Talk:Cannabis and religion

Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs Unassessed (defunct)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Discussion copied from Talk:Cannabis (drug)

About kanehbosm

Prometheuspan 02:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Its inclusion really amounts to a subtle advocacy POV push by indirectly associating cannabis with the christian bible." uhm, no, theres actually hundreds of times more direct proof in favor of this correlate than there is for the prohibition correlate. And in fact, you can show via history that cannabis was only prohibited to start with in America. (Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams are all known to have smoked it and to have seen it as amongst other things, one cure for uptight political beaurocracy. Some might even argue that Americas Vibe godfather was Cannabis.) The outlawing of Cannabis came specifically as the lumber industry sensed its peril. If we had moved to a Cannabis economy, just think what that would have done to lumber and oil. So any idea that the bible said anything against Canabis is silly.)

Prometheuspan 02:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is NO proof that Adams or Franklin were cannabis consumers. The proof that George Washington was is inferred from a diary entry where he mentions separating the male from the female hemp plants (the only known reason would be to preserve the potency of the female). The proof that Thomas Jefferson was is inferred from his letters to Washington about a particularly high quality Indian hemp seed (India, of course, being known for its hashmaking). I do not like these speculations being passed around as if they were gospel. Runderwo 05:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some text about the kanehbosm reference in Exodus, which may or may not refer to cannabis. Help documenting the various translations of this term (and including the untransliterated Hebrew word itself) would be appreciated. Whig 08:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reference cannot conclusively be demonstrated to be cannabis-related or drug-related, thus it does not have a place in this article. Its inclusion really amounts to a subtle advocacy POV push by indirectly associating cannabis with the christian bible. With the present facts available, using the bible to justify cannabis usage is no more legitimate than using the bible to justify cannabis prohibition. 72.15.90.142 14:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to prove these references are true or not, merely that some people claim they are. The Bible is not Christian, that is POV, SqueakBox 14:09, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I also mentioned that these references are not drug-related, therefore they have no place in a drug article. Anointing oil is an emollient or fragrant related to religious ceremonies, this does not constitute use of cannabis as a drug in religion. And we do have some responsibility toward factuality here... see the section of the article that refers to anti-cannabis arguments as "junk science" (with the link cleverly renamed to "deeply flawed, with strong bias". If we're going to refer to that part as "junk science" then we might as well refer to this part as "junk etymology", otherwise this is POV. 72.15.90.142 14:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

in regards to the "junk science" comment out of left field- I think it reads more like: It is hard to tell conclusive reliable information from scientific studies because many early studies were manufactured by people like Harry Anslinger. That is fact and neutral. Its really just apples and oranges. --Howrealisreal 14:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that we have allowed shoddy anti-cannabis POV to be characterized as "junk science", but the pro-cannabis references of dubious veracity are characterized as merely "disputed." In fact, the only reference we have on the subject of kanehbosm disputes that it is cannabis. Therefore, we can only conclude that the assertion of kanehbosm meaning "cannabis" falls under the rubric of original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. In the interest of NPOV, the same degree of rigor should be applied to information regardless of which side it seems to support. 72.15.90.142 20:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have two references on kanehbosm, one from a Rasta church and another from Judaism. Neither are science in any sense; it's a lot harder to debate matters of millenia-old biblical scripture than it is to debate how a drug affects the brain and body. And as Whig points out cannabis is topically active; this is why it is significant to cannabis as a drug that the annointing oil may have contained cannabis. At any rate we now have a spiritual use section so there should be no disputing its inclusion. magicOgre 04:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

IMO the single most important thing for this article is that it is not allowed to slide into either a pro or anti cannabis article, SqueakBox 14:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and that is why I object to the use of information of questionable factuality that is also not drug-related. I wouldn't have a problem including this information if it were demonstrably drug-related (this is a drug article, don't forget), but it isn't. IMO this can only be a subtle attempt to push a pro-cannabis POV by implicitly relating it to judeo-christian religious traditions. 72.15.90.142 20:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look folks, if you take a neutral look at what we actually have on kanehbosm, here is what we have:

A large number of google hits from obvious pro-advocacy websites, with none (AFAIS) that cite a primary source.
An unsupported implied assertion that holy anointing oil belongs in a drug article, based on the circular reference that it includes cannabis and is in the spirituality section of this article. Self-referential articles are not valid.
A very strong case, made by a rabbi at an institute of Jewish studies, citing other published scholarly works by other rabbis, that kanehbosm is cinnamon and not cannabis. [1].

