Jump to content

Talk:Effects of cannabis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 142.151.186.190 (talk) at 15:02, 14 January 2013 (→‎illegal because it's psychoactive?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Cherry picking from sources

Why would you reference studies from the 1940s on the effects of marijuana when this is modern issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.186.190 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The facts of this section are unreliable. I cannot believe the reference to an article called "Top ten health benefits of medicinal marijuana" from ibtimes.com. Nonetheless, a reputable source such as the NIH is not used. Unfortunately, this article suffers from lack of objective data. My hypothesis is that marijuana generates too much controversy, so no clear facts other than "scientific opinions" are addressed.


the article says:

"Because it is psychoactive, it is an illegal substance in most of the world[citation needed]."

why would someone write something like thtat? i mean, you can not-know why it is illegal but wikipedia is not a place for your persona assumptions, as there is no way to affirm that it is the cause of its illegality and i have not read anywhere that it's illegal because of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.197.121 (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a whole couple reasons for Cannabis to be law-forbidden, and it's psychoactive features is one of the least popular and justified cause. Usual causes range from typical "gateway" effect presumptions to straightforward law enforcement by tobacco and alcohol lobbists, thriving on their product having as less business struggle as possible.37.144.234.65 (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DNA Damage

Bio teacher talked about this earlier this semester, and then my Human Dev. professor talked about it, too just a few weeks later and then today after reading this article I googled the topic and there are a number of articles online about peer-reviewed research on cannabis damaging human DNA (and raising cancer risk, etc.).... shouldn't this be getting some airtime in the article?

Norlns22 (talk)

I have read some stuff about this and many studies regarding just cannabinoids and cannabis use by oral route points out, that THC and CBD are antioxidants and may actually prevent DNA damage. Smoking is something else - plant matter like cellulose is something like a vehicle which burns in case of smoking and produces for example pyroabenzen (potent carcinogen) which actually damages DNA (after it is metabolized) and of course other carcinogens and mutagens like free radicals and others. I don't know which school are you attending, but my old chemistry teacher wasn't much good and I doubt that Your teachers have been working on some real experiments of this type personally (i am sure they have this information from third hand - i don't know many teachers who are so interested in depth with such things like cannabis).

BTW:i googled it too and what ive found was just that "SMOKING CANNABIS CAN DAMAGE DNA". Well smoking peace of wood, peace of paper, standing to close to campfire, sticking hands into an ash etc. will probably result in some DNA damage ;-) . Yes that's right almost(maybe even without the "almost") any ash is carcinogenic and mutagenic. I guess you are not familiar with study of cancer incidence among chimney sweepers? No kidding it exists and guess what? they are much more likely to get cancer than average person. Some of those compounds may be neutralized by antioxidants for example ascorbic acid (vitamin C). Nevertheless there are cellular mechanisms which repairs damaged DNA and when DNA is damaged too much and unrepairable then there are mechanisms which faciliate apoptosis (cellular suicide). Guess what. Many cells under influence of nicotine undergo apoptosis generally later in progress of DNA damage and many cannabinoids do just opposite. That's why there are studies with conclusion, that cannabis users have less chance of getting cancer despite the fact that they inhale just as or more tar than tobacco smokers and that cannabis users under some circumstances have even less chance of getting cancer, than people who are not smokers at all. (from source, may be even more reputable than your science and biology teacher, I have heard that even beta-carotene (in contrast with retinol due to metabolism) is carcinogenic for lungs more than constituents of dried cannabis when vaporized). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Or (talk • contribs) 23:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most capable element for DNA damage is radioactive isotopes. Even if lung cells can be intoxicated by smoke inhalation and DNA suffers damage, human organism is capable to locate, dispose and replace affected cells. Only radioactive poisoning can start the proccess of cancer growth, at which tumor consumes healthy cells and incorporate them into itself. These radioactive elements can also be found within Cannabis, if "proper" policies are maintained during growing the plant (and they probably would be, if Cannabis will be legalized and Tobacco tycoons would decide to refit into another business model), but cancerogenic properties of Cigarettes by pollonium isotopes, as a drawback of pesticide usage in industrial tobacco farming, is a presently determined fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.144.234.65 (talk) 05:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison vs. cigarettes

