Talk:Cannabis (drug)

Sandbox of proposed article

I created a sandbox version of the proposed article at Talk:Cannabis_(drug)/sandbox. I was going to create the article all by itself as suggested by several people above, but it really is almost all of this article. The main reason I didn't just create the article Recreational use of cannabis is that if it does take over the place of this article as suggested, a history merge would be required later. Please have a look and see what you guys think. Note that I think we should try to pattern the article on other articles on psychoactive drugs, of which, incidentally, I see only cannabis has "(drug)" in the title. If anything it seems that "Cannabis (psychoactive use)" would be more correct. NJGW (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If parenthesis' can be avoided, it generally looks better. Keep in mind that no other psychoactive drug has nearly as common a usage both recreationally and otherwise, and so the pages on those drugs are for the most part already about the recreational use of them. Some other possible titles could be:

• Human use of cannabis
• Recreational use of cannabis
• Psychoactive use of cannabis
• Ingestion of cannabis

etc. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks NJGW for starting this, I think either Recreational use of cannabis or Psychoactive use of cannabis would be an appropriate name for the new article. I wouldn't go with "Ingestion of cannabis" (or "Consumption of cannabis") because non-psychoactive hemp can be eaten as food too. —Whig (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with that, also because the term ingestion usually refers specifically to eating and is not often associated with inhalation. As I've mentioned numerous times, I'm in favour of Recreational use of cannabis, as it describes it perfectly, with nothing left to interpretation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Keep in mind that no other psychoactive drug has nearly as common a usage both recreationally and otherwise" Um Coffee and Tea are quite widely used nowadays or are we forgetting that caffeine is a drug (and the most widely used psychoactive one at that) too? It would make allot more sence to have Psychoactive use of cannabis as the article title rather than Cannabis (drug). But that IS just my opinion :) 82.152.249.200 (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The article isn't about the recreational use of cannabis; it's about the effects and facts of cannabis as a psychoactive drug.--Loodog (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we need another poll of opinion on which of these names is preferred? Psychoactive use of cannabis is my preference, or psychoactive cannabis use perhaps because shorter, and recreational cannabis use can redirect, or vice versa. —Whig (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, effects of cannabis is about the effects of cannabis. There are many different articles about the various types of facts, such as facts about the legality, facts about the plant itself, and facts about it's medical usage. This article only talks about facts about it's recreational usage (or did until the medical usage subsection was recreated). NJGW (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

So does that mean you would agree with creating recreational cannabis use? —Whig (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I created it in sandbox form. Nobody's done anything with it. I still think this article is essentially 'Recreational cannabis use' (or 'recreational use of...'), and would benefit in focus from being renamed to either that or marijuana (which seems to me to be a one word phrase meaning "recreational use of cannabis"). This might be a discussion we can have outside of the centralized discussion I suggest below. NJGW (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

marijuana and lung cancer

People who smoke marijuana--even heavy, long-term marijuana users--do not appear to be at increased risk of developing lung cancer.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm

As there is no proof that marijuana is harmful to a person's health, I believe that the section stating so in the marijuana section should be revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.78.236 (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't know of a single reliable (ie not funded by the US's anti-drug agencies) publication that actually claims any correlation to lung cancer. That section should be rewritten slightly. The main problem is that as soon as you claim certain studies over the results of others, you tend to break NPOV, and too many people can't see the fundamental flaw of research directed under the wing of a government that lied in the first place to illegalize the drug not only once, but twice! -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Request to add a higher quality picture

The picture at the top is not a good representation of marijuana and is too blurry I suggest this one instead. This way people can see marijuana at its prime.

Psychonaught (talk)

Not sure what you mean... the picture in the article is not blurry, and has the added bonus of not showing your finger. NJGW (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This picture is a better representation of marijuana, and the finger is of no importance. Psychonaught (talk)

The picture in use now is fine and as NJGW it doesn't have a finger in it and is therefore a much better photo to use here. Herbal Hi (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Just my two cents, this picture can be used in the context of showing it's actual size - although the first picture is better as a header, there isn't any hint about the flower's size, it might be as big as my cat... Kaly J. (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. —Whig (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

redirect change

{{editsemiprotected}}

in the Effects section, please change

...and short-term [[episodic]] and working memory...

to

...and short-term [[episodic memory|episodic]] and working memory...

there isn't any reason for the redirection to the episodic disambiguation page.

Kaly J. (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Exert 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames in the lead

No one calls it "cannabis" in vernacular use. We ought list a few of the most-common nicknames in the lead (though I agree that it had ballooned too much before someone came along and cut them all out). –xeno^talk 20:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Cannabis, also known as marijuana or marihuana which is derived from the Spanish, and ganja (from Template:Lang-sa gañjā, hemp), as well as weed, pot, buddha or bud, grass, herb, green, reefer, and mary jane (M.J.),among many others, refers to any number of preparations of..."

