Talk:Cannabis (drug)

Eating it

Ok this is the sort of ambiguity / contradiction I always hope wikipedia articles will avoid:

As an alternative to smoking, cannabis may be consumed orally. However, the cannabis or its extract must be sufficiently heated or dehydrated to cause decarboxylation of its most abundant cannabinoid, tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, into psychoactive THC.[14]

Cannabis material can be leached in high-proof spirits (often grain alcohol) to create a “Green Dragon”. This process is often employed to make use of low-potency stems and leaves.[citation needed]

So, does this "Green Dragon" need to be boiled first before the cannibis is "sufficiently heated or dehydrated to cause decarboxylation"? Or does just putting it in alcohol cause decarboxylation through some other means? Maybe someone who took organic chemistry can shed some light.

Not true

"A 2007 study by the Canadian government found cannabis smoke contained more toxic substances than tobacco smoke.[26] The study determined that marijuana smoke contained 20 times more ammonia, and five times more hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides than tobacco smoke." This is not true there wouldnt even be these chemicals in tobacco if they did not add them! Tobacco even has cyanide and rat poison!209.194.173.227 (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Traditional but appropriate-- and that's saying something

a. The kiseru, made in Japan for centuries, is a long-stem pipe with a crater small enough to serve 25-mg. tokes if you use a tight-nesting screen. See Wikipedia article "kiseru". Cannabis was legal in Japan for centuries until 1948 when tobacco addict asshole Gen. Douglas MacArthur rewrote the Japanese constitution banning it.

b. The midwakh, made in the middle-east, is shorter-stemmed but you can add a long flexible tube like those found on hookahs. It is returning to popularity in Dubai as smoking prohibitions were recently passed and youngsters try to hide their smoking.

MOLD??

From the article, "Cannabis is often infected with mold such as potentially dangerous Aspergillus and sometimes other microorganisms." It is very rare for processed Cannabis to be infected with mold. There is no citation for the article's assertion.

marijuana effects on brain tissue: discussion

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,414542,00.html says marijuana and not the other many drugs Amy Winehouse took is what damaged her brain. Yes, marijuana is brain-damage causing. William Ortiz (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC) ___________ It should be noted that most members of any academic society or scientific community consider fox news to be poor source of information. Personally, I would consider any story or study using Amy Winehouse as their main example to be an example of propaganda using celebrities and controversial subject matter.--Interprotessor (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Another Article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1051250/Amy-Winehouse-brain-damage-drug-overdoses.html I am not a medical expert so I really hope an expert could look this stuff over as I don't just want to throw it into the article. William Ortiz (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? I thought you were going to show the results of a study in a medical journal.

They aren't medical experts either. This is a flashy celebrity gossip column and not a medical journal. If things could be scientifically proven by a report in the news, Intelligent Design would have been as "proven" as this brain damage claim whenever an "expert" claims it.

As a simple medical fact regarding the number of receptors in the brain, it is impossible to overdose on marijuana. There's also never been any study showing brain damage. Either (1) the "medics" they cite don't exist, (2) the "medics" are completely incompetent doctors, or (3) the reporters deliberately or accidentally misconstrued what was told to them. Considering how many drugs she did, it'd be easy for reporters to miss what was being said.--Loodog (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm Fox News said "medics" and the Sun said "doctors" were talking about her being brain damaged from the marijuana because she displayed symptoms of schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder as the result of the overdoses. I'm not sure who those medics or doctors were. Both news articles put the word "inhuman" in quotes when talking about how much marijuana she inhaled. Perhaps further study is needed. William Ortiz (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Further study" has been conducted for decades, and no evidence for brain damage from cannabis use has ever been found. Of course, the Fox News Channel and Daily Mail are only interested in science and factual information, and would never knowingly publish or disseminate false information. Everyone knows that Fox News and the Daily Mail are paragons of truth and virtue and should never be questioned. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As for intelligent design, the bible says things like insects have four feet, rabbits chew their cud, snails melt, snakes eat dirt as food, etc. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html William Ortiz (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. Amy Winehouse's alleged cannabis use has nothing to do with her health problems. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