"Yehudah Felix has written three books in Hebrew that relate to your questions: Biblical Vegetation published in 1957, Nature in the Biblical land, published in 1992, and Spice, Forest and Ornament Plants, published in 1997. "Kinamon" or "kinman bosem" is definitely cinnamon."

On the subject of ancient Hebrew words as relates to ancient Judaic customs, if anyone comes up with anything more authoritative than published works by rabbis, I'm open to hearing it. Otherwise, basically we're left with a dubious etymology that bears all the hallmarks of an urban legend. If it's included in this article, then these facts must be included so that the reader can be self-informed as to what they really mean. 72.15.90.142 21:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who added that source in and it's a single rabbi at a single institution who has his own opinion. This rabbi is in no way considered the ultimate source on Judaism, nor is he probably an expert on ancient Hebrew words. In fact rabbis run the danger of getting overly dogmatic and, especially in America, of trying to obscure anything in the Bible that might be considered wrong in the modern world. It is not "a very strong case," and your calling it that impinges your credibility. There may or may not be a strong case for cannabis being kanehbosm, but the fact that certain spiritual people consider it to be is enough to merit some mention when discussing spiritual beliefs (note that spiritual beliefs are discussed as such and not as absolute science). If someone can find a source from a Semitic language scholar refuting it to put alongside this spiritual belief, then that would be a lot better. magicOgre 04:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The link discussing its possible Semitic origin is, in fact, much more credible than some arbitrary rabbi. magicOgre 04:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that if it is included it should be as an urban legend. Rastafari implicitly relates cannabis to the Bible through it being the tree of life for the healing of the nations, etc, which maybe also should be included, SqueakBox 22:11, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

For one thing, I am and have been completely open to splitting off a Cannabis (spiritual use) article if this is considered appropriate, as I don't know that the material belongs under Cannabis (drug) but when I proposed this before, it was opposed and I left the material in place. Secondly, the reference above claiming that kanehbosm refers to cinnamon does not make much sense at all, since kinnamon is ANOTHER ingredient in the anointing oil described in Exodus. It is not correct to say that kanehbosm is an urban legend, it is textually present, the translation is subject to some dispute, and the article presently reflects this ambiguity. Whig 23:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is fair enough, but I still object to the language about (roughly) "etymological reference aside, calamus and cinnamon are not known to produce effects associated to anointment" (paraphrase). First, calamus itself does indeed possess medicinal/psychoactive properties. Second... what exactly are these "spiritual effects associated with anointment", and can they actually be attributed to cannabis? We are talking about alteration of consciousness in some way by topical application of cannabis compounds to the skin... I don't think has ever been claimed to be possible, either by recreational, scientific, or modern spiritual users of cannabis. The implication is not credible and doesn't belong here. 72.15.90.142 01:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis is topically active as infused essential oil, this isn't really in any doubt. A modern formulation is delivered sublingually, through the skin below the tongue, see Sativex. I am unaware of any assignment of psychoactivity to calamus, can you cite a reference on that one? Finally, I've split off the article, so I'll paste this part of the discussion there and we can continue on Talk:Cannabis (spiritual use), as this whole issue is very clearly a major distraction from an article otherwise about recreational use (medical use being already split elsewhere). Whig 01:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should add its topical use to the article to further explain. magicOgre 04:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