I have removed this interminable list. For the following reasons:

1. WP:UNDUE weight on nicknames. It's a distracting list that shows up well after the topic of the article is clear.
2. No reliable sources have been produced for these names, which makes them Original Research. They are slang, which means anyone can add another name from some dubious word of mouth.
3. WP:TRIVIA

Readers wishing to have every possible nickname for marijuana, testicles, or prostitute can consult urbandictionary, wiktionary, or any site oriented to that subject. There is no place for this on wikipedia.--Loodog (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Merged with above. As stated, I think a few of the most common are necessary for the lead, as neither cannabis nor marijuana is commonly used in the vernacular. I actually think a section on this would be worthwhile and easily sourced. –xeno^talk 20:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't add "balls" to the testicles page, or "whore" to the prostitute article because it's not the most common vernacular. This is slang, not a difference of standardized terminology.

That being said, we could always create an article called List of slang words for cannabis, but to put such a list in this article is undue weight on the concept of naming pot, especially in the LEAD.--Loodog (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see how undue applies here. See, however, WP:BOLDTITLE for an MOS example where a few common names are included in the lead. –xeno^talk 20:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• As it will be impossible to agree on which are the most common I would support only two appearing in the lead: pot and weed. These I think are the most common. –xeno^talk 20:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The lead should contain the words that are of worldwide notability: Marijuana, weed, pot and ganja (The first and last especially due to their history). The remaining endless list of slang terms should be adapted into a prose format instead of a list, and incorporated into a new heading of the article, with explanations as to where/how the term originated. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, my above suggestion included both marijuana and ganja, and spoke only to the section "...as well as". –xeno^talk 20:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If you really want this list of 9 names to stay in the article, I definitely can't see dedicating a section to it. I would grant a footnote to the last 6 and have no problem keeping marijuana, cannabis, and ganja as proper terms. The purpose of listing multiple names is (1) to ensure the reader knows (s)he's in the right place and (2) to recognize a lack of a universal proper name. Given the giant picture of the flower and the words marijuana, cannabis, and ganga, I don't think any pothead who knows the more colloquial vernacular would be confused when (s)he doesn't see the word "weed".--Loodog (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I think we should have 5: cannabis, marjiuana, ganja, pot, weed. (My most recent self-revert to restore more names was because I noticed I had inadvertently broached 3R) –xeno^talk 23:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, I cite adding "balls" to the testicles page, or "hooker" to prostitute. I agree "pot" and "weed" to be absolutely common terms, but they are nonetheless slang. Wikipedia articles are not... "Usage guides or slang and idiom guides."--Loodog (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Does wikipedia have to wait for websters to officially make it a word for it to not be considered slang and thus tossed aside? I think when the word is used by the press and the governments of many countries world-wide, that a term has bridged the gap between regional slang and common usage. Wikipedia is not a dictionary is for short stub articles, and not for full fledged articles such as this where several terms are known world-wide. Cannabis should obviously be included because of the article name. Marijuana should be used because of its role in the first prohibition. Ganja should be used due to its cultural history and connection with the plant throughout the past, and as it is more recognized than Cannabis by most of the world. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly a nonrefutable source that would support a wikipedia article, and indeed ganja is there, as is cannabis, and marijuana. I would support these as standard nonslang terms for inclusion.--Loodog (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Then I guess there's no need to debate further, merriam-webster also list 'weed' and 'pot': [1] [2] –xeno^talk 20:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Pot and Weed are most often listed as slang: [3][4] NJGW (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Merriam Webster > Dictionary.com –xeno^talk 20:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

On related note, all the names I'm calling nonstandard have redirects on their dab pages to here anyway. So I would like your preference.

Preference

A - All 9 names in lead as is currently the case

B - 3 (cannabis, marijuana, ganja) mentioned in lead, footnote the other 6.

C - 3 (cannabis, marijuana, ganja) mentioned in lead with or without footnote for other 6 while all 9 mentioned in separate article List of terms used for cannabis

D - Other preference (specify).

