Talk:Cannabis/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

On adulterants

The article states that glass has been used in the UK to make marijuana appear more potent. It was in fact silica beads, not glass (although this was what was reported initially) and it was mainly added to increase weight and gain more money, not to make it appear more potent. Also, it was and is common in many European countries, not only the UK. Furthermore, cannabis contamination is far more common than this article portrays: most of the hashish and much of the marijuana sold in Europe is contaminated. See this article: http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4907.html

Error

If you'll go and look at the Wikipedia page for Cannabis, after citation number 75 it states that medical use of marijuana is not approved for any condition or disease in the Netherlands, while actually it is (since the first of september 2003). The Dutch Wikipedia page says so: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana#Medicinaal_gebruik .

Let me just translate the relevant part:

Since the first of september 2003 medicinal use of marijuana in the Netherlands is approved on doctor's prescription and available in pharmacies. Cannabis relieves people from conditions (Pain for example) in the following list of diseases: -list of diseases-

Canterwoodcore (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.36.17.66 (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC) 

Cannabis seeds talk

How Cannabis seeds are coming!

Cannabis is called in Latin cannabinus

Actually in Latin it's called la:Cannabis. The adjective is cannabinus. --Ioscius ^(talk) 14:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Regions of these plants in all the shops unnd century there will be widespread since user is this plant

in industry or medical!

marihuana seeds —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannabinus (talk • contribs) 11:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from DuckieRawr, 21 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} For the price of marijuana in Vancouver, BC, the cost of 1 gram is 10$ and 70$ for a quarter ounce. The price dealers buy the marijuana is private. Although I know the dealer's price, sorry I cannot reveal this information. DuckieRawr (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a price guidebook. :)

 Not done ^Avicenna_sis @ 09:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Medical Uses Section

The medical uses section should be pared down to its absolute minimum and redirect to Medical cannabis. It is dense, hard to follow, and full of information that is better covered in Medical cannabis. That way it does not need to be updated twice when there are updates to be made. I suggest bullet points for common ailments to the relevant sections in Medical cannabis :-) Geodanny (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Yowzemz, 4 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Cannabis was manufactured and sold by U.S. pharmaceutical companies from the 1880s through the 1930s. For example, in a 1929-30 catalog, Parke Davis & Co. lists Cannabis, U.S.P. (American Cannabis), Fluid Extract No. 598 for $5 per pint; Cannabis, U.S.P. (East Indian Cannabis), Fluid Extract No. 106 for $36 per pint; and Cannabis (Tincture No. 14) for $3.60 per pint. Cannabis is listed as an active ingredient in Parke, Davis & Company products for cough, colic, neuralgia, cholera mordus and other medical conditions, as well as a "narcotic, analgesic, and sedative." Cannabis, U.S.P. fluid extract "is prepared from Cannabis sativa grown in America. Extensive pharmacological and clinical tests have shown that its medicinal action cannot be distinguished from that of the fluid made from imported East Indian cannabis. Introducted to the medical profession by us." Yowzemz (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 08:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/sbq079 Schizophrenia can be recovered from in five years in 14 percent of people, but they did a study on those with it and the usage of Cannibus.

References

Where does this plant grow these days???

Where does this plant grow these days???? The Wiki article states where it came from (Central Asia, South Asia), but I would like to know where it is these days, and what sort of environments it is capable of growing in. For example, I'm told that it grows in British Columbia but not Alberta (Alberta winters being too cold). And I saw on TV yesterday that California provides the vast majority of the marijuana for the entire United States. Specifically, does anybody know what sort of maximum altitude it has been observed growing at? Also temperature. Also highest northern and southern latitudes. I was under the impression that this is a pretty sturdy plant - sort of like the cockroach of the plant species - is this correct? Any strange places it has been found growing in? (maybe some Pacific Island, etc). Thanks in advance to anybody that has any of the answers to the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.155.51 (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis is quite literally a weed and can grow under most conditions and in most geographic locations. Considering the fact that he can be easily grown indoors, it's safe to say that all continents (with the exception of Antarctica) actively grow it. Dmarquard (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There are videos on youtube which users film that show large, large fields of cannabis growing in places like Austria and Ireland. Tdinatale (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As others above have mentioned, cannabis is a weed and can grow everywhere except harsh arctic regions and deserts. A variety of strains are more suited to more temperate or tropical environments. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis is grow a lot in China, and some in Canada, mainly for seeds (i.e. seeds for eating, for seed oil, for hemp meal and hemp cake, etc.) Hemp for fiber is grown mainly in Eastern Europe and China these days. BTW there's a cool YouTube video of Hmong women making hemp cloth. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

request to change error by benson12345

In the Taxonomy section there are several mistaken references to cannabis as an intoxicant, however this is a serious error. Cannabis is an antioxidant and contains no toxic chemicals no matter the potancy of its drug form. The euphoric "high" a user experiences is not regarded as intoxication, thus the difference in even legal phrasing, ie. DUI vs DWI driving while intoxicated (alchohol, a toxic chemical) vs driving under the influence (can be anything, wording changed to include marijuana which is not toxic) intoxicants include alchohol, cocaine, heroin, even the ingredients in tylanol.

im requesting for the sake of wikis accuracy that the wording in this section be altered

5/24/10 benson12345 please give feedback

Benson12345 (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Please explain exactly why Cannabis is not an intoxicant? It's an exogenous compound that crosses the blood-brain-barrier and effect central receptors to cause abnormal physcoactivity? -Anderson

Intoxicant doesn't mean its toxic. Relakit (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Orwell would be very proud! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.92.34 (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Malawi

Why is this strain mentioned at the end of the subsection on speciation? It seems irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.34.100 (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.168.75 (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Panic Attack Clarification

Maybe I am confused but when I looked at the two references to this particular line they did not appear to support the sentence “and evidence could suggest that if a user experiences stress, the likeliness of getting a panic attack increases because of an increase of THC metabolites [89][90]." I noticed that reference number 89 is summarized in the first paragraph as "Sydney, Australia: The elimination of the marijuana metabolite carboxy THC is influenced by the body's reaction to stress or dieting, according to a forthcoming study in the British Journal of Pharmacology." and that reference 90 is summarized as such "Acute cannabis use can be associated with the onset of panic attacks and panic disorder, and panic disorder which develops after cannabis use is responsive to pharmacotherapy". The article referred to in 89 is talking about stress and diet increasing the levels of the carboxy THC metabolite in relation to detection times where 90 is talking specifically about the consistent and heavy use of Cannabis by those who already diagnosed with PD or PDA, they are unrelated and it seems that this is purely speculation on the writers behalf. Again maybe I am misunderstanding something.

In advance, I appreciate your response and apologize for the poor grammar my copy and pasting left in its wake.

TriXteR Phillips — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.168.75 (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Reference 95 Broken Link

The link to reference 95 Low-Dose Pot Eases Pain While Keeping Mind Clear, http://www.mpp.org/news/low-dose-pot-eases-pain-while.html, is broken. I went to the MMP.org website and searched, briefly, for the title in the link address and the reference name. Is there any way to get this broken reference corrected? I would love to see the original article but I do not have the time to dig through the site to find it.

Thanks again in advance.

TriXteR Phillips

--72.161.168.75 (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

-

new chart

Here is a new chart of drug dependence potential and active/lethal dose ratio based on well-referenced data.

I think it might be appropriate for inclusion on this page. Thundermaker (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the other chart is nonsense. Relakit (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This chart is interesting, but the caption is not an accurate description of the data it provides. It does not relate physical harm to dependence, it relates the ratio of active dose to lethal dose to dependence potential. This seems to be a comparison of overdose potential to dependence potential, not a measure of physical harm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.194.180 (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

To follow up, I've just finished reading the cited article, and I can confirm my above suggestion. This chart is about potential for overdose, not "physical harm". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.194.180 (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This chart is inaccurately captioned in the article. Lethal dose is not a measure of the physical harm that a drug causes. This should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.162.150 (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No deletions from Discussion without permission

"The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

I am posting this because an editor deleted an entire section, with multiple editors' comments removed.

"It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards...".

Please follow the basic rule of not deleting "the comments of other editors without their permission."

Thank you.

Misty MH (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• It has been removed again pls see WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:CPI

Addiction, and Addictive qualities of cannabis and of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)?

Why is there no mention at all of potential addiction?

Or of addictive qualities of cannabis? of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)? of marijuana use? or of hash (hashish)?

No form of the word "addiction" appears in either the article or the Discussion. Very, very strange.

Misty MH (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It is mentioned in passing in the chart File:Drug danger and dependence.png. This is because we have the article Cannabis (drug) that talks about its usage as an intoxicant. This article is about the plant genus in general not the drug its self. Moxy (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY PROVEN ADDICTIVE "qualities" OF CANNABIS! GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.104.193 (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

One of my family members has been addicted for over 30 years. And notice, I didn't say it was addictive. I asked a question about it, and mentioned the potential of addiction. Your yelling and accusation are unwarranted. Misty MH (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Documentary

View documentary on the Marijuana Business: http://wb.vu/93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.249.55 (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Conservation Status

The side panel claims that the conservation status is "least concern". While I'm sure you sourced this from someone it is quite clearly and objectively false. The illegal status of cannabis has led to a massive loss in the genetic pool of the plant. Many of even the common cultivars from only a few decades ago are either completely gone or hybridized with no breeding quality stock left. Pure landrace breeding material is very scarce 97.91.179.137 (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

edit request

the last line should say "one of" not on of:

Popular usage

The scientific debate regarding taxonomy has had little effect on the terminology in widespread use among cultivators and users of drug-type Cannabis. Cannabis aficionados recognize three distinct types based on such factors as morphology, native range, aroma, and subjective psychoactive characteristics. "Sativa" is the term used to describe the most widespread variety, which is usually tall, laxly branched, and found in warm lowland regions. "Indica" is used to designate shorter, bushier plants adapted to cooler climates and highland environments. "Ruderalis" is the term used to describe the short plants that grow wild in Europe and central Asia.