Recently, an editor removed a section referencing a study that showed that joints ("marijuana cigarettes") can deposit as much as four times as much tar and other chemicals as tobacco cigarettes in the lungs. Whilst I agree with the point that it's not necessarily a fair comparison, from the point of view of overall health effects in the average person, this is hardly justification for removing this material from the article. It remains true that joints are more damaging to the respiratory system than carefully engineered and filtered commercial cigarettes are, and this respiratory system damage is still very much an effect of cannabis. I would suggest that the proper action for this objection is to reword the section so as to highlight the potential and erroneous conclusion that marijuana smoking is more harmful than tobacco smoking, and in particular to point out the confound, which is that smoking habits between the two groups are not at all similar, ideally with an RS that says so. siafu (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This content represents misuse of primary sources for the purposes of civil POV pushing. This, and related issues, are currently under discussion at WP:ANI: [1]. aprock (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to stick to the content; is this or is it not a WP:RS? Surely the time wasted on arguing over the behavior of other editors is better spent by us reworking the text itself? siafu (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Misuse of sources is independent of reliability. Please review WP:PSTS. In this case, we have an ideological editor cherry picking primary sources to push a point of view. Without a secondary source establishing weight, I suggest the content be removed. aprock (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like Aprock, I am concerned mostly about the POV, which seems to both minimalize the effects of tobacco smoking while exaggerating the risk of pot smoking. I'd be more comfortable if the comparison with tobacco were deleted, and the statement confine itself solely to the risks of pot smoking. Otherwise, the apples and oranges comparison reeks of sophistry,. It makes sense in the context of the study, but cherry-picked without the context, it is misleading. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see some value in the cigarette comparison, mostly because the units otherwise involved will likely be meaningless to the layperson. Ideally, since I've also heard this claim about 4x damage many times outside wikipedia, I would advocate including this study with a more balanced and detailed analysis of it. The apples and oranges part is only applicable to the conclusion that is often drawn, i.e. that smoking weed is much more dangerous than smoking cigarettes. This claim is obviously not borne out by the study in question, but alternate and valid conclusions can be drawn, e.g. that smoking unfiltered marijuana is more harmful on a per-unit basis than tobacco, and that in particular smoking marijuana is still harmful to the lungs-- something that is often denied in popular culture. siafu (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how adding information based on academic medical journals constitutes POV pushing but at any rate, I qualified the statement in question with an additional reference from the New England Journal of Medicine, a highly reputable source in the field of medicine. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding information without context can absolutely represent POV-pushing. Academic studies tend to be very narrowly focused, whereas the conclusions drawn from them in the media and by lay readers are generally much broader. The broader conclusions that are stated, or even just implied, are often more representative of the writers' POV than the actual study results. siafu (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of bringing this discussion here was to discover the specific objections to this text. If you have some (you should be interpreted broadly), please speak up so that we can rewrite this passage in a way that is acceptable enough to gather consensus. siafu (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No long term.... and new tests show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.134.151.186 (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you guys are a bunch of idiots really....... long term effects on marijuana !?? there is not enough evidence to prove any of their finding (as there has not been that much long term testing done)it is purely bullshit or as they call it nowadays a theory... new test shows that it helps prevent head and neck cancer and that it promotes brain cell grove in your hippocampus. please next time don’t go on government findings, for they will always turn their findings to suit them, start looking into your facts next time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.134.151.186 (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The danger of Pot smoking as just as good as a danger of smoking any other vegetative culture and not refers to the Cannabis plant specifics. The nature of that danger is solely limited by the clogging of lungs by heavy, inert fractions of vegetative nature (tar) in amount-per-time, that makes the process of purging those fractions out of lungs troublesome and fatiguous for human organism, thus reducing his endurance and inhibiting oxygen saturation. The Cannabis/Tobacco comparison gives the ideal method to determine the actual level of danger for inhalation of given substances. Even though Cannabis can possess greater amount of associated tar consumption, human organism is much more capable to cope with the tar, than it is with several hundreds of deadly toxines and radioactive solutions brought by the legal, developed Tobacco product. Cigarettes by themselves is an industry of waste disposal from production of Cigars, which are just as hard to smoke as they are more expensive. So called researches on tobacco health hazard is based on cigarettes, while these possess only 0,7% of actual Nicotine, compared to 15-20% of present THC to-mass ratio of Cannabis strains. One cigarette of tobacco gives an averagely one hour of nicotine saturation, while one cigarette of Cannabis is usually enough for a whole day of effective trip (given it is a waste from production of Cannabis buds, the leaves). Oral consumption of Cannabis completely eliminates any physical difficulties to digest Cannabis and it's active elements, while oral consumption of tobacco is deadly for digestion tract and it's microflora in general. Cannabis has been noticed for it's medical usage, while all the Nicotine can do is to relieve the stress, which that very Nicotine caused as result of physical dependency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.144.234.65 (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NORML as a reliable source?