I would not be averse to B or C, but believe A is inappropriate.--Loodog (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

E: C,M,G,pot,weed mentioned in lead. Sourcible per above. –xeno^talk 20:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ditto Loodog on prefs... the rest are slang ([5][6]) and don't need to be in the lead. B seems to be a good compromise, though a separate list or link to Wiktionary may be needed instead if people keep adding every word in the book to it (trees, smoke, stuff, blaze, etc, etc, etc). NJGW (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd go with Merriam-Webster over 'dictionary.com' which I don't believe qualifies as an RS. –xeno^talk 20:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Have another look, Dictionary.com compiles several sources which I believe you would be happy to call RS's in one easy to find place. They have no content of their own. NJGW (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

While I would grant to xeno that m-w does establish the latter 6 as being used, m-w is notably silent on type of usage, which dictionary.com also comments on. m-w does not contradict dictionary.com since the latter offers a consistent definition and additional detail.

All that aside, I am unconvinced that "pot", "grass", etc.. are ever used as anything other than slang.--Loodog (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like semantics to me. "Weed" and "Pot" are very common terms for the drug [7] [8]. –xeno^talk 20:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What is slang

Oh shit, now we're in a real can of worms. Even linguists don't really know what slang is. One thing is for sure... slang is just semantics. As for the guideline, wp:LEAD#Alternative names seems to indicate that names in the lead are to help people know they are in the right place. It goes on to say, "Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves." This might not apply to slang though (no clear statement in wp:LEAD.

On a side note to this, wp:Common name seems to suggest that this whole article be renamed "Marijuana", since hardly anyone outside of scholarly literature (including gov, news, smokers, parents....) calls it "cannabis". NJGW (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Support move to Marijuana, and three alternate names (ganja, weed, pot) in the lead with "cannabis" as the medical name and (possibly) a section on Names. –xeno^talk 21:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose At the risk of seeming maniacal about a minor thing, pot and weed are colloquial slang. Ganja, cannabis, and marijuana all have a degree of "officialness" to them.

Side note: slang is apparently defined as either (1) terminology particular to a group or (2) nonstandard vocabulary typically composed of [things not immediately fitting what we have here]. --Loodog (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Marijuana is almost never used in the UK and I guess in NZ and Aus so changing it to that seems a bit rash. Herbal Hi (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As a slang term (daily use by users/dealers) "Marijuana" is probably not used anywhere. It's the term used/clearly-understood in many places around the world by press, law enforcement, citizens, schools, etc... What term is used semi-formally (ie not just by researchers) in the UK? NJGW (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Simply cannabis. I think the current name is the clearest way of organising this and the main cannabis article. Is cannabis never used in the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbal Hi (talk • contribs) 23:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Cannabis" is used much less often then "Marijuana" [9][10], and the same could probably be said for pot/weed/grass. Users/dealers seem to have a very localized set of term preferences that avoids most of the above (though ironically "cannabis" is beginning to gain acceptance as a much cooler alternative to the classic slang terms). The big question is raised by wp:Common name. "Marijuana" is instantly recognizable by anyone in the world as the drug from the Cannabis plant. NJGW (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm going to have to oppose this on one particular point but also I generally agree with some of the points made. Specifically the title says "the effects of the drug cannabis are mediated by cannabinoids". Cannabidiol is one such cannbinoid and it does not just occur in female plant but occurs in large quantities in hemp. There are parts of wikipedia that state it isn't psychoactive, however it has been found to be as effective as atypical anti-psychotics in treating schizophirenia and is thought to be an anxiolytic drug. A minor point perhaps but we do not need a seperate 'effects of hemp' article. Supposed (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I think that Supposed's point about hemp above is very important, and psychoactive use of cannabis is not necessarily use of the flowers of the female plant, i.e. what the US government calls marijuana. The plant is cannabis, and that's how the article should be named. I also think it is worth noting that Ganja is not Sanskrit but modern Hindu, the original Sanskrit name is Ganjika, which has meaning in that language. —Whig (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Though "marijuana" is more common in official US use, my understanding for the current name is that "marijuana" was a contrived name, created to sound Spanish, while "cannabis" comes straight from Latin, which in turn was descended from Greek.[11] "Ganja" traces back to Sanskrit.[12].--Loodog (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

Tdinatale created an "Etymology" section, though it doesn't discuss the etymology of "cannabis". I removed it. It also covers legal history and other aspects best/already addressed in other sections. NJGW (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The recent edits in the etymology section are neither supported by the references and contradict some the whole article on the etymology of marijuana. Furthermore the other source (blog entry) is also quite dubious with its own agenda. The whole wikipedia article could benefit greatly if it would be written less POV. Repeating the theory about Anslinger et al. all over won't help anyone, especially if there are other theories which are just as plausible/contradictory. Panoramix303 (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Understandable. Tdinatale (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Potency

I placed a ref improve tag in the potency section because the ref used there is far from RS. Tdinatale removed it twice. I wonder if s/he could explain why it should be removed. NJGW (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis is not a drug