Breeders, seed companies, and cultivators of drug type Cannabis often describe the ancestry or gross phenotypic characteristics of cultivars by categorizing them as "pure indica," "mostly indica," "indica/sativa," "mostly sativa", or "pure sativa."

On of the most popular and potent sativas in Africa is Malawi Gold, locally known as chamba. It is internationally known for its potency and its flavor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.219.6 (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done and thank you very much! – PIE ( CLIMAX )  23:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggest merge

It has been suggested that Difference between Indica and Sativa be merged into this article, in the Difference between Indica and Sativa article's AfD discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not that anyone requested comment, but I for one would not object. This seems a good place for such a topic. JonRichfield (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Could we benefit from an article at Terminology of cannabis?
It might reduce confusion due the large number of cannabis-related articles we seem to have, and encompass discussion about sativa and indica differences
See eg precedent of Terminology of the British Isles
Laurel Bush (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing information regarding autoflowers

Autoflowers are very important type of cannabis with many new growers choosing to try autoflowers before or instead of photoperiod plants. I feel that it is very important that this wiki article contains both a sub section on autoflowers as well as links to the new article on autoflowering cannabis. Autoflower is a search term which is very common and im sure there are plenty of people reading this cannabis article whom are interested in growing them and would appreciate the added information — Preceding unsigned comment added by HomeGrownRx (talk • contribs) 01:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What you are refering to as an autoflower is actually ruderalis which flowers like this normally crossed with an indica. The flowers these plants produce are high in cbd and very low in thc, you shouldent really grow these strains they are poor, autoflower is just a maketing term94.168.211.137 (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Grammatical error, needs EDIT, Apr 9 2012

"Secondary psychoactive effects, such as a facility for philosophical thinking; introspection and metacognition have been reported amongst cases of anxiety and paranoia."

The semicolon should be simply a comma. This is a gross misuse of the semicolon, and only further contributes to what is already a vast ignorance of its use by the general population. In particular, intoxicated individuals who might happen to be reading this page may be vulnerable to suggestion, and take this use as correct, and themselves in error in reading it. Dugwyler (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a school of thought which holds that people capable of expressing themselves clearly and of using the English language, including grammar and punctuation, correctly and competently are excluded from becoming Wikipedia editors. It's adherents believe that this accounts for the preponderance of United States of Americans amongst editors, since few people of this nationality are taught or gain facility in correct use of English.

CBD/THC ratio in Cannabis Sativa versus Indica

This article contains two contrasting assertions regarding which of these two general varieties of cannabis contain higher levels of CBD/THC. This can be observed in the section titled "Differences between Sativa and Indica" where it is reported that Sativa has a higher ratio. Contrastingly, in the section on "Recreational Use", Indica is purported as containing the higher ratio. Please clarify whether this is simply the product of varying ratios between both strains or if one has a definitively higher ratio than the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.207.60 (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. As far as I can tell, the current page is incorrect as indicas have higher CBD ratios. Davidfiedler (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The Tetrahydrocannabinol-page, Cannabis sativa-page and the Cannabis indica-page also indicate that the cannabis indica has a higher ratio of CBD/THC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphey (talk • contribs) 07:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC) '

Agreed. I also wanted to correct that obvious mistake, but I won't create an account extra for that and nobody here seems to care about this semi-protected page, as nobody has corrected that error for over 5 months, although there were at least 3 people before me, who have all seen this contradiction.

Description

It says "cannabis, like many organisms is diploid...." um aren't all organisms diploid? Tdinatale (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ploidy NJGW (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not always. There are quite a few organisms, especially plants, which are not diploid, particularly if they reproduced asexually. As an example, the bananas you might buy in a grocery store are triploid. Cannabis seeds (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Tdinatale (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It says that cannabis is an annual. Surely, this can´t be right? They grow cannabis as street trees in China, and I seriously doubt they plant new ones each year! My vote goes to "perennial shrub". --Ronja R (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Which would be great except it's clearly not a shrub, it's a flowering herb. A perennial shrub or tree would need to be present year round, and there's no indication it is. Shrubs and trees also tend to have "woody" stems, not green and fibrous. On the other hand, a perennial flowering plant would need to die back to its roots and start afresh; again something there's no indication of. I'm certainly no expert, but I would think these classifications alone suggest annual flowering herb. I'm also a little confused about the idea of China using them as street trees, given Cannabis is currently illegal in China. (edited for spelling gaffe)99.244.123.31 (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Scientific classification of Cannabis

I am just a student of Botany, but I'm really sure the Order that appears on the article is wrong.

Cannabis belongs to Urticales Order and not Rosids.

Also, take a look at Spanish wikipedia article and observe the dicotomy of this problem.

Kingfacundo (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

~Stonerrz edit; 9:20 PM American Central Time, 1/4/2013~ Not only is the order incorrect, but the class and division as well. The division is Magnoliophyta, and the class is magnoliopsida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonerrz (talk • contribs) 03:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose merging Cannabis sativa into this article, per the reasoning above and the fact that there isn't any content in C. sativa that isn't already in this article. Herbal Hi (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion will end December 19th, 2009 at 11:28 am, (UTC−5)

Support

1. I support this merger proposal, but it should be done with a great deal of care. There is a complex of articles relating to the species and its products, it is all a bit of a maze. Hemp, Cannabis (etymology), Cannabis (drug), Medical cannabis are some of the myriad of topics, some of the facts may refer to a species, subspecies, cultivar or strain. Aspects of Cannabis production and use outlines other topics, lumping them together may be problematic or inaccurate. The plant may be a single species, but an extensive history of cultivation has resulted in forms suited to their purpose; fibre, fodder, etc. This article may require a split to infraspecific taxa or cultivars, and discussion of the changes to infrageneric arrangements. Or perhaps this is unworkable, unverifiable, and RS were always talking about the same thing. cygnis insignis 10:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

1. I support this proposal. They're virtually the same artcle and can be merged. Tdinatale (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I totally agree that the whole area is a maze and that it is hard to find what you want. I found that we have Hemp (disambiguation) but not Cannabis (disambiguation) - should we make this page to allow readers to quickly find each of the main articles, such as those that you list? I think that on this page we should say that taxonomic authorities state that it is one species. It is clear that it has been cultivated for thousands of years to produce many different varieties (similar to in Brassica oleracea) but it still may be one distinct species in the first place. I know of all the problems determining what a species is and I believe we should improve our information on all the separate sub species/varieties/strains. Creating Cannabis (taxomony) may be a good solution to this. Herbal Hi (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

1. I definitely support a merger. Botanists might still need to clarify if the different types are species or subspecies, but for the purpose of this encyclopedia, it is unnecessary to have a page for Cannabis Sativa, because we don't yet have enough detail to make seperate pages also on Cannabis indica etc. All we need is the clarification between Cannabis (drug) and Cannabis (plant).Gregcaletta (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Support Most readers using the headword cannabis will be wanting information on the plant in a drug-related context and so we should merge in Cannabis (drug) too. The dispute about species seems a comparatively minor matter which would be best covered under a title such as Cannabis (taxonomy). Colonel Warden (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose : Since "Cannabis" has multiple possible meanings, but "Cannabis sativa" has only one meaning, a merger is not appropriate. Also, as the Cannabis article itself notes, there are possibly one or more other species in the genus. Without a consensus in the scientific community on that issue, a merger would be premature. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the term Cannabis is unambiguous because it includes all plants within the genus, period, end of story. Cannabis sativa, however, means different things to different people. Cannabis sativa sensu Lamarck, for example, is not the same as Cannabis sativa sensu Small and Cronquist (sensu is latin for "in the sense of"). It is quite possible that there will never be a consensus within the scientific community regarding the species issue in Cannabis, because there never has been, and probably never will be, a consensus on the definition of a species. GeorgeLTirebiter (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I also oppose merger. Cannabis Sativa would be the plant page that distinguishes between different subspecies and primarily deals with botanical information. Cannabis can be like a disambiguation page and link to topics like cannabis drug, cannabis etymology, etc... (also note people are discussing this on the other page Quickmythril (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose: As others have stated, this is still an important ongoing field of research involving plant genetics.--Metalhead94 ^{T C} 19:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose Given the lack of legal scientific research, most info on putative subspecies is based on pseudoscience derived from popular magazines not the scientific method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.154.221 (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand these oppositions. The discussion is whether we have three separate articles on cannabis sativa, cannabis indica and cannabis ruderalis, or whether we instead include information on all three species under the genus of Cannabis. There is a separate article for Cannabis_(drug). Currently the articles for indica and ruderalis both redirect to the article for the genus "Cannabis", while there is a separate article which covers just sativa, where the information almost entirely overlaps the information for the whole genus. I dn't see how it is relevant whether botanists have defined these as three separate species. The question is whether or not we have enough information for three distinct articles. It seems clear that we don't (yet), so it seems to make sense to merge "Cannabis sativa" into this article, at least until we have enough information for three separate articles. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Strong oppose Given that cannabis comes in various forms, including c. sativa, c. indica and quite a few (percentage) combination's of the two species, as well as . Merging the cannabis and c. sativa would be grossly misleading to readers. While they share a common genus name there are various forms of cannabis that exist. In short cannabis is the genus and c. sativa is the species of that genus. Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Strongly oppose Would conflict with wikispecies: [[1]] They have different genetics, different appearances and grow best under different natural light from different climates in different soils using different amounts of nutes and water, they also have different potencies. This cannabis article should mention all three in a section maybe, but should definitely not be merged. Ruderalis, for example is hardly psychoactive and grows like a weed in places like Russia. It isn't as often used as a recreational drug, nor medicinally so would conflict with some of the information given on the cannabis page.--J05HYYY (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral or comment

