Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

Incorrect statements regarding essential oil of cannabis

There is an incorrect statement in one of the paragraphs dealing with essential oil of cannabis. This product has nothing to do with "hash oil" and does not contain significant amounts of psychoactive cannabinoids. This mixture of mono- and sesquiterpenes is responsible for the characteristic odor and aroma of cannabis and is obtained from both fiber and drug strains. This is the fraction of the drug, which is detected by drug sniffing canines. It is steam-distilled from the female flowering tops, there is an entry already under cannabis flower essential oil. It can be used safely in foods and cosmetics and is a component of tea beverages in some parts of Europe. "Hash oil" is something altogether different (an alcoholic extract of hash). It has been illegally traded in the past, but has no longer any relevance, and it is not an extract containing significant amount of the essential oil. Hash oil is NOT a synonym for "essential oil of cannabis". I can add the correct link if there is no objection. Thanks. (67.160.160.76 (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC))

Edit Request - bad grammar - please change

"Contemporary uses of cannabis are as a recreational drug, as religious or spiritual rites, or as medicine;" Should read "Contemporary uses of cannabis are as a recreational or medicinal drug, and as part of religious or spiritual rites." 46.115.118.12 (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done I'm sure there're some who'll argue but I like it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - Addictiveness

Just below the section break for Marijuana#Addictiveness, please add

{{main|Cannabis dependence}}

Resulting in

Addictiveness

Main article: Cannabis dependence

Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of NIDA ranked the relative addictiveness of 6 substances (cannabis, caffeine, cocaine, alcohol, heroin and nicotine). Cannabis ranked least addictive, with caffeine the second least addictive and nicotine the most addictive.

This is for consistency with other sections for which a separate, more detailed article is available. Thanks in advance. 67.100.127.70 (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for your contributions! ^King Jakob _C2 00:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for very quick improvement in adolescent brain development NPOV improvement

There are study sample sizes for some of the counter-studies listed in this section - however there is no indication of the size used in the 35-year study. If I recall correctly, it was fairly large. Is this not important to mention, especially since other sample sizes are? Amazing article, btw - very neutral and fair, provides plenty of evidence for both sides. 216.104.123.107 (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't really neutral. The association for post 18 smoking and IQ decline was 0.11. They did observe a decline it was just less statistically significant.132.216.227.109 (talk) 04:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone seems to be biased on this...

Much? More like pro-drug bias, since wikipedia is young. Hmmm... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.124.148 (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is pro drugs in general. The kids and potheads on here talk about the subjective effects and that just makes me laugh. "Feeling of euphoria" when discussing cocaine, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.186.190 (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

^ Umm, cocaine is pretty widely known to cause feelings of euphoria. it has a pretty large effect on the dopamine and serotonin systems. I'm sure you could find the same description for the effects of cocaine on a police website somewhere - there's a reason people do drugs. 216.104.123.107 (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Bias throughout article

I believe there to be bias, possibly intentional, throughout this article. The tone is that of the pro Cannabis lobby in much of the western world and facts appear to have been chosen selectively.

For example, in the "Memory and Intelligence" section, the only studies mentioned show cannabis not to have a long term impact upon a users intelligence. However, the most significant piece of research on this topic, from New Zealand in 2012, clearly states that cannabis impacted upon the users cognitive abilities on a long term and potentially permanent manner.

The "gateway drug theory" section is just a splurge of rebuttals to that theory, as if the debate is closed because Cannabis activists have laid down the correct answer.

This whole article appears to have been written by the pro cannabis lobby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Heseltin (talk • contribs) 03:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The general Wikipedia policy for medical-related issues is to rely whenever possible on good review papers rather than primary research studies -- so you are right that the sources that are used in the memory and intelligence section are not good ones, but the one you prefer is not a good one either. What we really need are good recent reviews that sum up the whole research picture in an authoritative way. Regarding the "gateway drug" business, that's just back and forth argumentation with neither side really having any scientific basis for their claims, because it is impossible to do proper experimental studies. Looie496 (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

One can with very simple methods verify the reasonableness of all the claim that cannabis has such a positive effect on all sorts of illnesses. If it is written in the article on "medical cannabis" were true, then should a typical marijuana smoker live a very healthy life for well over 80 years of age, but it's not, we all know that's not true. Sum of all allegations of cannabis positive effects clearly false, compare with advertisements for patent medicines that were in the 1800's. . The greatest Prophet to legaliz cannabis Jack Herer died himself much earlier than at age 80. So the text is bias. Dala11a (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

So your "proof" that cannabis users do not live past the age of 80 is one guy not living past the age of 80? Tell me again, who is biased here? yonnie (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

For your information, there has been a long discussion about NPOV during the past year. Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 7 has some good secondary medical sources listed. I agree that further improvement in the article would be good. The problem is some conflicting published sources and the lack of enough good research into the topic. Rlsheehan (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Medical marijuana legislation passed in France, Italy, and Czech Republic

The following statement from the article is incorrect due to being outdated. "Canada, Spain, The Netherlands and Austria have legalized some form of cannabis for medicinal use." France also recently passed legislation legalizing medical marijuana use, following similar legislation passed in Italy and the Czech Republic. It should say, "Canada, Spain, The Netherlands, France, Italy, Czech Republic, Austria, and 18 U.S States have legalized some form of cannabis for medicinal use."