Am I missing something? Why is cannabis referred to as a drug? THC is a drug. Cannabis is a plant that contains a drug. This is like referring to poppies as a drug.Heqwm2 (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point, we don't refer to poppies as a drug. Opium is a drug. —Whig (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please look at the WHO definition: http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/terminology/who_lexicon/en/

Drug: A term of varied usage. In medicine, it refers to any substance with the potential to prevent or cure disease or enhance physical or mental welfare, and in pharmacology to any chemical agent that alters the biochemical physiological processes of tissues or organisms. Hence, a drug is a substance that is, or could be, listed in a pharmacopoeia. In common usage, the term often refers specifically to psychoactive drugs, and often, even more specifically, to illicit drugs, of which there is non-medical use in addition to any medical use. Professional formulations (e.g. "alcohol and other drugs") often seek to make the point that caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, and other substances in common non- medical use are also drugs in the sense of being taken atleast in part for their psychoactive effects.

Cannabis fulfills the criteria of this definition. Panoramix303 (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis is a plant with many industrial uses. Some specially bred varieties of the plant have psychoactive properties. These varieties are mostly referred to by the press and in scholarly literatureas "marijuana".

• scholar/"marijuana": 310,000 (1.25x more popular among scholars... not accounting for articles only about the plant)
• scholar/"cannabis": 247,000
• news/"marijuana": 864,000 (4.5x more popular among journalists)
• news/"cannabis": 188,000
• web/"marijuana": 25,100,000 (1.8x more popular in popular usage)
• web/"cannabis": 13,800,000

That all is beside the point though, as "drug" is a loaded term. No other main drug article has the "(drug)" distinguisher in the title. It's not descriptive, as Panoramix points out it is "a term of varied usage". wp:TITLE states "Titles should be brief without being ambiguous; Titles should make linking to the article simple." Varied usage means ambiguity (is this article about the physiological effects of cannabis? or its use as a medical drug? a psychoactive drug? an illicit drug and it's legal/societal issues? WTF do we mean by drug here???). As for making "linking to the article simple", 'Marijuana' is 9 universally recognizable characters meaning exactly what this article is about to every single person who speaks English, vs. 15 characters which are not used together in the same sequence outside of Wikipedia. NJGW (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The distiguisher is there to distinguish from the cannabis article and this one. The cannabis article is about the plant. This is about the psychoactive use of the plant (i.e. the drug aspect of it). I suspect there was a page split a long time ago, as result of the whole "cannabis is not a drug" debate.--Loodog (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right of course, but it raises 2 questions:

1. Is Cannabis the proper term for the psychoactive use of Cannabis? (per the evidence above, it looks like Marijuana is much more frequently used and needs no distinguisher, fulfilling the requirements of wp:TITLE)
2. If this page is to stay here, is "{drug}" the best distinguisher when even you have to say "the psychoactive use of the plant" so we'll understand what you mean by "drug"? Afterall, even according to the WHO the term is ambiguous.

I'd say the answer to the first question is that "Marijuana" better fits wp:TITLE better than the current title, and even better than just plain "Cannabis". Others editors have claimed that "marijuana" is slang, but I see no evidence of that assumption in this extensive compilation of sources, so it fails wp:V. Someone could argue (as I have recently) that the article should be moved to Cannabis (recreational use) (which would be much more descriptive of a title and less POV than the current title), but why make the title even longer when we can shorten it to a more standard AND recognizable form? NJGW (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Marijuana is just as ambiguous as cannabis since the definitions given are identical. Renaming this article to "marijuana" would be no more valid than moving the cannabis article to "marijuana". And both should be located at a place which international readers would agree is the most recognized, official name.

As for other suggestions about the distinguisher: "recreational use" is unwieldy, improper (seems to claim that if something is used differently, it ceases to be the same thing), and an awkward politically correct way to say "drug".--Loodog (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless, you want to claim that the cannabis article should be moved to cannabis (plant) or hemp. That's a different argument, which must be taken up there.--Loodog (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Loo, cherry picking a single dictionary ref gets us nowhere. Marijuana is preferred by scholars, journalists, and the public. Many languages use "Marijuana" or some derivative as their term for the recreational drug. It's internationally used and recognizable. I really don't understand the problem. "Drug" is ambiguous. There's no getting around that, and Cannabis will not end up being moved to "(plant)" (and you know this). I totally agree that in life, calling it "cannabis" is much cooler than calling it "marijuana". But wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And as cool as it WP is, it's nowhere near as cool as life... especially with all these policies we have to follow. NJGW (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just looking up the first dictionary I know. I'm not cherry picking and I have no preference for whether the article goes here or to "marijuana". Please stop assuming I have some ulterior purpose or that I have an intention that I don't, and that the intention I have is for the wrong reasons.