See the article Sweet flag for documentation on psychoactive and hallucinogenic properties of calamus. Also, the most likely cannabis preparation known to the ancients, or pressed seed oil, would not be psychoactive on topical skin application. Finally, again, is anybody willing to come out and directly defend that the experience of the anointment ritual of anointment is largely due to psychoactivity of its components? If not, then we shouldn't be trying to slip this in by implication. Finally, I disagree with this split, as most of the spirituality information is demonstrably factual. I object only to the presentation of kanehbosm as an undisputed translation of cannabis, and by extention the implication that the anointment process actually gained its utility or meaning by psychoactivity. If you're going to demonstrate that, demonstrate it outright, don't try to sneak it in a side door of a disputed biblical etymology. This falls under the heading of "original research", which again, is against wikipedia policy. 72.15.90.142 11:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article recently added explains that it was known as a topically active hallucinogen to the ancient Semites. Please stop anonymously reverting when you haven't adequately researched the sources people have given for this. magicOgre 12:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

First off, the Wikipedia article itself we are discussing cannot be considered a primary source (because we are in the process of editing it). Second, the only evidence we have is that the word kanehbosm may be cannabis, which is disputed. But even if you assume that is true, nobody has demonstrated that anointment itself, although a religious ritual, derives any of its spiritual nature from the psychoactivity. Finally, if you look at the article holy anointing oil, it states explicitly that the rendering of the ingredients is not known. Therefore, it it is pure POV speculation to continue implying that cannabis is the the missing link to a questionable "spiritual experience" of anointment. Also, on the Sativex reference, note that this is sub-lingual. Anointment does not involve sub-lingual application, preparation of such compounds is not known in ancient Hebrew times, and and at any rate, topical does not mean the same thing as sub-lingual. Reading the various sources should make this clear to you, I respectfully return to you the suggestion to educate yourself on the issues at hand. 72.15.90.142 13:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read this. [2] That is the source material for the claim that cannabis was active as a topical hallucinogen at the time, and has been referenced for several edits. We are referring to topical, not sub-lingual application; Sativex was given as a single example. magicOgre 14:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

That is fair enough (I missed that we were talking about this section of this particular article). However, as this is an overwhelmingly pro-advocacy article, it does merit some analysis. I do want to point out that in his reference #4, we are again talking about an ointment containing psychoactive substances that are not cannabis. Regarding reference #5 I can't say much other than it refers to a non-mainstream work referencing another non-mainstream work. But I am not about to order it from amazon.com to determine its merits, so I will accept that it supports what you say it supports. I do want to change the wording of the article to make it a little more clear what we are asserting and how we are supporting it. 72.15.90.142 15:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it's non-mainstream; that's why it's posited as a possible explanation rather than absolute fact (and always has been, no one said it was absolute fact). I'd have no problems changing the wording as long as the basic idea stays. magicOgre 15:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the wording. Also I've removed a reference to cinnamon which cropped up in an earlier misquote of the Schechter article [3], which started out by clarifying cinnamon (mentioned elsewhere in the formulation of anointing oil) before switching to the main question of Kaneh Bosm. The error was mine, not Schechter's, and Schechter does in fact present information directly addressing Kaneh Bosm separately from cinnamon. In the interest of NPOV, of course, this link should remain, thus I've restored it. 72.15.90.142 16:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Schechter source is confusing precisely because he mistransliterates Kaneh-Bosm as Kinman-Bosm which is already a separate ingredient in the oil. (Note that ancient Hebrew did not use vowels, so Kinnamon or Kinman are both reasonable transliterations of the same thing (prior ingredient), whereas Kaneh-Bosm has a completely seperate consonental structure.) I think Shechter is intentionally misdirecting the questioner here. Whig 05:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basing content on what you "think" is biased, as is interpreting the source for the reader (violating no original research policy). Both sources offer a variety of possibilities for the original meaning of kaneh-bosm, and neither positively commits to cannabis being an interpretation. You are bringing some good sources to the table but I don't know why you insist on pushing the POV by interpreting sources for the reader. 72.15.90.142 17:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "original research" at all, it is what Rabbi Diana Villi writes directly in the cited source:

"Kinamon" or "kinman bosem" is definitely cinnamon.