1. I think we should split off Cannabis (taxomony) leaving a summary section here as there is too much detail for an overview article. I'd also recreate Cannabis indica[2], Cannabis ruderalis[3] and possibly Cannabis rasta[4]. But maybe rename them to Cannabis satevia ssp. indica etc. there is sufficient diferences in the subspecies to warrent seperate articles, these would also provide better targets for those who look for indica etc. --Salix (talk): 19:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Not sure. I've looked at Cannabis#Ongoing research and unless my read was too cursory I'd say it would be a stretch to call this genus monotypic. While nothing seems to be conclusive, there seems to be significant evidence for multiple species. By the way, ITIS is not an especially good source for such matters (although efloras is better and most of the floras there also say one, or 1-2, or 1-3). Now, even if there are (arguably) 3 species, perhaps it would be easier to treat them in a single article (especially given the lack of consensus). That's what I did at Littorella (a much more obscure genus, but one in which people disagree on whether there are two or three species). Kingdon (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Comment/FYI: -- Per WP:FLORA and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants#Plant_article_naming_conventions --

"Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following, as determined on a case-by-case basis through discussion on the WikiProject Plants talk page:

1. Agricultural and horticultural cases in which multiple different products stem from the same species (eg. brussel sprouts, cabbage & broccoli). In such a case, a separate page with the botanical description of the entire species is preferred (eg. Brassica oleracea).
2. Plants which are economically or culturally significant enough to merit their own page, using the common name as a title, describing their use. Example: Coffee. (A) separate page(s) with the botanical description(s) of the taxa involved, using the scientific name, is preferred.

3. Where a genus is monospecific (has only a single species), the article should be named after the genus, with the species name as a redirect. If a family contains only one genus, the article should still be at the genus name, as that is more likely to be commonly recognised."

-- Not sure whether this is likely to smooth or ruffle the waters. :-) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conservation status

This article refers to the plan genus, not a species in particular. Therefore, it cannot be "Least Concern." hello?

Please change

In the Punjab, Cannabis or Sukha ( ਸੁੱਖਾ ਪ੍ਰਰਸਾਦ ), "peace-giver", is the term Sikhs use to refer to it. Initiated by the tenth guru of the Sikhs, Guru Gobind Singh, cannabis or bhang (ਭੰਗ) was used to help in meditation and was also used before battles to aid as a painkiller, growing naturally all over Punjab. Narrated by many historical and native accounts cannabis is pounded by the Sikhs, especially during religious festivals like Hola Mohalla.[43] Even today, Nihang Sikhs gather in their thousands at Anandpur, on the occasion of the festival of Hola Mohalla and display their martial skills and of course cannabis is pounded by the Nihang Sikhs. This tradition has been in place since the time of Guru Gobind Singh. Their fighting style is referred to as shastar vidiya, which is among the most intimidating and brutal martial art. The compositions from the Sri Dasam Granth are used in unison with the battle maneuvers. In modern times the Rastafari movement has embraced Cannabis as a sacrament.[128] Elders of the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church, a religious movement founded in the United States in 1975 with no ties to either Ethiopia or the Coptic Church, consider Cannabis to be the Eucharist, claiming it as an oral tradition from Ethiopia dating back to the time of Christ.[129] Like the Rastafari, some modern Gnostic Christian sects have asserted that Cannabis is the Tree of Life.[130][131] Other organized religions founded in the 20th century that treat Cannabis as a sacrament are the THC Ministry,[132] the Way of Infinite Harmony, Cantheism,[133] the Cannabis Assembly[134] and the Church of Cognizance. Rastafari and Sikh use tend to be among the biggest consumers of modern Cannabis use.

to

In the Punjab, Cannabis or Sukha ( ਸੁੱਖਾ ), "peace-giver", is the term Sikhs use to refer to it. During the times of the 10th Guru, Guru Gobind Singh, cannabis or bhang (ਭੰਗ) was used as a painkiller, growing naturally all over Punjab. Narrated by many historical and native accounts cannabis is pounded by a small group of the Sikhs, the Nihangs, especially during religious festivals like Hola Mohalla.[43] Even today, Nihang Sikhs gather in their thousands at Anandpur, on the occasion of the festival of Hola Mohalla and display their martial skills and of course cannabis is pounded by the Nihang Sikhs. This tradition has been in place since the time of Guru Gobind Singh. Their fighting style is referred to as shastar vidiya. The compositions from the Sri Dasam Granth are used in unison with the battle maneuvers. In modern times the Rastafari movement has embraced Cannabis as a sacrament.[128] Elders of the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church, a religious movement founded in the United States in 1975 with no ties to either Ethiopia or the Coptic Church, consider Cannabis to be the Eucharist, claiming it as an oral tradition from Ethiopia dating back to the time of Christ.[129] Like the Rastafari, some modern Gnostic Christian sects have asserted that Cannabis is the Tree of Life.[130][131] Other organized religions founded in the 20th century that treat Cannabis as a sacrament are the THC Ministry,[132] the Way of Infinite Harmony, Cantheism,[133] the Cannabis Assembly[134] and the Church of Cognizance. Rastafari use tend to be among the biggest consumers of modern Cannabis use.

96.48.157.219 (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Aug 30

Nihang sikhs make up a small percentage of Sikhs. They are the only ones who believe it is acceptable to use Cannabis. The rest of Sikhs disagree with it. It was only used as a painkiller during times of Guru Gobind Singh Jee, not to aid in meditation. All external products and devices are highly condemned in aid of meditation for Sikhs. Meditation is specifically to be done only with full concentration of the mind. There is nothing to support that shastar vidiya is the most brutal form of martial art, or that Sikhs are amongst the highest users. There is no evidence to support that it was initiated during times of the 10th Guru.

 Done -- Diannaa (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Small typo

In the hemp section, hemp is misspelled. "It also is a useful source of foodstuffs (help milk, hemp seed, hemp oil) and biofuels."

 Fixed -- Diannaa (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Cannabispedia

Cannabispedia - Marijuana encyclopedia 79.147.243.83 (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: commercial. --Stfg (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2013

Section on medical cannabis is decidedly single-minded. Multiple sources show that long-term, heavy use of cannabis does not impart lasting cognitive damage. Example -

http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=481834

71.212.99.31 (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The source you provide is a 2001 primary study; recent secondary reviews, in accordance with Wikipedia's guideline for sourcing medical content support the text in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Reproduction

The Reproduction section in the main section Description is redundant. There is a more detailed main section on Reproduction further below. Maybe someone can double-check and remove the Reproduction section from Description. Peteruetz (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

מעלה עשן Smoke maker

Lisa wrote that she replaced "nonsense" with sourced material. The problem is that her "sourced material" is just a hypothesis that has barely anything to be based on, except perhaps the supposed similarity of accadian Kunna-bu to Kanneh Bosem, except for a small problem: Kunna is with a Kaf and means "Can" - enabled, similar to the Hebrew "Caan" ('here', or 'standing'), and "Yickone" (to 'stand enabled') as opposed to "Qanneh" with the letter 'Quf' (sounding different from Kaf in ancient Hebrew), meaning a pipe.

Whereas I had simply written that an equivalent to the Babylonian "Smoke enabler" and Accadian "Smoke enabler" the Hebrew list of herbs used in the temple included a plant called "Smoke enabler", following the biblical command to have it a "Ketoreth" (meaning incense - smoke with a good smell). You could say that's nonsense. I would say its common incence. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2014

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Hemp_Drugs_Commission Guyinsunshine (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Gemma Moss

Gemma Moss died of cannabis at the age of 31. See the report in the Mail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.115.130 (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.115.130 (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Species

Are there really three species of Cannabis or not? Currently the article states that most taxonomy sources list it as one species. As these are WP:RS we should really follow what they say. This page is probably the most authoritive and lists 2 sub species and 2 varieties - I guess that this is the best one to follow. Also we need to decide whether or not to italicise Cannabis - as this is about a plant genus we should really do so throughout the article. It is a bit of a mess at the moment. I need to do some more edits before I'm allowed to edit it due to semi-protection but I'd like some comments before doing anything. Herbal Hi (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Related to this, we currently have an article on Cannabis sativa but it would seem as though this should be merged into this article. For starters it doesn't really have any different content as far as I can see and if we go with the above source then Cannabis only has one species and so should be categorised under the name of the genus. Herbal Hi (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In truth there is no definitive answer. Some authors say their are three species and other one species with three varieties. Biologically the notion of species is not always clear cut as in this case. The big plant databases are tending to list it as a single species with various subspecies for example ITIS have Cannabis indica as a non-accepted synonym of Cannabis sativa ssp. indica [5]. But some academics are quite reciently (2004) claiming it is better treated as three species[6]

Please read the archives as there has been a lot of past discussion on the topic especially Talk:Cannabis/Archive 4#Taxonomy.--Salix (talk): 18:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Just found a nice Darwin quote No one definition has yet satisfied all naturalists: yet every naturalist knows vaguely what hemeans when he speaks of a species--Charles Darwin 1859. The Origin of Species--Salix (talk): 19:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Herbal Hi: I have recently been in contact with the Cannabis indica "expert" for ITIS, and he informed me that ITIS follows the GRIN (Germplasm Resources Information Network) taxonomic treatment of the genus. If you search GRIN [7] you will see that they now recognize Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis as acceptable synonyms. Regardless of the number of species, I favor merging the Cannabis sativa article in with this one.