William, the point was that popular entertainment actually, is not, in fact, the same thing as a double-blinded study over a large enough sample group for multiple incidences outside of a standard deviation administered by an accredited institution of higher research, in this case, neurology, the methodology of which is then peer-reviewed and the results are published in a scholarly journal with specific falsifiable claims that anyone with the proper equipment can verify independently.--Loodog (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Fox News Channel is viewed by a majority of people in the U.S. The U.S. is also the centre for the "war on drugs". Therefore, Fox News Channel's agenda when it comes to celebrity gossip combined with the "Drugs!" stigma is to fuel the fire. They are certainly very biased in their reports. Anything their reporters say should not be taken seriously when it comes to these subjects. Indeed, this claim of cannabis induced brain damage makes no sense from a pharmalogicaly-informed standpoint. Kind of funny that cannabinoids have been shown to be neuroprotective (neuron protecting) by multiple studies. Fox News Channel does not have any place here.--Metalhead94 (talk) 09:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that a proper double-blinded study will never be undertaken because of the ethical challenges involved. That long-term chronic cannabis use causes brain damage is absolutely empirically evident. No one would conduct a study with such inherent risks. Bulbous (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that's irrelevant. The point you're missing is that in the article you've cited, no actual research was done.--Loodog (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Putting your fingers in your ears and screaming, "I can't hear you" is not an acceptable form of discourse. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a never ending story, these 'Pro & Contra'-weed discussions. 'Pro'-arguments are used always by weed-consumers and 'Contra' always by enemies of all kinds of drugs. The truth is: a clear mind is the best drug. Said of someone who is knowing both sides, who has read enough studies about and who is always thinking, that such discussions ending simply fruitless. It's existing about weed even fairy-tales as facts, too. But what always the same result is: weed is not better as alcohol and alcohol not better as weed. Both drugs, both provoking addictions (if physical or psychic). Both 'drugs' are changing your cognition as mind and moods, too. Rather should been the discussion: 'why' is someone use this or that kind of mind-influencing and even not 'what' and 'its praising or anti-praising' about. --217.235.188.11 (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The talkpage is meant for discussion of the article. A little bit of banter is tolerated (although officially it's not, pleaes see wikipedia policy) but this is not really the kind of place to have political discussions. Take it to a cannabis forum. It only clutters up the talkpage here. Supposed (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is reliable source for brain damage from cannabis usage, that should be in the article. Speculation by "medics" isn't reliable source and does not become so by being reported in media inclined to sensationalism. It's possible to put a news report in, if it's attributed and notable and not presented as a scientific fact. --Abd (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There's been no mention of affects on memory, in particular the inhibition of short-term memory encoding.74.140.167.218 (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)EB

Good point. I've added short-term memory effects in addition to the other uncontroversial effects.--Loodog (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Psychological Health aspects.

I have re-added this one sentence because it is not a POV statement. It merely simplifies and asks a question.

--79.72.162.181 (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I added a one sentence laymans' explanation of the psychological debate and made the point that this is a highly politicised debate. There are public policy expenditure and many other issues that will emerge from the outcome here and no reference to the politicisation of cannabis health issues left a yawning gap.