It all comes down to three concepts, two are naming issues and the third is a question of WP:PRIMARYUSAGE: (1) how people most commonly refer to the plant this stuff grows on, (2) how people most commonly refer to the psychoactive parts of it, (3) what is commonly meant by the word "cannabis" or "marijuana".

Though I'm not well-versed in international naming, my experience that been that "marijuana" is a more common word for both. Therefore, if I had my way, this article would be located at marijuana (psychoactive) or marijuana (drug), the cannabis page would be located at marijuana (plant) and the search phrase "marijuana", being inherently ambiguous, would go to a dab page. But I don't know how popular "marijuana" is abroad. Addition - I would accept your google searches as representative of common usage.--Loodog (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Arguments ad Google are unreliable. In my experience as a former drug worker and trainer and as a colleague of researchers on the subject, "cannabis" is the generic term for the drug that we used. "Marijuana" was used to refer to herbal cannabis and "hashish" to resin. This may be a case where WP:ENGVAR applies.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Recreational use of cannabis seems to be the most appropriate wording to me (follows article naming such as Recreational use of dextromethorphan). The current title is inappropriate, as it specifically avoids discussion of medical cannabis, which should certainly be included if this is the article for the "drug" side of cannabis.--Remurmur (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The distinction being made here is between the whole plant and its psychoactive pieces, not between different usages of it.--Loodog (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't mean to come off as accusing you of ulterior motives. I just thought your mind was made up already. I think we need to agree on some basic facts of usage etc first, and then open an RFC with a few options. A page as visited (important?) as this needs a well thought out and wide consensus before being renamed or moved. NJGW (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling we need to canvas the cannabis editors to get them in on the discussion. I personally think that since "cannabis" (or "marijuana" for that matter) is a word with no meaning predominanting, it needs to be a dab page. Although we'll probably get objections with the whole "number of clicks it takes to get to an article" argument. Ugh.--Loodog (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

We have had extensive discussion about this in the past and there has been consensus that marijuana is not the correct encyclopedic term. It is a term that was applied to cannabis by the US government and used to confuse the public so that people did not realize that it was cannabis. —Whig (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussions in the past are past consensuses. A new consensus can be formed at any time. As far as what the US government did in the early 1900s, that should be in the article, but wp:common name doesn't take the etymology of the term into account. The fact remains that "marijuana" is more common in scientific lit, news, and the general web. NJGW (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not think there is a present consensus to change to "marijuana." I would oppose such a change. —Whig (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

We haven't posed the question yet to gauge consensus. I think this would be a big question for the whole wikiproject, as there are discussions at Cannabis and Cannabis sativa that are also related. We would need a centralized discussion addressing the names of these three articles together. NJGW (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Consensus can change. My personal vote would be for marijuana actually, though I'm not too strongly attached to this. My reasoning: if "marijuana" is the most commonly used term in print and speech, then it is the most commonly used name, regardless of the history of the term.--Loodog (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Requesting correction of the study regarding increased presence of ammonia in cannabis smoke.

There are some problems with the reference to the 2007 Health Canada study as mentioned in a BBC article linked on the page. If is to be mentioned in the article at all, these facts need to be included. (As a side note, I don't think it's categorized correctly. The mention of this study is found under "long term health effects" when no health effects were demonstrated in the study and should therefore be moved, if it stays at all).

This link gives both the abstract and the full text of the study. Look below the abstract to see the full text.

[13]

The major flaw in the study, and they admit leads to uncertainty, was a failure to test growth mediums for nitrogen levels. As they stated:

"The amount of ammonia produced during combustion of tobacco has been related to the amount of nitrate fertilizer applied during growth (30). The simplest explanation for the very high levels of ammonia found in marijuana smoke may be that the marijuana used for this study contained more nitrate than the tobacco sample."

"A logical explanation would be that these are arising from the nitrate present in the fertilizer and would be consistent with the very high ammonia yields."

So the researchers said that because the health canada specimens were grown under entirely different conditions, and no growth medium comparisons were done, that it is quite possible that higher levels of nitrogen were present in the cannabis growth medium (a hydroponic solution) as compared to the soil the tobacco was grown in.

Another point to make is that cigarettes burn at higher temperatures than a normal marijuana pipe is smoked at, where the smoker has to continuously relight the pipe between puffs because the temperature is so low and the pipe extinguishes between puffs. Problematically, the statement in the article refers to cannabis smoke in general, but that's not accurate, as the study is strictly a reference to smoke from marijuana cigarettes.