It is standard practice in the scientific literature to italicize latinized names. If we do it here it will look more professional.

Salix:See my comment above concerning ITIS. Also, your link to the 2004 study leads to a book published in 1975. Duh'oh!

GeorgeLTirebiter (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

By generaly recognised definitions of species sativa, indica and ruderalis are Cannabis sativa. However I feel it is most important that all sections agree to one system. currently the section on recreational use is using a different classification often used by amature growers, that is actualy incorrect on all counts. It is integeral to ensure that such general ignorance is kept out of these articles. be it that sativa, indica and ruderalis are one species or three they are scientific names and therefore should not be subjected to the whims of slang. (apart from the inability of taxonamists to agree on any one name for more than a century that is)--MarcusHawksley (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• • I would like to add that Cannabis sativa L. var. afghanica is an emerging variety classification --BrunoGarcia (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.55.24 (talk)

Also, according to this paper: "Results of molecular analysis of an archaeological hemp (Cannabis saliva L.) DNA sample from North West China" by Satyesh Chandra Roy & others,

On the basis of allozyme data, the following study showed that C. sativa and C. indic a are separate species.

This original paper being:

Hillig KW (2005) Genetic evidence for speciation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae). Genet Resour Crop Evol 52:161-180

DISCLAIMER: I have yet to read Hillig (2005), I only know that in the paper by Satyesh Chandra Roy & others, Hillig (2005) is cited as the source for that claim.

I will attempt to get a hold of the Hillig (2005) paper. Bruno.Garcia-Gonzalez (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Bruno.Garcia-Gonzalez

UPDATE.

The following are quotes from the discussion section of the Hillig (2005) paper:

• "The allozyme data show that the Cannabis accessions studied in this investigation were derived from two major gene pools, ruling out the hypothesis of a single undivided species."
• "The allozyme data, in conjunction with the different geographic ranges of the indica and sativa gene pools and previous investigations that demonstrate significant morphological and chemotaxonomic differences between these two taxa (Small and Beckstead 1973; Small et al. 1976), support the formal recognition of C. sativa, C. indica, and possibly C. ruderalis as separate species. "
• "This opinion represents a synthesis of the species concepts of Lamarck, Delile, Janischevsky, Vavilov, Schultes et al. and Anderson. It rejects the single species concepts of Linnaeus, and Small and Cronquist, because the genetic data demonstrate a fundamental split within the Cannabis gene pool. It is more ‘practical and natural’ to assign the indic a and sativa gene pools to separate species, and to leave the ranks of subspecies and variety available for further classification of the putative taxa recognized herein."

Bruno.Garcia-Gonzalez (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2015

Please change "likeliness" to "likelihood" -- thanks! 50.38.103.169 (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)  Not done You need to make it clear where you want this change made. Can you provide at least the sentance the phrase you want changing in is please. Amortias (T)(C) 20:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Shri Guru Gobind Singh and mention of use of cannabis for meditation

Hi,

Do we have any reference for this information that Shri Guru Gobind Singh ji approved of using Cannabis for meditation.. I know that they had allowed it for use as a pain killer which is mentioned in second part of sentence.. Please add the reference for use for meditation approved by Guru else delete this part of the sentence.. This is matter of grave concern for followers of Sikh religion.

I'm not sure if that is notable. Even if it is, it is probably better suited for cannabis (drug), which is specifically about Cannabis used as a psychoactive or pharmaceutical. Do you have a notable source? Clr324 (say hi) 23:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Test

Testing a feature for WikiProject Cannabis. Harej (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cannabis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141016220809/http://wwwlib.umi.com:80/dxweb/gateway to http://wwwlib.umi.com/dxweb/gateway

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect spelling of the Hebrew name for cannabis

In the article, the Hebrew spelling of the name for cannabis is listed as 'קַנַּבּוֹס' which reads 'qanas', not 'qanːa'boːs', which is the correct pronunciation.

However, the proper Hebrew spelling of the name is 'קנבוס'

More on the Hebrew name for cannabis and it's original etymology

The above statement is incorrect. The Hebrew word קַנַּבּוֹס is pronounced "qa-na-bos".

Secondly the מעלה עשן (ma'ale ashan) has absolutely no historical connection to the cannabis plant. The ma'ale ashan is a wild plant mentioned in talmudic literature that grew in Judea and causes smoke to rise directly upward. This was used in the Temple in Jerusalem to make the smoke from the incense offering rise straight up. What the authors of this page probably confused ma'ale ashan with was "qeneh-bosem" which is the fragrant plant mentioned in the Law of Moses that was used in the anointing oil for kings and priest in ancient Israel. Qeneh-bosem literally means "aromatic reed" - qeneh means reed (any reed that grows along a river bank like bamboo or papyrus) and bosem means aromatic. Qeneh-bosem sounds almost exactly like the word cannabis and the word cannabis is a Scythian word that probably originated from the Semetic nations south of Scythia who called cannabis "qeneh-bosem" because it was the "aromatic" reed. Compared to other cane and reed plants that grew along the rivers of ancient Babylon, Assyria, Lebanon, Israel, and Egypt the cannabis plant was the only one that could be considered strongly aromatic. It is hence very likely that the plant which is named "cannabis" is the same "qeneh-bosem" mentioned by the Israelites in the Hebrew Bible. Qeneh-bosem is spelled קנה–בשם in Hebrew.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2016

Tamara Alshater (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

genus or not genus

@Sasata and Signedzzz: Please don't edit war, I'll start the discussion for you not. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the edit war is over if the genus is monospecific. There is a controversy regarding the different species and varieties of Cannabis but what do modern sources say? Many taxonomic listings of the genus show both classifications for C. inaliea and C. ruderalis. Perhaps some history could be added here...The genus cannabis used to belong to the Nettle (Urticaceae) or Mulberry (Moraceae) family, but it has now been included along with hops (Humulus sp.) to belong to the Hemp fa (Cannabaceae).

• Roger Pertwee (2014). Handbook of Cannabis. OUP Oxford. p. 90. ISBN 978-0-19-163969-2.
• Robert Clarke; Mark Merlin (2013). "One, Two or Three Species?". Cannabis: Evolution and Ethnobotany. University of California Press. p. 312. ISBN 978-0-520-95457-1.
• Jeffrey Dach, M.D.,; Elaine A. Moore; Justin Kander (2015). Cannabis Extracts in Medicine: The Promise of Benefits in Seizure Disorders, Cancer and Other Conditions. McFarland. p. 31. ISBN 978-0-7864-9663-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Jason Sawler, Jake M. Stout, Kyle M. Gardner, Darryl Hudson, John Vidmar, Laura Butler, Jonathan E. Page , Sean Myles The Genetic Structure of Marijuana and Hemp Published: August 26, 2015DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133292.

--Moxy (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there a content dispute? As far as I can tell all botanists agree that Cannabis is a genus. I think we have a grammar dispute. To say that Cannabis is a flowering plant sounds grammatically strange to my ears. If there was a common count noun for Cannabis plants, something like "a canave, by any other name, would smell as sweet", it would work to start the article by writing "A canave is a flowering plant of the genus Cannabis". But we have no such name. Doing this with a mass noun doesn't work.  --Lambiam 23:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

We should try to use easier to understand English at least in the leads of our article. Thus saying it is a type of plant I believe is better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Doc James is probably not right. For some reason I had some suspicion that you couldn't have a monospecific genus, hence the kerfuffle. Wiktionary:genus didn't help; User:Sasata finally set me straight. So there's no content dispute. There's enough material in the references listed above by Moxy for a comprehensive section which would bring the article up to date. The lead could be finalised after that. So I think User:KrakatoaKatie should unprotectzzz (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC) (Edited, now in favour of keeping "genus" per comment below by Lambiam) zzz (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