--Zigzagzen (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That was a quite accurate summary! However, I can't believe that any right-thinking person that isn't completely biased towards cannabis believes in the second alternative. Suggesting that persons with mental health are more likely to self-medicate with cannabis rather than having mental health issues arising from their cannabis use is ludicrous. That's akin to saying that fast-food addicts are self-medicating their obesity with food. Can any rational person believe that? Bulbous (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Many studies have come to the conculsion you dispute. Remember though, no-one has been able to prove that cannabis causes psychosis, thus to suggest that for people with conditions like schizophrenia, that their cannabis use may be causing the illness is ludicrus. Cannabidiol has been shown to be as effective as atypical anti-psychotics in treating schizophrenia. It is a major constituent of cannabis. Given this, why is it so outlandish to suggest people with schizophrenia etc may be self-medicating? Supposed (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair question. However, why is it that only groups that have health issues which have been linked to cannabis use are accused of self-medicating? Where are the other health-impaired groups that are self-medicating with cannabis that do not have conditions which are linked to cannabis use? Come on, this is the basest of misdirection. Bulbous (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to Zigzagzen. Your additions to wikipedia are welcome however what you added was POV bordering on original research and is not suitible for wikipedia.Supposed (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of my above statements, the edit that the above user made was absolutely balanced. It summarized the verbose statements already present in the article. Neither side was given greater weight. This was a fine addition with no POV involved. If you have specific objections, please voice them. But your accusations of POV don't pass first scrutiny. Bulbous (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the edit was done in good faith, however it was POV, nothing more, nothing less. Supposed (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You are calling this balanced edit "POV" without explaining yourself. All it does is summarize information already presented in the article. It coes so while presenting both sides of the debate without giving undue weight to either point of view. What "POV" are you ascribing to this editor? Bulbous (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It is his POV and it is original research. It is not acceptable on wikipedia, full stop. Supposed (talk) 05:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You have challenged this edit as being POV without even attempting to explain yourself or discuss your objections on the talk page. You are pushing the limits of WP:AGF. Please try to explain what about this edit that you feel is POV, and why you feel that way. Simply restating your claim is not sufficient. Bulbous (talk) 05:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It is very simple to understand, he is giving his opinion of the information presented above. It's highly inappropriate and completely incorrect to state "cannabis causes mental illness" especially as there is no evidence for this on the article. "Are mental health services overstretched?" well are they?... "The question comes down to" - is his opinion... etc etc Supposed (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I assumed good faith. I have already stated I don't think his intention was not to add to the article. Pointing out original research and POV bias does not preclude one from assuming good faith Supposed (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for finally explaining your position. When considering your allegations of POV, please consider that the editor did NOT state or even imply that "cannabis causes mental illness". He merely stated that was a matter under consideration for some. If your entire concerns hang on that statement, why not try tweaking it instead of a wholesale reversion? Bulbous (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to your first comment. you look like you're trying to form a hypothesis on self-medication, which is original research. You talk about self-medication only occuring in illness that is "linked with cannabis use" but that is a completely circular argument. Association is not causation, the 'linked to' language is very sloppy. Supposed (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop trying to insert this into the article. This is ripe with OR, regardless of POV Also, this is far from a "minor edit" which you've (Zigzagzen) marked it as. The problem with OR being inserted is the unproven nature of the following assumptions:

1. Assumes it's highly politicized.
2. Assumes mental health services are overstretched
3. Assumes the possibly false dichotomy that either (1) cannabis causes mental illness or (2) mentally ill people self-medicate with cannabis
4. Assumes that all use of cannabis among mentally ill is self-medication.
5. Makes the OR claim that "etiology of the psychological symptoms can not be separated from socio-political attitudes"

No one needs to suspect anyone of an agenda or POV pushing to know that this is unsourced original research and therefore unacceptable by WP:V.--Loodog (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Text in question: "This is a highly politicised aspect of the debate on cannabis. The question comes down to this: Are mental health services overstretched in part because cannabis causes mental illness, or are a large number of mentally ill people self-medicating their symptoms with cannabis, in part as a result of mental health services being overstretched and other social conditions."

This is neither POV or OR and something needs to be brought into the article to raise this point. I reinserted the point once after it was removed with no proper explanation - this is not vandalism - removing it with no proper explanation was vandalism. R.D. Laing pointed out in the 1960's that the aetiology of the psychological symptoms can not be separated from socio-political attitudes and context. So no Original Research there, merely referring to a well established part of the entire psycho-social debate.

There is no "assumption" that mental health services are overstretched it's fact - there is plenty of research to support this. It is also common knowledge amongst people who work in this aspect of health services and users.

There is no assumption of a false dichotomy either - at the moment the article implies canabis use induces mental illness and no other understanding of what is happening is represented.

I am going to continue to push for the inclusion of some kind of summary statement in the rough form I have used. Any edits to improve welcome but at the moment this debate is being controlled by the wikithoughtpolice as far as I can see - and thus presenting the "official mental health" picture to the exclusion of other viewpoints which are equally valid and supportable.--Zigzagzen (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Zigzagzen. Please go and thoroughly read WP:V and WP:VAND, and please do not accuse anyone of vandalism until you have done so. Thank you. Supposed (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Zizagzen, you're conflating perceived truth with verifiability. Verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter if anything you say above is true. Wikipedia treats anything unverifiable as a user making shit up.

So, what would be productive for you, if you'd like to improve the article:

• You say there is "there is plenty of research" to show mental health services are overstretched, produce some of it and we'll have a look
• You say Laing pointed out that the definition of psychosis cannot be removed from social attitudes, show us an article of him saying it
• Nowhere in this article is it said that cannabis use causes mental illness. Take a moment to read the article in detail. The article says there is a correlation. Correlation does not imply causation, unless you are prepared to argue things like Global warming is caused by a lack of pirates or that atmospheric CO2 causes crime.