Although the questioner asked about "fragrant cane (qaneh besem, kaneh bosm, kineboisin, etc)" the Rabbi did not respond with a direct reply but with a clear misdirection to a completely separate word. Whig 04:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Shechter source accurately characterizes what has been published in other sources about the ingredients of holy anointing oil. It clearly states several possibilities and concludes with the neutral statement that the rabbi doesn't know for certain whether cannabis is kneh-bosm. Also, the questioner did not ask about fragrant cane to the exclusion of other herbs... he/she did mention Exodus 30:23, which also involves cinnamon. It is perfectly possible that the rabbi was anticipating the confusion due to the similarity, and nowhere does the rabbi say that kneh bosm is cinnamon. It may seem misdirecting to you, but the rabbi probably would have written more clearly with the awareness that it would be picked apart in furtherance of a POV. This is no more misdirecting than the source [4] which consists of a scanned copy of the book, with purple highlights and red arrows pointing directly to what supports your POV. And you are again violating no original research by your over-the-top addition of the latinized Hebrew phonics... now we're conducting original research on Hebrew linguistics? Our job is to characterize debates, not to re-enact them. Judging by the obviously pro-cannabis-spiritual text found on your talk page, I think your bias is pretty obvious, and based by your determination to re-enact this debate, I don't think you're making much of an effort to separate your personal beliefs from this article. It seems that you simply will not leave this article in a state that does not support your POV. Please consider ceasing. 72.15.90.142 20:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anonymous user 72.15.90.142: You are misrepresenting the issues and removing sourced texts that are contrary to your personal POV, and your pointing out of my alleged bias based upon my user page is quite irrelevant and seems hypocritical in light of your own anonymity. It is not original research to include transliterations which were performed by scholars and referenced such as [5]. Neither my personal opinion nor yours is relevant if the presentation of material is neutral, but your recent edits have been misleading and non-neutral. Whig 23:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Whig: You are violating the no original research as well as the NPOV policy by interpreting sources for the reader in furtherance of your own POV. It is clear that you believe it to be fact that kaneh-bosm was cannabis, as do a few textually present minority viewpoints. This is your own prerogative, but reputable research has been far from conclusive on this matter, and all of your "sourced text" come from a self-evident pro-cannabis viewpoint. I want to point out specifically how you are violating no original research:

The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

Your characterization in this article of sources and transliterations in furtherance of your own ends amounts to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation", and certain parts such as the assertion that the transformation of water to wine actually referred to cannabis because people acted silly from wine, wine comes from grapes, grapes and cannabis both grow in clusters, therefore wine = cannabis. Not only is this absurd on its face and obviously POV, but it is not textually present in any reputable and neutral publication... I mean, it comes from the "Cannabis Campaigner's Guide" [6], do you honestly assert that this is a reputable and unbiased source? If so, I would have to say that your bias on this issue is off the scale. If you feel this issue needs outside comment, I am confident that neutral others would make similar comments. I have compromised quite a bit on this article, will you compromise as well? 72.15.90.142 15:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu use

The Hindu use section can be seriously expanded. How can we bring this to the attention of Hinduism experts? magicOgre 21:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 02:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC) I'm sorry i don't have the info handy, but i belive that the scholarly report on this can proove Canabis to have been cultivated in that region as a sacrement of Shiva for the duration of recorded human history. (I studied world religions and world religious history for several years. Hinduism is a weak link for me as compared to several other Religions tho.) Prometheuspan 02:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added some material from the 1894 Indian Hemp Commission report ... I think I need to clean it up some. Looks like OCR/punctuation issues (are those page numbers?). And the cites there need to look like the others in the article, which is to say it needs to conform to wikipedia style. (I'm cutting my teeth on this one a bit, and I'm not an Hinduism expert.)