I added the neutrality disputed tag because I find it ridiculous that an overtly pro-cannabis organization like the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws can be used as a reliable source to counter evidence of the effects cannabis can have on driving. Also, the two following sources used in that paragraph are also used in the NORML page that we are using as a source. I think this should be removed. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 09:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths attributed directly to cannabis usage

The "Deaths..." sentence under the Toxicity part is very poorly cited.

The first (http://www.fsijournal.org/article/S0379-0738(01)00609-0/abstract) only gives an abstract to non-paying readers, which does not claim any deaths directly linked to cannabis. The second (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/4/e365.full.pdf+html) does not claim to have found evidence for cannabis being the reason for the deaths, only that it may be. The third (http://www.drugwatch.org/CEDARS/MarDeaths2002e.pdf), well, is from drugwatch.org. That's like citing the KKK on a racial differences article. They claim overdose deaths by cannabis, contrary to consensus even in the anti-cannabis world that ingestion of such amounts is almost physically impossible. (Someone eating a pound of ground glass and subsequently dying is a stupidity-induced suicide, not a glass-related death)

To the above commentator, please overcome your bias. If you read the study by "Drug Abuse Warning Network" (not by drugwatch.org) the study is not measuring the toxicity of the compounds in cannabis and cannabis smoke. All deaths related to marijuana were associated by coroners. Someone killed while drunk driving will be listed as an alcohol related death, likewise for marijuana. Over 37% of drug related hospital emergency visits involved marijuana. While, noone can make a direct cause of marijuana as the death even today, one can at least list marijuana as a dangerous drug, a point that is completely missed by this article. Very much 'cherry picking' involved in this section.

Someone please provide better citations or remove the sentence. 84.148.56.184 (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. It's an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary sources, and not stretching what the sources actually say. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The statement is not extaordinary but is modest and in line with the references. Yes the first two references are much stronger than the third and they are very legitimate medical sources. The wording for the statement seems to have been discussed earlier on a related page. The wording should stay. Pkgx (talk)`

Article skews studies on toxicity

Several statements in the article attempt to downplay or skew medical research on the effects of marijuana.

It's hard to claim to know what any statements "attempt" to do.

The intro brings up long-term psychological effects by downplaying it by stating that such concerns are disputed. While certain points are disputed as cited, plenty of research exists that shows legitimate concerns over psychological effects of marijuana use, including long-term impairment of "attention, memory, and ability to process complex information." [2] The disputation of schizophrenic effects from marijuana should not be cited without also citing evidence to support these effects.

Please don't assign motives that can't be proven. The facts are that those concerns are disputed. No one has argued that there are legitimate concerns, but there are also those who dispute them, take Harvard's Lester Grinspoon, for example. Two references to support psychological effects are indeed included in the Intro.

The article briefly addresses the effects of marijuana on pregnancy. A hot topic with marijuana is its effect on the reproductive systems, and brief mention of pregnancy alludes to a dismissal of all effects of marijuana on the reproductive tract. The article should also address the research that supports harm to the reproductive tract. [3] [4]

Please see WP:secondary - secondary sources are preferred. The studies you've presented in the second abstract would be fitting for the THC article. Also this information is covered in the Long-term effects of cannabis article and shouldn't be repeated here, it's already linked.

Additionally, under "Long-term Effects," the article dismisses harm to the lungs by stating "On some topics, such as the drug's effects on the lungs, relatively little research has been conducted...." This is a false statement. The article goes on to state that a US Gov't funded study concluded that "moderate marijuana use does not impair pulmonary function." Together, these statements are incredibly misleading. The cited study states the following: "Prior studies of marijuana smokers have demonstrated consistent evidence of airway mucosal injury and inflammation as well as increased respiratory symptoms such as cough, phlegm production, and wheeze, similar to that seen in tobacco smokers. However, analyses of pulmonary function and lung disease have failed to detect clear adverse effects of marijuana use on pulmonary function." The purpose of the study was to analyze lung capacity, and only lung capacity, in light of accepted research that shows that marijuana smoke harms the lungs. As stated, the Wikipedia article implies that marijuana use does no damage to the lungs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler.mac86 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, secondary sources trump any Wikipedia editor's take on a matter. The Abstract reads: Conclusion Occasional and low cumulative marijuana use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function.
Time's coverage of the issue reads: Marijuana does not impair lung function—at least not in the doses inhaled by the majority of users, according to the largest and longest study ever to consider the issue, which was published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The "long term effects" section is merely a summary of the main article. Much exists in that article citing the deleterious effects of cannabis on the lungs, etc. Your main premise, that the article is not presenting science fairly regarding the toxicity of cannabis, is not proven by the argument given, imo. Do you have secondary sources to add to the article that would support your position? petrarchan47tc 05:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Effects_of_cannabis&oldid=533039631"