There you go. No more dumbness, guys, k? :-) Katie^talk 16:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The argument would be stronger if this was/would be one of only a few articles that start off with "Soandso is a genus of plants...". But, in fact, our articles Aa (plant), Acanthospermum, Achlyphila, Achnatherum, Achudemia, Acidocroton, Acioa, Acmella, Acnistus, Acrotome, Acrymia, Acsmithia, Actinocephalus, Adenocalymna, Adenocline, Adenopappus, Afrobrunnichia, Afrocalathea, Aganosma, Agarista (plant), Agonandra, Agonis, Ajugoides, Albidella, Algrizea, Aliciella, Alona (plant), Alseodaphne, Alvesia, Amasonia, Amethystea, Amorpha, Amorphospermum, Ampelozizyphus, Amphineurion, Anacyclus, Ancistrachne, Anemanthele, Anisoptera (plant), Anredera, Anthephora, Anthoxanthum, Anthyllis, Antirrhinum, Apetahia, Aphelia (plant), Apluda, Apoballis, Apodanthera, Aralidium, Arctostaphylos, Aremonia, Argentina (plant), Argyrotegium, Argythamnia, Aristocapsa, Asarum, Aspidoglossum, Asplundia, Athroisma, Atractylis, Atraphaxis, Atrichoseris, Atuna, Aulotandra, Australopyrum, Austrobuxus, Austroeupatorium, Axonopus, Azima, ..., Zea (genus), Zeugandra, Zieria, Zilla (plant), Zinnia, Zinowiewia, Zizaniopsis, and Zotovia, all start that way (or with "... is a genus in the plant family ..."). Several of these genera are also monospecific. In fact, the different phrasing in the present article might lead the attentive reader onto the garden path of thinking that there are characteristics that make plants of possibly different genera be "cannabis", like some plants are sarmentoses ("A sarmentose is a type of plant which has long slender stolons"), and others are perennials, shrubs, and so on and so forth. So I'm happy the word "genus" has (at this moment) been restored, and I hope it will remain so.  --Lambiam 21:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

proposed merger

I propose that Cannabis_(drug) be merged into Cannabis. I think that the content in the Cannabis_(drug) article can easily be explained in the context of Cannabis, and the Cannabis article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Cannabis_(drug) will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. --Potguru (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Response: You claim it is technically possible to merge the articles but dont say why you want to do so. Can you please explain, otherwise the debate will need to be closed down quickly as snowballed and without any real justification. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 02:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose not convinced. One article is about the plant. The other about the use of the plant. Both articles are already large. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose both articles to big and developed to merge and are about different topics. -- Moxy (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. However I agree our cannabis articles need restructuring. I think this article could be made into Recreational use of cannabis to match Entheogenic use of cannabis, Medical Cannabis, and Cannabis (industrial use). Cannabis can then focus on coverage of the genus and branch off to these other articles to examine different uses. Sizeofint (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose' Why would we want to merge two huge articles. Talking from the biology point of view the drug stuff would clog the article up. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 00:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This would be like merging cow and hamburger. As per the good Doctor above, one is about the biological being, the other is about a singular use of that thing. It is also why we have an article on hemp. This kind of merge would force to create articles too large to be useful.....forcing us to split them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I have removed the tag from the 2 articles, partly because this is snowballing and partly because the editor, Potguru, when challenged on his talk page as to why he was requesting the move, said it was to tests consensus. Well the consensus has been tested. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 03:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Time to end the proposed merge. --Potguru (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Monotypic genus or several species?

Perhaps this is a continuation of the previous section but I believe the majority of modern botanical and taxonomic works classify sativa, indica, and ruderalis as subspecies synonyms of (or some intraspecific classification within) C. sativa.

Therefore, I have proposed moving the articles into subspecies articles (See their corresponding talk pages). I believe all of these articles should be updated to reflect this classification consensus. Although I didn't propose it just yet, Cannabis sativa could be moved to Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa. I think Cannabis should discuss both the genus and the species C. sativa as most works now state only one species, possibly with or without several subspecies, and certainly we need to retain language describing the many varieties/cultivars/strains/hybrids of types.--MCEllis (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, the subspecies articles could all be merged into one very long Cannabis sativa or Cannabis article, but what's the best way to handle it? Perhaps take a look at the way the corresponding French articles handled the update. Even they leave confusion and contradiction because of article titles. See fr:Cannabis indica for example.--MCEllis (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Quoting from the OUP Handbook: "... a characterization of groups within the genus/species in nontaxonomic terms seems most appropriate". As I understand it that would exclude the term subspecies, in favour of cultonomic classification. The ICNCP "provides two categories, 'Group' and 'cultivar' ... The implementation of a system according to the ICNCP would be useful" (capitalisation in original, emphasis added). zzz (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

One small point: rather than moving to Cannabis sativa sativa, botanical nomenclature requires specifying the rank, so Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Good eye, I meant Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa rather than Cannabis sativa sativa. Corrected above and on cooresponding talk pages.--MCEllis (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually it needs to be styled as Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa; the connecting form is not italicized. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Correct. It was just was faster to italicize it all. Fixed in my comments--MCEllis (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

My substantive point is that I don't see the evidence for any subtaxa. The Plant List, following the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (in review), treats all the subspecies names as synonyms for the species. Tropicos appears to present evidence for a similar view, e.g. if you look at accepted names for Cannabis indica you see three usually reliable sources saying it's a synonym for C. sativa. Where is the reliable evidence that there are any subtaxa of C. sativa? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: My sense is that because these plants are so cultivated/hybridized/domesticated, this single taxon approach may be the best approach botanically, and agrees with interpretation within the Handbook of Cannabis, which was actually a very nice read (above) discussing the current status of subtaxa/varieties. So the question is, what is the best path forward for the Cannabis indica, and Cannabis ruderalis articles? I think they still can be considered general types/varieties of Cannabis, but perhaps not as subspecies. If it is indeed a Monotypic genus, what should be done with the Cannabis sativa article? If humans had not meddled so heavily with the genetics of these plants, I feel definitive/regional subspecies would still exist, but we have essentially demolished the distinctions between these subtypes through genetic pollution/mixing.--MCEllis (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

As regards botanical species, sources suggest to me that the Cannabis indica, and Cannabis ruderalis articles should be merged into Cannabis sativa. Whether there is sufficient consensus to create articles at ICNCP names (cultivars, Groups) I really don't know. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: If Cannabis is indeed a Monotypic genus, is it actually appropriate to even have a Cannabis sativa article? I was under the impression Monotypic genera are described at the genus level on Wikipedia, with no species article. What's the best policy in this case?--MCEllis (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The initial rationale for describing monospecific genera at the genus was that the genus is usually better known than the species; there's then the secondary issue of consistency. But plants that are well-known for their use rather than their botany can be an exception. Personally, I don't mind either way, but we need some more input before making any decision. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the discussion on monotypic genera had a large contingent of paleontology editors (who had already decided not to create articles below genus rank in most cases), so there's that. If we treat Cannabis as monotypic, I'd argue for turning Cannabis into a disambiguation page (with a link to a redirect from Cannabis (genus) to Cannabis sativa). Cannabis attracts a lot of links that should be going to Cannabis (drug). Plantdrew (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

On second thought, covering a monotypic genus concept at C. sativa is a bad idea. People searching for C. indica will be very confused to just get a Wikipedia page for C. sativa. I still think it might be worth moving the genus off the base title to allow links to Cannabis to be disambiguated. I'm not convinced the genus is the primary topic. Plantdrew (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I think there's general agreement among botanists that in situations like this it "would be useful" to use ICNCP names. The problem is that ICNCP names simply haven't been published for many groups, including Cannabis (ornamental plants follow ICNCP more than vegetables). And where they have been published, they can be difficult to verify if there's no registration authority (there's no registrar for Cannabis) I'm not finding any evidence that drug strains are ever formatted as ICNCP cultivars (though I am turning up some hemp strains, e.g. 'ICAR 42-118'). That's understandable, as absent a way to publish ICNCP cultivar/Group names anonymously, formally naming Cannabis cultivars may expose the author to legal action. ICNCP isn't a viable way to resolve this at present.

From what I'm seeing, treating indica as a subspecies or variety is even less popular than the alternatives (treating it as a species or lumping into sativa with no infraspecific taxa recognized). I'm OK with the status quo. It's not great from a general taxonomist/botanist's perspective, but there's a lot of specialist literature that makes a distinction between Indica and Sativa, and I think readers are likely better served by separate articles on the topics. (hmm, wondering what time I'll get stamped for my signature bah, UTC. It was 4:20 in my time zone) Plantdrew (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Plantdrew:Where are you seeing that it would be unpopular to call indica or ruderalis varieties subspecies, (other than WCSP in review)?

I was just starting to think we could leave the articles separate as long as we clarify they are varietiesin the first sentence, basically following what the French did but not calling them subspecies I still believe these should be considered subspecies. --MCEllis (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: If stick with the status quo you will notice the opening line of Cannabis indica states "Cannabis indica, formally known as Cannabis sativa forma indica", this seems better than not indicating the monotypic genus, but can we at least update the Taxobox to reflect the species as being Cannabis sativa? This would leave the title as Cannabis indica but at least have a correct Taxobox.--MCEllis (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding unpopularity. I'm mostly going with a Google test, which certainly has flaws. Also Tropicos, which reports that the Jepson Manual, Flora of China and Flora of Pakistan don't recognize subspecies. I'm OK with the French solution; subsp. in taxobox, but treat as species in title. Title/taxobox mismatch is a little weird, but one could argue that "Cannabis indica" is the COMMONNAME (common name sensu Wikipedia; the term that most commonly appears in reliable sources) of the subspecies. Thysanura is another case where Wikipedia has a taxonomically deprecated scientific name masquerading as the COMMONNAME in the article title.Plantdrew (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Here are (some) databases that put indica at Cannabis sativa subsp. indica:

• NCBI
• ITIS
• CoL
• Tela-botanica
• USDA PLANTS
• Dave's Garden
• Ecocrop
• GBIF
• EOL
• BONAP
• GRIN
• Tropicos - Inconclusive what their stance is, as they do have a Cannabis sativa subsp. indica page.
• uBio
• Biolib

As far as WCSP and The Plant List, we only know what's in review from WCSP, an incomplete dataset. My feeling is we currently have more evidence to support this at the subspecies level than at any other. I really feel like these wikipedia articles are spreading much misinformation to the public and I really wish we could do something to address the public misconception that there are multiple Cannabis species.--MCEllis (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree about WCSP in review. I had actually looked at some of those above I regard as more reliable, such as USDA and GRIN. (Tropicos doesn't take stances, merely reviewing taxonomy, which is one reason why TPL's use of it is so, so faulty.) USDA links to its sources, such as here – too old to be reliable in a molecular age. The most convincing recent underlying database source I've found so far is the Ulmaceae and Cannabaceae of North America Update, database (version 2011), as reflected in ITIS, but it's limited in geographical scope. The table on p. 261 of Small's 2015 review offers the best overview I've found to date. The conclusion seems to be that (1) there's one species (2) the forms can be divided into subspecies or Groups (3) Small (2015) votes for Groups (it's a good read). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@MCEllis: This list of databases is a little misleading. They're not all independent. GBIF and uBio follow CoL. EoL incorporates multiple sources including NCBI and CoL (default view for Cannabis is CoL). USDA PLANTS is derived from BONAP, and Dave's Garden is derived from PLANTS. ITIS is also heavily based on PLANTS (though seems to have an independent source in this case).