--Loodog (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Health issues

The article mentions zero deaths directly due to marijuana use, but what about indirect (or secondary) deaths, due to things like automobile accident fatalities while driving under the influence? I remember reading many years ago that 16% of traffic deaths in one state were estimated to be caused by driving while smoking marijuana. I haven't seen any such statistic mentioned anywhere since then. We have loads of statistics about drunk driving deaths, but what about accidental deaths due to other behavior-altering substances? — Loadmaster (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There's probably a reason you haven't heard about new statistics, like maybe they were made up the first time. Here's a good survey of the literature (yes, on the NORML site, but they say from the beginning they are against driving while high). “The risk of all drug-positive drivers compared to drug-free drivers is similar to drivers with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05%. The risk is also similar to drivers above age 60 compared to younger drivers [around age 35].” (Franjo Grotenhermen. Drugs and Driving: Review for the National Treatment Agency, UK. Nova-Institut (Germany). November 2007.)NJGW (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Made up statistics? That's doubtful, as I recall the numbers were released by a state Department of transportation (probably some northeastern state). And as the risks you quote are greater than zero, it is logically impossible for non-zero risk levels to produce zero deaths. Many countries consider BAC 0.05% to be too intoxicated to drive. — Loadmaster (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, made-up, quite possibly. Or, more likely, collected in a way that doesn't account for correlated causation. Further, how can one judge that an accident has been caused by marijuana usage? My experience, when young, with marijuana and with marijuana users indicates that while the drug is active, users are hypercautious, quite possibly reluctant to drive. Further, marijuana does not seem to have the severe effect on reaction time that alcohol does. I recall studies from more than thirty years ago, I'm not up on recent literature, but there has been quite a bit of nonsense published. For example, the study claiming damage to mental health from marijuana smoking, based on comparing the size of certain brain structures comparing "long-term marijuana users" with supposedly matched controls. "Long-term use" was smoking "five joints a day for more than 10 years."[1] That is not merely long-term use, that is long-term heavy use. And it does not show causation. Perhaps small amygdala size is more common among those who start marijuana use. Further, it's not clear that the reduction in size was harmful. Maybe. Maybe not. Further, again, smoking is pretty nasty, all in itself. What was the cause, if the reduction was caused by cannabis smoking, the cannabis or the smoking?

The decision to ban marijuana, initially, was made for political reasons, not medical ones. Is marijuana good for you? That might depend on where you are, i.e., your condition. What if those long-term users with slightly smaller amygdalas or hippocampi, without the marijuana, would have committed suicide? Quite simply, we don't know! Scientific panel after panel has studied whether or not marijuana should be illegal, and the conclusion has nearly always been that society isn't benefited by making it into a criminal issue. Consider the "gateway drug" argument. A sophisticated version of this is that usage leads the user to be associated with criminal elements and thus makes it more likely that harder drugs will be available for experimentation. Or addiction. However ... if true, wouldn't this actually be an argument for legalization?

My point is that there is lots of speculation out there, mixed in with actual research. We should be constantly looking for better sources, probably secondary sources because so many of the primary ones, i.e., research studies, either incorporate certain biases (in how the study data is analyzed) or in how the results are interpreted, with conclusions not actually supported by the research, but merely being a speculation or possible inference. --Abd (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say zero. I said the statistics you heard way back when were probably made up (or doctored). It's an no secret that the US has been creating anti-pot propaganda since the early 1900's. Later, instead of making "scary" movies, they became more sophisticated and released statistics or passed out information for poorly conceived/executed "research". In any case, "indirect" causes of death are pretty hard to prove unless you have huge samples with really good controls, and the stats are so much lower than drinking and driving stats that it's probably really hard to draw any conclusions (though apparently it's about as dangerous as driving while 60). Plus the issue becomes completely confounded by the fact that the vast majority of accidents in which pot is detected also involve alcohol. We can put the above lit review and study in the article, or if you like you can do your own search. I doubt you'll find serious research stating anywhere near 16% of traffic deaths are caused by pot: "The overall rate of highway accidents appears not to be significantly affected by marijuana's widespread use in society." NJGW (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This section (about deaths per year from several other substances) is out of place. The statistics should cover deaths attibuted to marijuana and leave it at that. It's pretty obvious that the aspirin statistic was included with a bit of bias, seeing as it is unrelated to marijuana at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.65.225.43 (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Mariguana? No, thanks. Though iguanas are nice.