Currently the wiki article states: "A 2007 study by the Canadian government found cannabis smoke contained more toxic substances than tobacco smoke."

This is incorrect they didn't find "more toxic substances" they found some were higher some were not, and they never said that the ones found more abundantly in the cannabis were more harmful than those found at higher levels in the tobacco. Therefore, this page should be updated to say "smoke from cannabis cigarettes contained higher levels of some toxic substances as compared to tobacco cigarettes, which tested higher for other substances such as PAHs, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde."

The mention of this study, as well as the study itself have noteworthy flaws. There is far too much doubt about the methodology of this study to include it. But if mentioning this study is going to remain in the article, then it needs to be amended to address these discrepancies. Potentially it needs it's own article, maybe a "tobacco smoke vs. cannabis smoke" article. As it stands this part of the article is incomplete and misleading.Sucrase (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sucrase (talk • contribs) 10:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Requesting Washington Post article be referenced in more depth.

We need to include the information from the Washington Post article, reference number 35 in the citation list, which states that it was the largest study of it's kind. Importantly this study found no risk and even some protective effect against lung cancer. As the article says:

"This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use"

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sucrase (talk • contribs) 10:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the abstract of the study, I couldn't find anything else which gets close to the Washington Post article. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17035389 The fulltext is free. Panoramix303 (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

They interviewed one of the lead researchers, Dr. Tashkin, in that Washington Post article. There is no doubt it has all the facts. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I am saying the article should be referenced to include the important points about the study which it mentioned. By the way, you only linked an abstract. If the text is free, please post it here as a separate link as I'm sure people want to read it. Sucrase (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Tashkin wasn't the lead researcher, that's the reason why I said that it's the closest article I could find. The link to the fulltext is in the abstract I posted above. Panoramix303 (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I said he was one of the leads, which he is. His name is shown in the list in the abstract which you linked. Also tell us where on the page to click for the full study if you could.

I'm just requesting to add more information from that article. Simply that it the study is the largest of it's kind and showed a slight protective effect. You haven't found anything that contradicts this article and the source is credible. So I vote for this to be included.

Sucrase (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just add it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_bold_in_editing_articles

The fulltext link is in the right upper corner.

If you want to add references, you can use Diberri's tool http://toolserver.org/~diberri/cgi-bin/templatefiller/?type=&id=

Panoramix303 (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I cant add it because the article is semi-locked. Someone with the ability to edit semi-locked articles should add it.Sucrase (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Illegalization in the US

The article states that the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 made cannabis use illegal, but the article on the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 states that the act didn't criminalize cannabis use or possession but created procedures for cannabis handling that if violated would be subject to fine.

The article also contains a reference to the fact that improper use of cannabis was already illegal in all US states by the time of the passage of the act: "Anslinger also referred to the International Opium Convention that from 1928 included cannabis as a drug, and that all states had some kind of laws against improper use of cannabis". Recreational use of cannabis it seems was already illegal at the state levels, and the intent behind the act seemed to have to do with alarm with a threat of mass importation of cannabis (from illegal Mexicans) to be sold specifically for those purposes that were already illegal. The procedures mandated by the act were a guarantee that cannabis sale or import wasn't intended for those illegal uses.

It references the International Opium Convention of 1928, an international drug control treaty, which listed cannabis as a drug and restricted the sale of Indian hemp to countries that prohibited it, and required shipments to state "exclusively for medical or scientific purposes." The US, among other countries, had attempted a broader ban on Indian hemp.

As it would appear, recreational use of cannabis was already illegal and attempts to enact bans were part of broader drug bans (such as at the International Opium Convention) which occurred in the Prohibition period (1919 - 1933). So, while there are a lot of interesting theories suggesting ulterior motives behind cannabis bans, it seems cannabis was targeted for bans at the same time alcohol and opium were targeted, which would suggest: there was a concern about all recreational drugs, under the idea they were social vices. Not only western societies were interested in bans, but also countries like China and Egypt, according to the article on the drug control treaty. The country mainly opposed to bans was India which was the main exporter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.167.151 (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Problems With User NJGW

I'm having issues with the user NJGW (Talk | Contribs) essentially being a control freak of this article and reverting not only my perfectly good edits, but the edits of others as well, apparently simply because he doesn't seem to *like them*. As an example, he reverted all of this which I just put in with the only valid reason being that I didn't enter a proper summary of my changes:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis_(drug)&diff=305440285&oldid=305438070

Lots of good stuff in there.. I updated the history/terminology for the term "marijuana", added an explanation of the term "sinsemilia", added some basic pharmacology on the cannabinoids and their action on the cannabinoid receptors, added a reference or two and redid a few citations which were lacking in content (like added author, url, date, etc), and did a basic reformat of the rest of the page for source beauty as well as consistency.