@Peter coxhead: OK, so Small apparently gives us some ICNCP compliant Groups. But they're quite different from the traditional indica/sativa distinction, so I do think we'd need to see some evidence that Small's classification is being adopted by others. And Small seems to have gotten the terms used in the narcotic trade backwards. My understanding is that indica (sensu narcotics) is high THC and sativa has more CBD than indica. Small says sativa is high THC and indica is balanced THC/CBD. Oh, and Small's group 6 represents hybrids between groups 5 and 6. Should be 3 and 4 presumably rather than a recursion of 6. Plantdrew (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Everything I've read says that indica is higher CBD than sativa, buy a sizable margin. In both (excepting particular strains like Charlotte's Web) the amount of CBD is still dwarfed by the THC. This is one reason dispensaries use hybrids to get the higher THC of sativa but the more compact structure of indica, which makes indoor cultivation more manageable when using artificial lights. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

According to what I've read the theory that indica correlates with THC (or CBD) level is false. zzz (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. I don't have WP:RS sources, but I work with dozens of dispensaries and commercial growers all over the US (I sell UV lights to boost THC content, own the company), however, and this is the conventional wisdom among them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2016

Minor edit. The taxonomy states that "Cannabis plants produce a unique family of terpeno-phenolic compounds called cannabinoids, which produce the "high" one experiences from consuming marijuana."

As only a few of the cannabinoids produce the "high", it should more accurately read "... some of which produce the high..."

See the next few sentences in the paragraph for confirmation of this fact.

Emet.kees (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Well spotted! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Effects of THC on dopamine system

The effects of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main chemical in cannabis, are a pressing concern for global health. Acute THC administration results in increased dopamine release and neuron activity, whereas long-term use causes blunting of the dopamine system.

http://csc.mrc.ac.uk/cannabis-blunts-brains-reward-system/

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v539/n7629/full/nature20153.html

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_17-11-2016-10-58-27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishekh.ashok (talk • contribs) 14:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Effects of THC on dopamine system

The effects of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main chemical in cannabis, are a pressing concern for global health. Acute THC administration results in increased dopamine release and neuron activity, whereas long-term use causes blunting of the dopamine system.

http://csc.mrc.ac.uk/cannabis-blunts-brains-reward-system/

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v539/n7629/full/nature20153.html

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_17-11-2016-10-58-27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishekh.ashok (talk • contribs) 14:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see topics of the three main different strands of cannabis and the effect they each have on the body.This information would give a better understanding of the reasons why it's being used both recreationally and medicinally. Espinoc226 (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

BIG GAPS on the medical science in this wikipedia article

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/13/legalise-medical-cannabis-urgency

"My report shows that there is strong evidence that medical cannabis helps with chronic pain; spasticity (common, disabling and painful after stroke or brain injury and common in those suffering from multiple sclerosis, as examples); for nausea and vomiting, especially during chemotherapy; and for the management of anxiety. There is also evidence of usefulness in sleep disorders, for appetite stimulation (in HIV, for example), fibromyalgia, post-traumatic stress disorder, severe childhood epilepsies, bladder problems and even for control of some cancers. The list goes on." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.68.148 (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2017

Currently the title of reference 124 is missing in the article "Cannabis". Please edit the reference so as to include its title as written below.

Törjék, Ottó; Bucherna, Nándor; Kiss, Erzsébet; Homoki, Hajnalka; Finta-Korpelová, Zsuzsanna; Bócsa, Iván; Nagy, István; Heszky, László E. (2002). "Novel male-specific molecular markers (MADC5, MADC6) in hemp". Euphytica. 127 (2): 209–218. doi:10.1023/A:1020204729122. EmilyMantle (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Sizeofint (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2017

Currently reference 111 (Schumann et al. 1999) missing article title. Please add this title to complete the citation. Schumann, Erika; Peil, Andreas; Weber, Wilhelm Eberhard (1999). Preliminary results of a German field trial with different hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) accessions. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution. 46 (4): 399–407. doi:10.1023/A:1008696018533 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerrigansophie (talk • contribs)

References

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2017

Please put {{when}} after the text "within the past year" in the "Recreational use" section. 208.95.51.115 (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Confused article

The article remains confused and confusing. It's supposed to be about the botanical genus Cannabis, not about cannabis or Cannabis sativa. It needs a lot of material removed or moved to other articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Cannabis indica vs. Cannabis sativa

In the section 1.9 of this article, titled "Popular Usage" there are descriptions of the three types of cannabis. These descriptions are correct, however they are ascribed to the wrong species. It is Cannabis indica that is actually the most widespread and grows mainly in lower elevations and warmer climates and Cannabis sativa which grows mainly in higher, colder climates, not the other way around.

73.158.24.141 (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Source? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unodc.org/unodc/bulletin/bulletin_1950-01-01_4_page003.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070211135642/http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/rp/rp2_gene_e?mlist-authors-small_e.html to http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/rp/rp2_gene_e?mlist-authors-small_e.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.norml.org.nz/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=588
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.cgu.edu/faculty/gabler/drug_toxicity.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100524141419/http://www.doctordeluca.com/Library/WOD/WPS3-MedMj/CannabinoidsMedMetaAnalysis06.pdf to http://www.doctordeluca.com/Library/WOD/WPS3-MedMj/CannabinoidsMedMetaAnalysis06.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://onlinehealthlab.com/2017/12/12/scientist-reveal-cannabis-bones/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110216113749/http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/ to http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Archaeological evidence of the origin of C. Sativa, C. Indica, C. Sativa L., C. Ruderalis et. al.

There is currently a citation needed request on a claim that it originated "northwest of the Himalaya's". This is patently false. The archaeological record cannot determine the origin to any specific area as the fossil record shows it to be ubiquitous to the entire region. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02862859 AQBachler (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I have removed this claim as part of a reorganization of the article. I agree it would need a reliable source. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Reorganization

Material on reproduction and the plant's sexuality was spread over two sections; I have merged it and removed overlaps. I've also separated out "Taxonomy" as a full section, as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template. Missing sections from this template are "Distribution and habitat" – which will be short as this is supposed to be about the native distribution, which no longer exists for Cannabis, and "Cultivation" – describing how it is cultivated.

I continue to believe that some material should be merged into Cannabis (drug). Peter coxhead (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Cannabinoid Deficiency

I'm in college and for one of my classes, we are supposed to edit a Wikipedia page and see what kind of reaction we get. So I chose the section on cannabis and wanted to add under the medical section information about Cannabinoid Deficiency and how cannabis can help this issue. Below is a link to information on the subject. Feedback is clearly wanted, so any you have will be helpful. Thank you in advance. Wkelley2 Very much needed, the knowledge on cannabis exbibited here is lamentable and relies mostly on outdated 'studies' the veracity of which is unknown. There hisn't even anything here on the endocannabinoid system, which is pretty basic to understanding the whole subject I suggest. PetePassword (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18404144 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkelley2 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Wkelley2 the journal in question has a fairly low impact factor. Not a great source. Appears this condition has not been looked at much. Not listed in the ICD 11 for example. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

"Three species may be recognized [...]"

The entire section a) is written very badly (ie. confusingly) b) is far too detailed for the lede. Please fix it. 91.10.27.106 (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Apart from reducing it to something like "Between one and three species are recognized by different authorities", which seems over-simplified to me, I'm not sure what can be done. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Help Missesalahronaldo (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It's to dengerous Missesalahronaldo (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Effects of legalisation

See https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190205090524.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.21.214 (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

This study ends up with results anyone could of guessed- when something is first made legal, a bunch of inexperienced people make bad choices and get themselves killed. However, it shows that with the millions of people affected by legalization only around 1 extra car fatality per million persons occurred (I think? Not clearly laid out.) and that tapered off within a year. But the further conclusions then drawn, that the states who chose to give their residents more freedoms are somehow at fault for the actions of the people who live in the states who do not- that is ridiculous. It really just seems like the issue is that states who legalize marijuana need to be more prepared for the yearlong period afterwards when traffic fatalities will go up and that this country needs to end these racist and draconian marijuana laws since here is another way that they can cause people harm. Because if, like this article is positing, "cannabis tourism" is such a problem, blame the states that won't legalize it. Not the states that will and already have.

