Talk:Medical cannabis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2014[edit]

The countries where medical cannabis is legal, include Czech Republic as well (see, e.g. Thus, i suggest to add Czech Republic between "Austra" and "Spain" in the list of countries.


This section lacks the basic pharmacological information relevant to every drug. My group will work to improve this section, covering pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Pharmacokinetics will include absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. We will primarily rely on primary literature and articles found on PubMed. Schoi0412 (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC) schoi0412

Peer Review[edit]

Assessment of Quality as a Whole

The edits to the pharmacology section are high quality and cover many facts that are essential to every drug (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion). I believe the goals to update the pharmacology section were met, as each paragraph covers many details and is very informative. After reading the new information, I have a clearer idea about how various forms and administration of medical cannabis differ from one another, and I feel more educated about this drug that is quickly growing in popularity and usage. In addition, the facts and information throughout the sections are cited correctly and I can quickly verify the sources. Jessica Tran (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

In regards to the quality of the edit as a whole, I believe there was a good mix of information taken from multiple sources, which increases the validity of the information. It did a great job integrating the study results and information into a coherent edit. Additionally, the information was cleverly broken up into the 4 main pharmacokinetic profiles (ADME- Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion), which was a very clear way to organize the information. The information was also accompanied by structures of the molecule and its metabolites, which was helpful to have as a visual representation of the information. (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The quality of the information added to the “Pharmacology” section of this Wikipedia page was meaningful and relevant. First, the information provided was well written. It was clearly organized into four subcategories describing the drugs pharmacology (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, and Excretion) and the information provided was concise, addressing the main aspect of the topic and didn’t include any unnecessary detail. The information included a complete list of references, which were included within their text and was from reliable sources. There was no indication that this information presented was from original research. Lastly, the information provided was included with an image that is relevant to their topic.NicholsKing4 (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

Yes, the draft submission reflects a neutral point of view. All the added sections within pharmacology reflect scientific facts about cannabis. There are key pharmacology facts about absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion without any opinions or biased language inserted within the information. The information can reliably be traced to scientific sources and not opinion articles, which adds to the neutral point of view and minimizes any bias. --Jessica Tran (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style?

The edits made are consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style. The edits didn’t utilize unnecessary style techniques such as the use of bold or italicized font to emphasize for inappropriate portions of their edits. The sub-headings under pharmacology section were appropriately used and organized the information in a clear manner. In addition, text formatting in citations did consistently maintain an established citation style throughout the text. I would recommend a minor change within the absorption section, specifically regarding the last sentence of the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph. To make the paragraph flow better and avoid redundancy consider turning the two paragraphs into one and reformatting to say “Oral administration has the lowest bioavailability of approximately 6%, variable absorption depending on the vehicle used, and the longest time to peak plasma levels (2 to 6 hours) compared to smoked or vaporized THC. The low oral bioavailability is largely attributed to significant first-pass metabolism in the liver and erratic absorption from the gastrointestinal tract. However, oral administration of CBD has a faster time to peak concentrations (2 hours) than THC”NicholsKing4 (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation?

There were a couple instances of close copying of the original source. These instances are listed below: - The first sentence of the edit reads: “Several of the effects of cannabinoids are mediated by G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), primarily CB1 and CB2, although other cannabinoid receptors may be involved. CB1 receptors are found in very high levels in the brain and are thought to be responsible for psychoactive effects.” Source #77 reads similarly “Many of the effects of cannabinoids and endocannabinoids are mediated by two G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), CB1 and CB2, although additional receptors may be involved.” (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

- The fourth sentence of the edit reads: “Smoking, the most common form of administration, provides rapid and efficient drug delivery from the lungs to the brain.” Similarly, source #79 reads: “Smoking, the principal route of cannabis administration, provides a rapid and efficient method of drug delivery from the lungs to the brain.” (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Other parts of the edit did not closely copy or plagiarize its sources. Other parts of the edit combined multiple sentences and paraphrased information well, while retaining the statistics and numerical information such as percentages and study results. (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?

The Points included were verifiable with secondary sources that were freely available and cited correctly. There was a total of 14 cited sources ( [77]-[91] ), all were freely accessible form the references page. All content included was appropriately derived from cited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DNf999 (talkcontribs) 16:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC) DNf999 (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi all. Thank you for your thorough feedback. We're glad to hear that you find the expanded pharmacology section of great value and quality to this Wikipedia page. Thanks for pointing out the "similar wording" for some sentences. It's definitely difficult to word sentences differently enough, especially regarding such scientific topics. We have taken what you've said and made the corresponding changes to our section. Thanks again! Schoi0412 (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

That sounds good, I changed the metabolism section to reflect the Wikipedia style a bit better, and I also tried to paraphrase in a less plagiaristic way Brianmaucsf (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for peer reviewing our Pharmacology section to help improve this section for our readers. We will continue to keep all of your feedback in mind as we make further changes. Drhyoo (talk) 09:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback on our contributions to this page. Hopefully we can continue to edit and add valuable information while still adhering to the best practices on this site. Evelyn.coria (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Jan '18 removal of line regarding cognitive impairments.[edit]

Hello all.

I removed the following from the article:

There is little evidence that cognitive impairments persist in adult abstinent cannabis users.[1]

The article referenced does kind of make that claim to an extent, but it's presented in the context of comparison to abstinent users of other drugs. Furthermore, only three marijuana-related studies were included in that analysis, all with rather small sample sizes. More current articles that look specifically at marijuana use and synthesize more studies do not draw the same conclusion. E.g., Weighing the Evidence: A Systematic Review on Long-Term Neurocognitive Effects of Cannabis Use in Abstinent Adolescents and Adults or An Evidence Based Review of Acute and Long-Term Effects of Cannabis Use on Executive Cognitive Functions. I'm not comfortable changing the line to read "there is some evidence" or something that hijacks the original contributor's presumed intent, so I'm just removing it entirely.

Reve (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medical cannabis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Origins of the Plant into Today's medicine[edit]

The article is a great read, but also could use the help of more amazing scientists adding more research as is put into the field. The current rating of the article according to Wikipedia says it is limiting in resources and could use more information. The lead section is clear and easy to read, and the structure is laid out in a way that essentially maps out the use of the plant as medicine from top to bottom. After looking at other additions to the talk page, the article appears to contain balanced and reliable sources. However, I think adding some information about the origin of the plant as well as how those strains have helped breed this amazing medicine, may help future scientists and readers. It also may educate people more about the history of cannabis, which may be added to the history section, or an entirely new section may be created.(Ag780113 (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC))

  1. ^ van Holst, RJ; Schilt, T (March 2011). "Drug-related decrease in neuropsychological functions of abstinent drug users". Current drug abuse reviews. 4 (1): 42–56. doi:10.2174/1874473711104010042. PMID 21466500.