NJGW reverted it all. I reverted his reversion telling him not to do it again and to contact me if he didn't agree with my changes, and he f*cking reverted them again. I got into a revert war with him in this article the other day over slang names of Cannabis and got a god damn 48 hour temp ban which seriously pissed me off at the time. For that reason, I'm basically not going to and essentially can't undo his latest reversion yet again because of the so-called "three revert rule" or whatever it is. Or maybe that would apply to him and not me since he's the one doing it, I don't really know. Anyway, I've messaged him here regarding the subject (please read because it has some necessary information):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NJGW#Listen_You (see "Listen You" section at the very bottom)

I'm posting in this talk page as well as directly to him so we can get this issue sorted out once and for all, and not only with this matter, but with some of the past issues like terminology and slang terms and any potential future problems that may arise. I'd like everyone who actively participates in the development of this article and is willing, to step in and discuss and moderate all that is added and is sufficiently controversial (unlike my last changes which he reverted which are not in the slightest), not just this NJGW person, and perhaps if necessary, have a Wikipedia moderator or admin come and review the changes so there aren't any contraindications from either me, him, or anyone else, or merely just between the two of us which mainly seems to be the situation, anymore.

Discussion consisting of comments, suggestions, and opinions are readily desired, welcomed, and appreciated. Please help us sort this out. Thank you very much. Rocknroll714 (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Rocknroll, you were here 2 weeks ago making poor edits. I asked you several times to discuss your edits buy you flatly refused. I then went through every single change and kept the good changes throwing out the bad. This took a lot of time, which I see as wasted effort on my part as your "improvements" were very negligible. They are explained in my edits to the article on July 15. You were also blocked at that point for edit warring with zero discussion (you may or may not remember that). I'm glad you're willing to use the talk page now, though your use of a meat puppet to revert my change this morning is highly disturbing. As most of your changes are against the wp:MOS, you are actually bringing this article further away from good article status. I'm not going to waste more of my time on this as it's not really that important in the grand scheme, but FYI your character assassination[14], misquotes (I didn't say "don't edit wikipedia," I said "if you can't... work with consensus, don't edit wikipedia"[15]), MOS mistakes, and unfamiliarity with the topic (you're 18 and never heard the word ganja before?!) make editing this article with you very difficult. NJGW (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming of Article

This was being discussed in the past and I'd like to bring it back up. Basically, what name is most appropriate for the article, "Cannabis" or "marijuana"? One thing I'm wondering which could potentially be a serious factor in this matter is what does the U.S., U.K., U.N., international, or otherwise, respectively, officially refer to this drug as?

Some basic information.. "Cannabis" traditionally refers to the genus of these plants which includes Cannabis indica and Cannabis sativa, and good ol' "marijuana" has been a term used to describe the herb used as a drug for psychoactive recreational, pharmaceutical, or otherwise, purposes for literally hundreds of years. It's far more well-known than "Cannabis" is in my opinion. In fact, I distinctly remember seeing Paul McCartney on TV speak of "Cannabis" in the past a few years ago.. I didn't know what he was talking about and actually had to look it up and found that it was "marijuana" he was speaking of.

Additionally, nobody ever calls this drug "Cannabis", nor "ganja" for that matter. It's always referred to as either "marijuana" or an alternative slang term such as "weed", "pot", "bud/buddha", "grass", "herb", "reefer", "dope", "schag", "kush", "chronic", "skunk", and so forth. Of course those names would be inappropriate for the title, but I feel that "marijuana" would be a perfect word to use. It would also get rid of the annoying "Cannabis_(drug)" appendage and confusion with the "Cannabis" genus article. We could just call it "Marijuana", plain and simple. Notably, for a comparison of terms and their popularity, take a look at these results from Google Search:

• "Marijuana": 24,800,800 (24.8 million)
• "Ganja" 6,130,000 (6.1 million)
• "Cannabis" - 3,220,000 (3.2 million)

Also, take the plant species Papaver somniferum which is called the "Opium Poppy" for example. It's not typically referred to as say "papaver".. "somniferum".. "opium poppy".. "poppy" or "poppies", etc., when discussing the drug. It's always called "opium" when talked about in such manner, and contains "opiates" as the psychoactive compounds responsible for its effects. Likewise, regarding this page, in my opinion, it should not be titled Cannabis, as that refers to the genus/species in question, but "marijuana" instead, which clearly depicts the herb being used as a drug which we're talking about here. Oh, and of course, like the opiates in opium, "cannabinoids" are the psychoactive compounds responsible for the effects of this drug.