Because this article explains its statistics poorly, seems to use poorly thought out reasoning (such as, obviously studies on recreational use should not be compared to studies done on medicinal use), and draws conclusions that their data does not seem to support, this article should not be used on this Wikipedia page. Basil989 (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Add reference to Mechoulam

Some of the early research on Cannabis medicinal was by Rafael Mechoulam. His work was seminal in elucidating structure activity relationship and work on in vivo cannabinoid receptor target Annandamide. Shjacks45 (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTCV; there isn't a Wikipedia page for this person. If the research doesn't bear significantly on the existing content of cannabis, then there isn't justification to single out one researcher. Shown here on PubMed, the research would be classified as primary and speculative, so is arguably too preliminary and unencyclopedic to highlight individually. --Zefr (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

What is a species

Normally, plants or animals that are capable of interbreeding belong to the same species, Wikipedia says as much regarding species. For example, Neanderthals were finally allowed to join the rest of us humans because we have so many of their genes, as it turns out.

At a minimum, this article should mention that Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, and Cannabis ruderalis all readily interbreed. If the idea that they are different species is to be included in the article, readers might appreciate some explanation as to why. I think it makes more sense just say they're subspecies, with an aside saying that sometimes they're referred to as separate species. Wikipedia says subspecies are distinguished on the basis of morphology, and these three certainly are subspecies in this sense.

By contrast, all three subspecies of cannabis can be bred to contain either high or low levels of THC. Speaking of which, I'm puzzled by the asymmetric treatment of the terms hemp and marijuana. They're just two different types (as opposed to varieties or strains or subspecies). Recently, these two types of cannabis have been legislatively defined. Commonly, marijuana, especially medical marijuana, is any cannabis strain with more than 0.3% THC. Whereas hemp is any strain with less than 0.3% THC. (Technically, it's the THCA + THC content because, in most strains, fresh leaves and buds contain very little THC; the THCA converts to THC on heating.) This new way of looking at things is useful because hemp products are being sold in all 50 states. Furtherm ore, there are now lots of strains targeting the medical marijuana market that contain relatively well-balanced proportions of THC and CBD, so it no longer makes sense to talk about 'drug' marijuana as being bred for high THC. Page Notes (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not for us to make judgements; we must just report what reliable sources say. I think the trend is actually not even to recognize subspecies, but to accept only one variable species, Cannabis sativa – this is the view of Plants of the World Online, for example. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I took a look at http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/?q=cannabis, and I like it. I think it cuts through a lot of unproductive quibbling. But I have a question. The second entry is about Orobanche cannabis Vaucher, which has nothing to do with cannabis. If you agree that it looks like a database error, I'll ask them about it. Page Notes (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Page Notes: it's not an error; a straight search using http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/?q=cannabis finds any occurrence of "cannabis". If you want to find only genera then the search ends "?f=genus_f&q=cannabis". I haven't found a way of searching for species whose genus name is "cannabis". Peter coxhead (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

plants or animals that are capable of interbreeding belong to the same species - if that's what the species article says, it's incorrect. (It's hard to know what that article says, since it begins with a long, rambling essay of a lead). A better answer would come from the species problem article, though even that rambles. It's safe to say that whether populations that can be induced to interbreed has little bearing on whether they are considered distinct species.

It's also useful to bear in mind that each species description is a hypothesis proposed by the person publishing it. It's up to others to decide whether to accept that hypothesis, or not. Cannabis happens to be an unusual case because of national and international drug laws, but it doesn't change the basic rule - we can only describe what reliable sources say. And in this case, there are differing opinions. Guettarda (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Guettarda. I just noticed your comments - I still haven't persuaded Wikipedia to send an email when others mention me. Page Notes (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Squirrels and bobcat/lynx (& lion and tiger to make liger) interbreed in a captive environment. However in the wild they rarely do (different mating rituals; social mores). Viability of offspring is an issue when dna not identical. Then again some marijuana strains are polyploid. Shjacks45 (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2020

Under Legal Status US: Schedule I (legal recreationally in 13 states & DC; medically legal in 35 states)* Anontangie (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Cannabis. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If your request is for this article, please be more specific as to where in the article you're referring to. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request

On the cannabis page it talks about THC and states "the strength of which is enhanced by curing the fruits"

Firstly, and id be willing to admit I may be wrong on this one but, Im fairly certain they are "flowers" not fruits that grow on cannabis.

Secondly, "curing" does not enhance the strength of any cannabinoid in cannabis. Curing is the process by which the remaining moisture is drawn out of the dry flowers as slowly as possible in order to stabilize the structure of the final product. It also allows the remaining carbohydrates and chlorophyll etc to break down, which then produces a smoother and more flavorful smoke.

There are methods used to increase cannabinoid production while the plant is growing, for example UVB light can trigger a defense response which increases trichome production in an attempt to shield itself from the harmful rays. However, nothing post harvest can increase the amount of cannabinoids.

Poor handling post harvest on the other hand can very much decrease the cannabinoid content. And, aging + UV light will cause thc to break down into cbn (cannabinol) which will change the effects of the specific cannabinoid cocktail in a given plant, but it does not increase or "enhance" the strength.

It does make the product more likely to produce a drowsy feeling often referred to as "couch lock". This is generally considered an undesirable effect, even among recreational users. It is not the goal of, nor does it happen to any appreciable degree during the curing process, which is generally done in complete darkness.

Total cannabinoid content and ratios ultimately come down to genetics. If its a 20:1 genetic variant, itll produce 20:1 thc:cbd. If its a high thc or high cbd variant, it will produce high thc or high cbd respectively. Nothing you do while growing or post harvest can change this. You can increase cannabinoid content within certain thresholds based on growing conditions, but a low cannabinoid producing genetic is always going to produce relatively low amounts of cannabinoids.

On the flip side, I dont think the UN or government bodies/law enforcement would be too happy to find out that you could increase the cannabinoid content or potency of hemp post harvest. If I'm wrong on this one, Id love to see the data on it. Ive used cannabis for many years and more recently have experience growing it. If there is a curing method that does anything beyond making it smoke and taste better, Id like to know it.

Thanks WabbaLubbaDoo (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Taxonomy section outdated

Extensive genetic and genomic studies of Cannabis have been conducted in the last few years showing that the division of Cannabis into C. sativa and C. indica species isn't supported. In fact, there are 4 genetic branches of Cannabis and all commercial drug cultivars (whether "indica" or "sativa") belong to the same branch. The 4 genetic clusters are:

• Basal cannabis, which includes feral plants and landraces from China and the United States (most likely originating from 19th-century Chinese landraces)
• Hemp cannabis, which includes all hemp varieties worldwide
• Drug cannabis, which can be further divided into:
  • Feral drug cannabis, which includes various feral plants collected in China, India, and Pakistan
  • Cultivated drug cannabis, which includes cultivated drug varieties worldwide (both "indica" and "sativa")

As the most extensive study to date explains: "Although much debated in the past, it is currently widely accepted that the genus Cannabis comprises a single species, C. sativa L."[8] Several authors, supporting the one-species system for Cannabis, recommend to classify its varieties based on the cannabinoids and terpenoids profile (Hazekamp et al., 2016; Piomelli and Russo, 2016). None of this more recent research, however, is represented in our article. In fact, it seems that none of our information about taxonomic research is newer than 2005. Nosferattus (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Request to correct a mistake (Cannabis(drug) ) Page

Hello , to whom it may concern

we have noticed a simple mistake on one of the wiki pages to wit "Cannabis (drug)" page 

We would like this page corrected immediately! IE Changed from Cannabis(drug) to either Cannabis(plant) or removed.

to reflect a true and accurate representation.

Cannabis is NOT we repeat NOT a drug.... and therefore would like this page changed/edited to represent reality. if you would like to contact us further on this correction please do not hesitate our email is. kaneclarkfaustin@hotmail.com to clarify , our goal is to correct the untrue representation of Cannabis , You see Cannabis is NOT a drug it is actually a plant and plants in themselves are not drugs you may be thinking of Tetrahydrocannabinol which is infact a "psychoactive drug" if you would like references please contact us further on: (kaneclarkfaustin@hotmail.com) we look forward to hearing from you. To clarify we do NOT want to see any a page which references Cannabis as being a quote: drug as it is not.... Please make the appropriate changes ASAP. REFERENCE: https://ccguide.org/isitdrug.php To whom it may concern thankyou.. TheBeresford7 (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (pinging TheBeresford7) — LauritzT (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

That is not a RS. -- Valjean (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Rpizano9.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Tar in cannabis

Is there tar in cannabis? Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.97.88 (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

गांजा

ते आपल्या शरीरासाठी चांगले असते का 2409:4042:4E8A:C44E:0:0:EFCA:2313 (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2022

Under recreational use, the link to "Adulterants" links to a non-existent part of the page. I think it would be better to link it to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adulterant StarryEarthworm (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Cannabis is used to clean radioactive soil in disaster areas like Chernobyl

https://therooster.com/blog/cannabis-is-being-used-to-clean-up-radiation-at-places-like-chernobyl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.238.101.38 (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• White pineapple cart.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Consolidate cannabis information

There is a lot of information about cannabis’ psychoactive effects throughout this article. How about we consolidate all that information into a new section, titled “psychoactive effects”? LeetToTheBeatMakeItRoar (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

revert required

can someone please revert the last three edits made to this article by the user Deisenbe? they've uncapitalised the genus name at various points in the article. the genus is Cannabis and a specific species would be Cannabis sativa etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.200.164 (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thank you very much! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

thank you!! :) 82.3.200.164 (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Outdated taxonomy (redux)

The taxonomic debate of whether the genus Cannabis is monotypic, or if any genetically distinct subspecies/varieties of Cannabis sativa are recognised, has previously been raised on these talk pages (most recent discussion in 2016, and the issue raised again without response in 2021).

