefly stripped of a gold medal at the Nagano Olympics on the basis of having THC in his system, he claimed that it was due to second-hand exposure which set something of a precedent for such exposure perhaps triggering drug tests. So what, if anything, is the impact of passive marijuana smoke? Can one get a second-hand high from it or is it diluted significantly once it exits someone's lungs? What about someone living in an apartment next door to one where a vaporizer is used? This would be an interesting topic of discussion. The second has to do with the pricing section, where it mentions how much it costs per gram to buy the stuff. But how many grams go into the average joint? Or a vaporizer. Or a brownie? It might provide more context as to how much people pay to smoke a joint, and would also possibly tie into other discussion in the article about how some combine marijuana with tobacco cigarettes. I think both topics can be discussed in an NPOV fashion. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Effects of Cannabis

Hello, I just figured out how to add a new heading. Please forgive any perceived stubbornness in my reposting of the following disputed text:

Every year, dozens of deaths linked to marijuana are recorded across the USA in every major metropolitan city by medical examiners and coroners in association with the Drug Abuse Warning Network. Their lists of mortality publications even includes two instances of death directly considered as marijuana overdoses by the attending coroner.

I was told by ohonoitsjaime and that I needed to do a better job sourcing. What is meant by this? My citations need to be better written? The sources aren't formatted properly?

The text as it stands now is simply factually incorrect: "There are no verified human deaths associated with cannabis overdose." The DAWN network has coroners and medical examiners participating from 13 states in the USA that all confirm marijuana related deaths every year since they have been keeping track. What is the best way to format these facts into this page?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUIB Corrector (talk • contribs) 05:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a very reliable source. --John (talk) 05:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a reliable source? Coroners and medical examiners from 13 states, a total of 450 counties participated in 2010 alone to collect this mortality data. http://www.samhsa.gov/data/2k12/DAWNMEAnnualReport2010/DAWN-ME-AnnualReport2010.htm#Part Who is more reliable than a coroner or a medical examiner to determine what the cause of death is?

Again, from the previous link, it was prepared by the following: This report was prepared by the Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and by RTI International (a trade name of Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC). Work by RTI was performed under contract number HHSS283200700002I with SAMHSA. I am sorry, but to say that data from thirteen US states over the past decade is not a reliable source seems disingenuous. What would you consider a reliable source if this isn't? GUIB Corrector (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The source seems to be OK. It certainly negates the present statement that "There are no verified human deaths associated with cannabis overdose." The claimed safety of the drug is not supported. Rlsheehan (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No, Drugwatch is an advocacy website which states that it "promotes the creation of healthy drug-free cultures in the world and opposes the legalization of drugs". If this is real data it should be possible to source it from a non-advocacy source. Can we? --John (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, The Drugwatch data can be backed up by other reliable sources that document deaths attributed to cannabis usage. Here are two: Forensic Science International [1] and Pediatrics [2].

This is a case where there are good sources that say different things. Some say there are documented deaths while others are not aware of deaths. Wikipedia readers should be aware of both sides of this issue. Based on this I have revised the text of the article and included citations. I have included your DEA source that does not document overdose deaths.

Rlsheehan (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for allowing me to contribute. I would like to add that although "Drugwatch" posted the 2002 PDF, they did not compile and collect the data. The data was compiled by the Drug Abuse Warning Network who simply tallied the deaths that coroners and medical examiners deemed to have been related to or caused by marijuana. The fact that the facts happen to support their aims should not be used to discount the facts.

PS - I added dashes between comments to make it easier to read. I hope that isn't bad form.

PS PS - Would it be to much to ask to add the data page of SAMHSA or is it better to link to individual publications? There are so many publications on this page that it would probably be easier to just add the one page for people to sift though. GUIB Corrector (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I still don't buy that. The sources Rlsheehan posts use language like "may" to describe the causality involved. Sources like the DEA one state unequivocally that there "are" no proven cases of death linked to cannabis ingestion. The problem with the data GUIB Corrector refers to is that it assumes that every death where cannabis has been used is "related" to cannabis. Only advocacy sites like the really poor one we already discussed try to make this link a direct one when in reality it is not and no reputable source (that I have found) makes a link. Per WP:FRINGE, we can argue about whether these far-out and tenuous claims (often from advocacy sites) deserve a mention or not, and we can have this argument if you like. But we have to ensure that our coverage reflects the real-world coverage. When the vast majority of sources state that no causal link has been proved, our coverage has to reflect this. And yes, GUIB Corrector, it is bad form to format others' comments; I've removed this with no hard feelings. --John (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• What?! How can you claim that respected medical journals are Fringe? You had asked for reliable sources and you have them now. If you are unwilling to consider facts then we will have to go to arbitration. Rlsheehan (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Did you read the sources you found? Could you find an unequivocal statement of causality? Or are they saying "may"? If you like, an RfC would be the next step. Arbitration is not for content disputes. --John (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a very simple solution here. The text should read something along the lines of "although there have been no verified deaths from overdose of cannabis, some studies have found that extensive use of marijuana may have been the cause of death for a small number of cases." (I'm just writing this off the top of my head; you can obviously play with the language. But, bases on the conflicting information, this isn't a case where it should be either/or.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs)

The present wording is “There are no verified human deaths associated with cannabis overdose” This has been demonstrated to be false based on two refereed medical journal articles: Forensic Science International [3] and Pediatrics [4]. As always with academic research, the authors use words such as ‘’associated” and “likely” rather than making wild overstatements. Another good source from Drugwatch also reports deaths. Even the US DEA is somewhat careful with words by saying that no death has been reported to them; They cannot claim that there have been no deaths.