Discuss! Rocknroll714 (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that I've heard marijuana much more than cannabis, my experience has been that both the plant and the psychoactive extracts of the plant are referred to as marijuana. (e.g. "Yeah, she was smoking marijuana in her house." vs. "I'm pretty sure she was growing marijuana in her basement.") When clarification is needed in everyday language, I expect the speaker to specify "marijuana plant".--Loodog (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe you're entirely correct. While the western world may be far more accustomed to the term 'marijuana', the same isn't the case as you leave North America. It has not been around for hundreds of years, as it was brought to the English language in 1918. It's a translation of the proper name Maria Juana, which eventually boils down to Mary Jane, which is a folk name of unknown origin. Ganja on the other hand, has been used as a term in India for several hundred years (At least back to the twelfth century). Just looking at populations alone, I believe that ganja is known by a good half of the world. Marijuana is common, but not worldwide. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting.. I was unaware of that. I thought "marijuana" came about in the 1600s or 1700s or so. Never heard of ganjika or ganja before in my life until I read the Cannabis Wikipedia article. I guess it's not really a North American thing, eh? Rocknroll714 (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that cannabis was not known to the Americas before it was brought over from India. So any slang terms for cannabis used on this continent are clearly predated by earlier terms. Ganja is a more common word in the West Indies, where many Indians were settled, and remains popular among Rastafari and others. Whether you have personal familiarity with the scientific and traditional names of cannabis, marijuana is not one of them. —Whig (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The name bhanga occurs in the Sanskrit "Atharvaveda" (about 1400 B.C.), but the first mention of it as a medicine seems to be in the work of Susruta (before the eighth century A.D.), while in the tenth century A.D. its intoxicating nature seems to have been known, and the name "indracana" (Indra's food) first appears in literature. (Watt, Sir George. Commerical Products of India, p. 251, 1908.) A further evidence that hemp, for the production of fiber as well as the drug, has been distributed from central Asia or Persia is found in the common origin of the names used. The Sanskrit names "bhanga" and "gangika," slightly modified to "bhang" and "ganja," are still applied to the drugs, and the roots of these words, "and" and "an," recur in the names of hemp in all of the Indo-European and modern Semitic languages, as bhang, ganja, hanf, hamp, hemp, chanvre, canamo, kannab, cannabis. (De Candolle, Alphonse. Origin of Cultivated Plants, p. 143, 1886) [16] —Whig (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like "Cannabis" is perfectly suitable then. I drop my proposition! :) Rocknroll714 (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Cannabis (drug)

Right now (8/4/09 at 6:51 EST) the article says "[cannabis] ... refer[s] to any sort of preparation of the plants of the Cannabis genus intended for human ingestion for the purpose of inducing psychoactive effects. The most common form of Cannabis is the natural herbal form." Um... last time I checked ONLY the female plants are used for marijuana or as a drug. And furthermore they're always always always dried out and then smoked, sifted whatever. I wanted to change it to "[cannabis] ... refer[s] to any sort of preparation of the plants of the dried female flowers of the Cannabis genus intended for human ingestion for the purpose of inducing psychoactive effects. The most common form of Cannabis is the natural herbal form." User NJGW seems to disagree and I'd love to know why. Tdinatale (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that no one ever smokes the male leaves, the female leaves, the male flowers, etc? I'm sure there are places in the world that feel that anything less then organic, chronic, seedless female flowers is compost, but some people have even been known to smoke seeds and stems (on multiple occasions). Of course, if you have some source that says that marijuana is only the flowers of the female cannabis plant, I guess we have to go with it. NJGW (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Im saying I know what I'm talking about that's what I'm saying!!! And no, the male plants are only valued for breeding or hemp. Tdinatale (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Addiction Section

I want to have an addiction section regarding the regular use of cannabis. We all know that cannabis is habituating but not physically addicting. Could we have some ideas about going through this? Also, a withdrawal subsection i think would be appropriate here too to make the cannabis (drug) article more complete, coherent and realistic. I know this is a very controversial topic so I'd like to get all the ideas in. Tdinatale (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hard to say what we think when we don't know what sources you're suggesting be used. They would need to be very RS and, barring some sort of clear academic consensus, be literature review articles on the subject which discuss the issues thoroughly. NJGW (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

the Marinol (dronabinol) labels say THC is habit forming; the Union: The Business Behind Getting High and my very own doctor all say cannabis is not addicting but habit forming.Tdinatale (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

THC is not marijuana, and your doctor and that documentary are not RS. Like I said, very good sources on the exact topic are needed for such a controversial issue. NJGW (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)