"The religious use of cannabis continues to exist especially among followers of Lord Shiva. bhang (a drink made with tender leaves of cannabis) is used by common people to celebrate Shivaratri and Holi. But the Shaivite sadhus (religious priests who live ascetic, celibate lives, often in isolation) consume hashish and or marijuana. This is to help them concentrate and meditate under harsh climatic conditions. Some sadhus consume cannabis products daily in large quantity. For them, offering a pipe of cannabis is similar to offering a cup of tea or coffee to visitors." [Crime & Punishment, June 19, 2006, Daily Pioneer newspaper, India | http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnist1.asp?main_variable=Columnist&file_name=joginder%2Fjoginder91.txt&writer=joginder]

How widely held is this belief

We need some indication of how widely-held the beliefs mentioned here are, especially the Judeo-Christian ones. The article gives the impression that they are widely-held, whereas I strong suspect that they are marginal views at best. Some of the external links look rather more like Cannabis-advocacy sites than scholarly references, which doesn't help. DJ Clayworth 16:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC) Prometheuspan 02:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC) KaneBos use was at one time at least very mainstream in both Judaic and Early Christian settings. Whether or not Kanebos is cannibis is the question; as far as i know that fact cannot be ascertained via scholarship. (Nor can it be disproven as a theory either.) Prometheuspan 02:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

personal spiritual use

Could there be any sociological/historical info about the personal spiritual use of cannabis in for instance psyhodelic community, in the last , let say 30 years? It seems like a new, and syncretic, spiritual context, and would find it interesting to hear how religious practices of different origin and the use of cannabis combined to create new customs and beliefs. But I have no idea of any references about such a topic

-aryah

Prometheuspan 02:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Sure, essentially any modern Dionysian mode religious movement has experimented with Canabis. NeoShamanism, Wicca, etc.[reply]

weak correlate is false

Elders of the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church consider cannabis to be the eucharist [7], claiming it as an oral tradition from Ethiopia dating back to the time of Christ [8].

The word "Christ" actually means "the anointed one."

Yes, and that opens an entire batch of very interesting proofs that Mary Magdelene was a much more important person than she is now given credit for, but it has nothing to do with Cannibis.

I suppose i should be somewhat specific. You see, what is commonly propaganded out of existence by the christeo thought police is that Mary Magdelene was actually a TEMPLE Prostitute "The Whore of Babylon". Yeshua ben Yeosephs incredible rise to superstardom arises out of being both baptized by John; the leader of the Essenes, and "Anointed" by Mary, the Leader of the Shekinah Cult. This would be like if, in modern day politics, both the Republican leadership and the Greens simultaneously endorsed the same person for president.

Muslim use

"if much intoxicates, then even a little is haraam".

Is this really a widely accepted belief? How does that square with classic water intoxication, where, much water surely "intoxicates", so, is a little water then haraam?

What is haraam? Ras Billy I 01:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haraam means forbidden.

Does water intoxicate? I know too much water can kill as I have had a personal experience of water craving after taking too much, but I am not sure it intoxicates. Ras Billy I 13:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And cannabis doesn't intoxicate at all, since it has no toxicity at any dose. Whig 06:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whig has a point, Cannabis is not toxic to the human body or any mammal to my knowledge, so can hardly be considered or described as intoxicating

Intoxicate is a translation from Arabic into a misused word in English. Although you are right that water can intoxicate and no evidence says that Cannabis can, the word in Arabic is more akin to "inebriate."

Innapropriate UU Reference

I don't think it's necessary to include: "(The flaming chalice is also the symbol of Unitarian Universalism.)" It implies that cannabis is central to the UU religion, which it is not.

"The use of cannabis, and particularly of large pipes called "chalices", is an integral part of what Rastafari call Reasoning sessions. (The flaming chalice is also the symbol of Unitarian Universalism.)"