In addition to the 2021 genomic study provided earlier, the 2023 literature reviews (here and here) and some major taxonomic databases now support a single polymorphic species concept for Cannabis without recognising any subordinate taxa (FNA, POWO, WFO), and others split to ssp/var (CoL/GBIF, EoL, ITIS, NCBI) or separate species based on Hillig, 2004 (GRIN).

Previous discussions focused on renaming C. indica and C. ruderalis as ssp/var. Recent evidence suggests that they are now best considered as synonyms of C. sativa. Should the various articles now be merged to reflect this view?

Pinging previous discussion participants: @Plantdrew, @Peter coxhead, @Nosferattus, @MCEllis, @zzz, @Dennis Brown, @120minutes, @GeorgeLTirebiter, @Chondrite, @Centrx, @Djlayton4, @Simonapro, @Salix alba, @HighInBC. Loopy30 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Rather than merging all the articles, perhaps it would be best to treat C. sativa, C. indica, and C. ruderalis as cultivars. Regardless, we really, really need to update our taxonomy to reflect the consensus view that all cannabis is a single species. Nosferattus (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's becoming impossible to maintain articles on separate species when the marijuana industry (at least in the US) uses "Indica" and "Sativa" with opposite meanings from how botanists have applied the terms. Potential readers are more likely to encounter the industry definitions than the botanical ones. My other concern with the industry terms is that they are used with genetic ratios that are biologically impossible (although this seems to be becoming less prevalent in recent years, AK-47 (cannabis) cites a 2001 source for it having a indica/sativa ratio of 65:35). Plantdrew (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I see that Plants of the World Online now treats Cannabis as a monotypic genus with a single species Cannabis sativa. I think we should do the same. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Based on the discussion above, I propose merging Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis into Cannabis. The most recent literature on the subject no longer supports splitting Cannabis sativa into separate subspecies or varieties and the genus is now accepted as monotypic by the primary database for flowering plants (Plants of the World). Loopy30 (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree and think they should remain separate so there can be a dedicated article of focus for each. These species are clearly different and need to be separated as such. There has been hundreds of years of documentation that they are uniquely separate. They are physically distinct (size, shape, leaf, physical appearance) from each other and the grow differently from each other. The instructions for growing a Cannabis Sativa is not the same as growing a Cannabis ruderalis because they're different. Not to mention how much longer of a book Cannabis would need to be to further explain all these differences unless your saying we should pretend they're all the same thing, but they're not the same thing. Gettinglit (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree 2601:C7:4203:8AB0:D5A2:6494:ADC6:116C (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. These are completely different subjects, and should NOT be merged. The article Cannabis is about the plant, itself. The three "species" articles, Sativa, Indica, Ruderalis, are about three major, broad varieties, and they warrant separate articles, themselves, whether or not agreement exists about the three (actually four, let's not forget Feral cannabis) actually belonging to the same species classification, scientifically. - The Hammer of Thor (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I would support merging the three, or otherwise renaming the pages for C. sativa, C. indica and C. ruderalis to indicate that they are varieties of one species. 2604:3D08:7582:300:A113:552F:B7D8:71AB (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep them separate! Redefining the level of a taxon doesn't alter or remove relative distinctions between their constituents. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The difficulty with these counter-proposals that seek to retain three distinct articles at either the species, subspecies, or variety level, is that none of these concepts of a divided Cannabis species is still supported by modern science. To continue to retain separate articles on a plant demands at the least that reliable sources be provided that could describe the botanical differences between these formerly separate species. @Gettinglit, @The Hammer of Thor, and @UpdateNerd, what sources could you suggest that would support this three-way separation? Loopy30 (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Classifications by...

Lamarck 1785

Paxton and Lindley 1868

Delile 2849

Hooker and Thompson 1855

Johnson 1868

All describe them as separate species with a distinctly different look and cultivation and claims they are separate species. Ruderalis doesn't grow on the same schedule, doesn't look like sativa or indica, it's not the same species and needs to be classified separately so we can all tell them apart and learn their individual history.

Granted, you can also find influence as far back as the 1800s for disputing if they should all be lumped into Sativa although i've seen articles that have it debated as an arguably racist culture issue from some early British colonists refusing to accept anything but Sativa and incorrectly lumping Indicia and Ruderalis in with Sativa, not to mention modern influence with laws that bans Sativa specifically meaning if Indica and Ruderalis is its own species lots of peoples rights have been violated.

The choice to lump them all together as if they are the same species when they have so many distinct differences from physical to cultivation is bizarre, this is like lumping in Leonotis leonurus and Leonotis nepetifolia together or Mentha aquatica and Spearmint together, but we have a way of lumping them in together, it's called the family of Lamiaceae and for Cannabis, the family of Cannabaceae. Gettinglit (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment It seems to me that there are two different issues. (1) Is there botanically a single species? Reliable sources are overwhelmingly clear that there is, and that the scientific names Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis are synonyms of Cannabis sativa, so my answer to this question is "yes". (2) Should there be separate articles on the cultivated forms that have been described in the past as Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis? I think this can be justified, but the issue is what the article titles should be.

(This is an example of a more general problem that comes up repeatedly with cultigens that have in the past been described as separate species, but turn out to be just selections of a single species.) Peter coxhead (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Cannabis ruderalis is maybe covered by Feral cannabis and Autoflowering cannabis (I don't think feral cannabis occurring outside of Asia is ruderalis, but the article for C. ruderalis has (non-scientific) sources that treat feral cannabis from other regions as ruderalis). Given that current popular usage (as detailed in Cannabis#Popular usage) has "Indica" and "Sativa" essentially reversed from botanical usage (e.g. in terms of THC/CBD ratios discussed in scientific publications vs. cannabis industry publications) it is very to difficult to maintain independent articles on the putative species. There are a bunch of competing alternative classifications that aren't based on species/subspecies names. Wide-leaf/narrow-leaf, Hemp-type/drug-type (sometimes with multiple drug-types recognized). It's easier to address the different recent classifications in a single article Cannabis article where they can be compared (or perhaps in a Taxonomy of Cannabis article), rather than spinning them off into separate articles where comparisons will have to be contextualized in each article. Plantdrew (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

When were the supposed subspecies described, and when was their status as synonyms accepted? We might have enough material for a taxonomy article. Dimadick (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Illegal Plant

My edit was rolled back by a bot, which was incorrect. It included valuable and highly relevant information, possibly the most notable in the article. It's quite extraordinary that a living organism is prohibited almost globally. There is no country where it is entirely legal, with only 3-5 countries where it is somewhat tolerated (semi-legal). In all other countries, this organism is destroyed wherever it is found. This is indeed something very special and more then noteworthy (central). Helpi679 (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Cannabis has been entirely legal for adults (much like alcohol) in Canada since October, 2018. Thoric (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand, but in 99% of all countries, it's NOT legal. Even in Canada, I don't believe cannabis plants are allowed to grow wild in local parks. So, the plant is illegal there as well. That's the point. The plant itself is banned across the entire planet, and even if there are 2-3-5 places in the world where it's legal or tolerated, it makes no difference.

It's very unusual and abnormal to say "organism xy is banned on the planet," regardless of its use. Think about it: it's a living organism, and this organism has essentially been denied the right to exist. Naturally, it would grow wild and live everywhere. But we don't allow it and instead, we pursue and destroy it. If that's not a significant, major, and unusual point, then I don't know what is. Helpi679 (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that no plants should be illegal or criminalized. It is a crime against nature, and a cruel and unusual oppression the constitutional rights and freedom of people. This is not limited to cannabis, but certainly cannabis is one of the main controlled substances around the world, thanks to the UN Convention on Narcotics (despite cannabis not being a "narcotic"), which is thanks to the American "War on (some) Drugs". These plants are not criminalized and destroyed because they are deadly or toxic -- there are plenty of highly deadly plants which are perfectly legal to grow and possess, but they are illegal because they are perceived to be a threat to the core industries of Government, Church, and Patent Medicine. These industries are also associated with those relating to policing, national security, law and order, and the industries built around chemistry and petro-chemicals, thus also having a strong connection to the oil industry. It's all connected, and much of the natural world is threatened by extractive and exploitive capitalist consumerist industries and practices. Our entire economy, ethos, culture, and even our state religion is built around this. Any substance which has the potential to encourage free thought is considered to be highly dangerous to the State, and hence why those most likely to encourage free thought (cannabis, MDMA, psilocybin, LSD, DMT, mescaline, Ayahuasca, Iboga, etc) are under the America Controlled Substances Act in Schedule I -- untouchable, forbidden and unprescribable. All the "dangerous street drugs" (such as cocaine, methamphetamine, and opioids like fentanyl) are in Schedule II -- dangerous, addictive, but have a prescribable medical purpose. Please note that most of the substances in Schedule I are the visionary sacred plant medicines of all the indigenous peoples from around the world. Thoric (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Its not about its right or wrong. Its about its a VERY special point! There are not much orgaism what are banned on the entire planet. So this point should be made in the article - central. Helpi679 (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, what this article (and ones abut other controlled substances) should have is a summary paragraph stating that Cannabis is a controlled substance, and a link into the Controlled substance article. Thoric (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)