I removed the following from the lead; "mariguana" is a Spanish spelling, not used in English. However, the reference is interesting; I've got to do other things now, but the information there about the original of "marihuana" might be useful, so I'm putting this here.

or mariguana,

For ease, this is a link for the citation: [2]. --Abd (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I turned it into a footnote. NJGW (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I corrected the footnote. The normal Spanish spelling is "marihuana," "mariguana" being a variant spelling. --Abd (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And a thoroughly obscure one at that, hardly notable for inclusion. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Medical Use Section Has 2 Errors

Under the medical use portion of this article, the assertion that clinical trials were performed by the American Marijuana Policy Project seem inaccurate. Checking the source, the Reuters article clearly states the study was performed by Dr. Barth Wilsey of the University of California and other California researchers at Davis Medical Center. A source linking to the MPP's website (which is a copied and pasted Reuters article) is not evidence that the Marijuana Policy Project performed the study.

The next paragraph goes on to state "the FDA has approved marijuana as a treatment for cancer and the symptoms of HIV and Influenza". This is a flat out falsehood. The FDA has approved of a couple of synthetic forms of THC in pill form, one being Marinol, but smoked marijuana is currently not approved by the FDA. Nor has the FDA approved of any whole plant extract that utilizes both THC and some other the other medically active ingredients in cannabis such as CBD. From my understanding, this is at least in part the reason why medical marijuana advocates have taken their cases to state governments. A whole plant cannabis extract would be a product like Sativex, mentioned later in the article.

I think the first error should be corrected by citing Dr. Barth Wilsey and team as the ones that performed the trials rather than the Marijuana Policy Project. The next paragraph needs revising so it's clear the FDA has not approved of any whole plant cannabis extract or herbal marijuana. Phylo121 (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Image caption: Orange Crush/Kush

When Murken uploaded an image of a cannabis bud in March, he described it as Orange Crush. An anonymous user later changed the description to read "Orange Kush," though the page history was deleted in October. When I noticed the discrepancy with the file name, I corrected it, and changed the caption on this page to reflect that. It has since been changed back.

Therefore, in the absence of evidence that "Orange Kush" was what Murken intended to write, I am changing it back to Crush. - Calmypal (T) 22:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Misleading?

The information on this topic varies significantely, however, after reviewing more closely the biology of the cannabis plant you will see that the definition given for hashish in this article is missleading. Hashish is a product of the THC rich, resinous secretions produced by the glandular trichomes. There are multiple ways for collecting the trichomes and the resin they contain and secrete, but the collection yield a final product. The resulting from this collection is a sticky resin, or resin powder, depending on the collection process used, and then the substance must be pressed, and traditionally, oils have been added in this process.

Trichomes known purpose, on almost any plant that contains them, is to create a more humid microenvironment to reduce evaporative water loss. Pertaining to the marijuana plant, this is also true but it has been speculated through scientific studies that the resin also contains cannabinoids other than THC that not only add to and change the mind altering effects of THC, but some of them actually serve as a form of bug repelant.

Newer processes have evolved for producing much more potent hash. These aproches involve the use of cold water or ice to help sepparate the entire trichome from the other plant material. The cold temperature makes the trichomes brittle and they fall off easily. These processes have been claimed to yield Hashish products containing as much as 75% THC, however, more reputable sources reporting on the same processes claim to consistantly produce hash that can contain 50% THC, if the process is executed flawlessly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doolanep (talk • contribs)

I have removed the {{editsemiprotected}} because it was not clear what exactly you wanted. Please be more specific or wait four days and you should be able to edit the article yourself. MSGJ 08:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

drug test

how long does mar.stay in my system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.127.92 (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you're in the wrong place for this. Wikipedia talk pages are only supposed to be used for discussion of improvements to the article. wikipedia is not a forum. Try google.--Loodog (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Adulterants

I'd like to add a section about adulterants found in cannabis samples, since there examples in the scientific literature and it is a commonly asked question. But where is the right place? -- Panoramix303 (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

More information regarding the types and effects of adulterants would be a welcome addition. I believe the lifeline project has done research on this. this link may be of some use to you. I think the effects of adulterants would be more useful in the Effects of cannabis article. Supposed (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)