Cleaned up the Judeo-Christian section

Cleaned up the Judeo-Christian section, with these goals and motives in mind:

Clean up the clutter of unnecessary references and quotes from previous contention
Separate the historic Judeo-Christan usage from modern obscure sects, and make it clear that these are modern beliefs
Make the meanings easier to understand
Remove implicit conclusions

In particular I removed the WP:WEASEL section about whether anointment may or may not have been a psychoactive experience. The supporting source [7] itself does not offer substantive sources on these claims. I searched elsewhere for supporting sources, and I found some anecdotal evidence that topical cannabis can be effective as an analgesic, but nothing indicating that applying it to the skin produces psychoactive experiences. So without better scholarly support, it is not appropriate for this article to imply essentially that Jesus was sitting around getting high all the time. Quite possibly he did, and if so then I applaud him doing so, but there's no evidence to support it. The Crow 20:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and those were helpful edits.
In British Columbia, Canada, it is well-known (if not well-documented and citable) that people who simply trim and clip cannabis crops (an industry unto itself in BC) do indeed ingest psychoactive quantities through their hands! Alas, this is an illegal cottage industry there, so how does one go about rigorously documenting this well-observed topical ingestion of cannabinoids? Also, I know of a person who rubbed what they believed to be insignificant amount of cannabutter on their body to avoid throwing it away prior to boarding public transportation where a search would be likely. This person reported a suprisingly large and long-lasting psychoactive effect from what they believed was an insignificant amount of cannabutter. All anecdotal and non-encycopedic, I think. Darn.

What a joke. You did not clean up the section, you purged it. There is no longer any historical reference to Christian use, and then you faked a REPLY to yourself using blockquotes in the Talk here. Whig 17:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I faked nothing, why the individual decided to use block quotes and not sign it, I don't know. Your accusation of fraud is utterly baseless, and I won't even bother demanding your proof because you and I both know that you have none. Second, my edits were all made in good faith. What I removed, and what you added, was largely unsourced material in violation of WP:WEASEL and WP:OR. I notice that in your spirited defense, you did not actually offer any verification of the information. If you feel otherwise add it and source it, but what you're defending is nothing but innuendo and novel conclusions. Please think this over, review Wikipedia:Assume good faith, WP:OR, and WP:WEASEL. All content must be WP:Verifiable. The Crow 01:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crow, I overreacted and I'm sorry. I do have a bias as everyone does, and feel passionately about this subject in ways which make it difficult for me to edit in proper NPOV sometimes. Nevertheless if people like me did not contribute to articles we are passionate about, the encyclopedia would suffer for lack of richness and important detail that others might not care enough to include. Obviously there needs to be a corrective when people are too involved in an article, and you have done what you needed to do.

If I or anyone desire to have material regarding the early Christian use of cannabis included in the article, we must do so in a verifiable and cited way. That creates a dilemma because many of these records which might have been discovered in centuries past have been destroyed. I make this statement as a certainty here in the article discussion though I could not cite it well enough to include presently in the article itself. The truth is that the role of the Roman Church for over a millennia was to stamp out so-called "heresies." The early church predated the imperial takeover by Constantine, and there were many more sects and beliefs that were lost entirely until the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls. Many of those scrolls have been kept hidden for decades since their discovery and have still not been released. This is all uncontroverted, but as to the text of those unread scrolls, we can say nothing but only speculation. Nor do I think they would outright say what I think they mean, in many cases, because all scripture is written in a way that it does not say directly what will cause the scripture to be understood by enemies of its language and destroyed.