This is a clear case of reliable sources with somewhat contradictory information. The readers of Wikipedia should have access to both. Again, I offer a very reasonable compromise.

Proposed Revision

Deaths attributed to cannabis usage are infrequent but have been documented. Some sources are not aware of documented deaths. (with appropriate citations)

Rlsheehan (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

...... Arbitration should be available for fact checking correct? Wikipedia should hold accurate information right?

A few points:  It is not unheard of for one government agency to be disconnected from another in terms of information sharing, and it seems that this is the case between SAMHSA and the DEA. 

The DEA has this single source of info that you are clinging to, in spite of the fact that the DEA is not a medical institution. It seems to me that this single DEA PDF is the fringe element. 

SAMHSA has posted ten years worth of data collected directly from coroners and medical examiners in thirteen states. I think that ten years of medical data across thirteen US states trumps one PDF from a non-medical institution. 

This DEA PDF you are using is just embodiment of logical fallacy of the "argument from authority" because it isn't backed by any data (or rather, since it is claiming a negative, is ignoring a clear decade of data from thirteen states). GUIB Corrector (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Rlsheehan, I like your proposed wording and I think it is fair, even though the amount of evidence seems to indicate that the single PDF hosted by the DEA is out of touch with the rest of the medical literature, and hardly merits inclusion on the page at all. It seems that if it isn't included, however, there will be no hope of appeasing those who want to water down any negative facts about marijuana, and we will never have the page edited to be more factual. I am wondering though, would it be bad form to include the overall SAMHSA data page that has dozens of publications supporting the fact that marijuana has caused death for many people? Or would it be better to link directly to five or six individual publications that list the number of marijuana-related deaths as determined by coroners and medical examiners? I give as an example this 2008 PDF that has 12 states participating, and counts hundreds of verified marijuana related deaths across many cities. Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2008: Area Profiles of Drug-Related Mortality GUIB Corrector (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Again, the problem with the wording you proposed is the mismatch between "Deaths attributed to cannabis usage" and the sources' claims of "cannabis-related" deaths. I really don't wish to be offensive, but if you cannot see this mismatch, perhaps you should not be editing in a medical article. JoelWhy seems closer in his proposed wording to a viable compromise. --John (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I am glad you brought up the fact that this is a medical article, because the DEA PDF that you are clinging to as your sole source of authority is not medical. For that reason alone it should not be in the "Effects of Cannabis" section.
A second reason is because it is claiming a negative, which is not logically provable. JoelWhy's proposal is unacceptable because multiple deaths have been verified in the literature proposed by myself and Rlsheehan.
Here is what I propose based upon Rlsheehan's previous suggestion:
Deaths attributed to cannabis usage are infrequent but have been documented[5] [6][7], cannabis related deaths are more widespread. [8] [9] [10].[11]
GUIB Corrector (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[12]

It seems we disagree. At this point it is probably best to seek the advice of other editors. --John (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with the proposed wording by GUIB Corrector. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that the problem is "Deaths attributed to cannabis usage" and "cannabis-related deaths" are not the same. "Related" could be anything.--KDesk (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
....
"Deaths attributed to cannabis usage" and "cannabis-related deaths" are purposely different and included as a compromise with John to highlight the differences in two kinds of deaths. They are not supposed to be the same because they imply different things.
The sources highlighting "Deaths attributed to cannabis usage" are cases where the coroners and medical examiners held the firm professional opinion that marijuana caused the death of the individual in question.
The sources highlighting "cannabis-related deaths" cover a much broader range of data to include a wider range of professional opnions from the hundreds of coroners and medical examiners participating in the data collection. From the 2010 report on the data collected in 2008:
[http://www.samhsa.gov/data/2k10/2k8DAWNME/ME08FullReportMay2010.pdf From Page 11

• Drug-related deaths
  
• Since 2003, a DAWN case is any death reviewed by an ME/C that was related to recent drug use. Findings in this publication pertain to drug-related deaths and drug-related suicide deaths reported by participating death investigation jurisdictions as DAWN cases.1 The data items submitted on drug-related deaths are described in Appendix C.
  
• DAWN cases are identified through a retrospective review of decedent case files in each participating death investigation jurisdiction. A DAWN case is any death that is determined by the ME/C as being related to drug use. The relationship between the death and the drug need not be causal; the drug need only be implicated in the death. The drug use may have been for legitimate, therapeutic purposes or for the purpose of drug abuse or misuse, but in either case, the drug use must have been recent.
  
• These eligibility criteria for a DAWN case are intentionally broad and inclusive. Since death record documentation varies in clarity and comprehensiveness across jurisdictions, broad criteria reduce the potential for judgment calls that could cause data to vary systematically and unexpectedly across reporters and jurisdictions. Broad criteria also capture a diverse set of drug-related deaths that support a wide variety of analytical purposes and interests.]
  

Both groups of sources, with their difference purposely highlighted by the distinct phrasings of "Deaths attributed to cannabis usage" and "cannabis-related deaths," provide important information that Wikipedia readers should have access too, and both groups of sources demolish the non-medical PDF by the DEA which is not logically tenable because it claims a negative.
I am updating my proposed wording to include more sources in the "cannabis-related deaths" group of sources

Deaths attributed directly to cannabis usage are infrequent but have been documented[13] [14][15], cannabis related deaths are more widespread. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20].[21] [22] [23]
GUIB Corrector (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• This looks good. It is based on solid reliable sources and uses the language of the sources in the statement. No persuasive arguments against this have been given. This should be included in the article to correct the present false claim. Rlsheehan (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Crime

In view of the accidents and crime caused by cannabis, the reduction in fatness is not important.