Cannabis is the eucharist, the bread which transubstantiates when consumed to become the body of Christ, according to what I know and believe. That is an unprovable statement in any way except to actually receive the communion for yourself. Therefore it is unencyclopedic unless scholars can be found and quoted saying this very thing. It remains controversial even so and there will need to be participation from everyone who is interested (including those who disagree) in maintaining a proper NPOV article on the subject. Perhaps to go into so much detail would suggest there may eventually be a benefit in spinning off a new article expressly on the traditional religious use of cannabis in Christianity. Whig 18:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your reconsideration. As for the rest of your comments, they're sort of all over the map and I don't know how to respond. First I would say that I see some your past edits have added some good verifiable content. As to the rest of the novel conclusions... I wouldn't say that this material is unencyclopedic or even untrue, it's not really my place to say that. Rather my issue is that it is not verifiable. Wikipedia refers to reliable primary sources... it does not create primary sources. I see your reasoning that it is possible to draw certain conclusions on cannabis and Christianity, and to some extent I agree with that reasoning. Personally it's my opinion that the naturally occurring psychedelics are the eucharist. But in Wikipedia, we don't do that. I didn't remove the information because it was too dense and specific for this article; I removed it because it was insufficiently verifiable. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary documentation. If you were to fork off the unverifiable information to its own article, you'd still have a verifiability problem. Verify whatever you have and include it here; that's the right thing to do. The Crow 20:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to think of a verifiable way to admit certain facts that are not discoverable in the unconcealed historical record itself. Suppose that X number of prominent people (or just people in a survey that was properly conducted) were to agree that cannabis is the eucharist. Would that be an encyclopedic fact worthy of inclusion? Whig 04:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assume I commissioned such a survey, in the form of a question with the possible answers of "Yes," "No," "I don't know," or "I don't understand," and it were performed by a reputable group of people whose methods are open and well regarded by statisticians in the field. That would be original research which would not belong on Wikipedia, but if I were to then blog that information, and link the Wikipedia article to my blog as verification with the results and contact information to confirm with the company who performed the survey, would that be appropriate? Whig 04:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever method you choose, as far as verifiability goes, we'd be left with "According to Whig's blog, 27% of people surveyed consider cannabis to be the Eucharist". And then we'd have to decide whether Whig's blog meets notability criteria, which I'm going to say probably doesn't. Then there's the issue of violating a self-reference as well. If you're creating knowledge then your goal should be creating knowledge; if you're citing knowledge on Wikipedia then your goal should be to cite as thoroughly as possible. But when you try to create knowledge for the purpose of citing it on Wikipedia, well, then that begins to fall under self-referencing propaganda. Just my opinion. The Crow 19:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion was having the survey done by a reputable group, who could themselves be referenced. In any case it isn't my intention to self-reference, but I don't see another way to put this kind of information into circulation and to conceal my own participation in gathering it would be deceptive, a catch-22 for any kind of original research done anywhere, no matter how well performed and documented.

Here's my point: It's not just a personal belief of mine. I live in a part of the world where cannabis is commonly used and understood to be of religious importance, and where it is known to be part of the sacrament in Christianity as well as in many other faiths. I am open to suggestions on how to make this known in a proper way which is in conformity to all relevant Wikipedia guidance and policy. Whig 06:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I should point out that it is something that I do talk about on my blog regularly, not for Wikipedia's sake. Whig 06:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's a reputable academic study done by a credentialed, group, it would be allowable. You'd just have to make sure that you weren't using it to say anything other than what it says... for example, if you poll people and find that 27% think cannabis is part of a Christian ritual, then that's the only statement that you could support on the matter. And note that you still wouldn't have anything demonstrating the truth of this statement, only making note of people's beliefs on the subject. The Crow 12:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern day spiritual use (non mainstream religion)

What about expanding this article to include information on modern day western spiritual use of Cannabis that is not associated with any of the major religions. The subtitle of this page reads:

"This article is about cannabis used in a religious or spiritual context. For other uses, see cannabis and cannabis (drug). "

I know many use Cannabis to explore and enhance their spiritual experiences without any form of deity worship and conformation to a major religion, I think that this deserves at least a paragraph on this page? (and also a possible title change to Spiritual use of Cannabis?)

If said paragraph could be sourced. Also, the name change seems like a good idea to me. Rever e ndG 23:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about changing the title BACK to Spiritual use of Cannabis, may need an adnmin to perform if we have consensus, SqueakBox 00:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name now changed, SqueakBox 17:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]