Sources France: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/medical-marijuana-inc-reports-france-171900735.html Sources Italy and Czech Republic: http://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/medical-marijuana-investing-expands/4099

 Done. Thanks! Jguy _Talk^Done 00:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please fix this spelling error?

Under Safety it says: "Due to the low number of studies conducted on cannabis, there is not enough evidence to reach a conclusion reagrding the effect of cannabis on overall risk of death or lifespan.[69][70]" Can someone please fix the word "regarding"? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.197.47.97 (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2013‎ (UTC)

 Done Thanks for finding that! DMacks (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

To bee balanced you must add that there are no scientific evidence that common use of so called "medical cannabis" have any positive effect on overall risk of death or lifespan.Dala11a (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

title of article

Isn't it most commonly known as Marijuana? Doesn't WP:Name mean that should be the title? 24.149.45.52 (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It is only known officially as marijuana in the US and Canada but the encyclopedia is worldwide. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the common use of the term marijuana, cannabis is the scientific name for the plant and such deserves the title. See also the wikipedia page on Marijuana (word) which discusses the increase in popularity of the term during Harry J. Anslinger's campaigns to ban the drug and the words possible former meaning or derivation, prisoner. Archlinux (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Not proven to be effective for treating glaucoma

The article states that cannabis has been "shown to be effective for treating glaucoma". That's just not true. Look at this position paper from the American Glaucoma Society.

http://www.americanglaucomasociety.net/patients/position_statements/marijuana_glaucoma

"One of the commonly discussed alternatives for the treatment of glaucoma by lowering IOP is the smoking of marijuana. It has been definitively demonstrated, and widely appreciated, that smoking marijuana lowers IOP in both normal individuals and in those with glaucoma, and therefore might be a treatment for glaucoma4,5. Less often appreciated is marijuana’s short duration of action (only 3-4 hours), meaning that to lower the IOP around the clock it would have to be smoked every three hours. Furthermore, marijuana’s mood altering effects would prevent the patient who is using it from driving, operating heavy machinery, and functioning at maximum mental capacity. Marijuana cigarettes also contain hundreds of compounds that damage the lungs, and the deleterious effect of chronic, frequent use of marijuana upon the brain is also well established5.

Other means of administering the active ingredient of marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), include oral, sublingual, and eye drop instillation. The first two avoid the deleterious effect of marijuana smoke on the lungs, but are limited by the other systemic side effects. In one study in which doctors offered some of their patients with worsening glaucoma the option of pills containing tetrahydrocannabinol and/or smoking marijuana, 9 of 9 patients had discontinued use by either or both methods within 9 months due to side effects6. Given that glaucoma is a lifelong disease, commonly requiring treatment for decades, these results strongly suggest that systemic use of THC is not a reasonable treatment option for such patients. The use of eye drops containing THC, or related compounds, has been investigated, but it has not yet been possible to formulate an eye drop that is able to introduce the drug into the eye in sufficient concentrations due to the low water solubility of the active ingredients.

Although marijuana does lower the IOP temporarily, IOP lowering is only one consideration in slowing the optic nerve damage of glaucoma. For instance, there is a growing body of evidence that inadequate blood supply to the optic nerve may contribute to glaucoma damage. Since marijuana given systemically is known to lower blood pressure, it is possible that such an effect could be deleterious to the optic nerve in glaucoma, possibly reducing or eliminating whatever beneficial effect that conferred by lowering IOP. For this reason, marijuana, or its components administered systemically, cannot be recommended without a long term trial which evaluates the health of the optic nerve.ADDIN RW.CITE7"

In short, there are treatments that are actually effective in treating glaucoma, and cannabis is not one of them. This part of the article is incorrect and should be fixed.

24.14.88.182 (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

You have a good point. I removed the statement, and will further clarify on Medical cannabis.-- cyclopia^speak! 10:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

We might also consider adding perspective from this review. Begin at page 7 (I wasn't able to copy it for you here). petrarchan47tc 18:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It is older, and it is consistent with the 2009 statement: this is from the papers' conclusions: Cannabinoids have the potential of becoming a useful treatment for glaucoma, as they seem to have neuroprotective properties and effectively reduce intraocular pressure. However, several challenges need to be overcome, including the problems associated with unwanted systemic side effects (psychotropic, reduction in systemic blood pressure), possible tolerance, and the difficulty in formulating a stable and effective topical preparation. The 2009 statement also acknowledges the potential, but warns that there are still obstacles to overcome. If you want to add it, go ahead, but perhaps better looking what's new in the literature. -- cyclopia^speak! 18:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The 2012 san diego study

Hi there

While reading the article, i came across a sentence stating that a 2012 UC San Diego study would be publicized in apr 2013. But it is august now so i found the publication and fixed the article with a new reference.

But should the reference of that paragraph be entirely changed to the new reference? As it is now it references huffingtonpost.com and the new ref i added (the study itself). PureRumble (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Ohoy again. I see the user Götz has fixed the journal reference i added. Thx! But i still suggest the new reference is used for the entire paragraph instead of using the huffington post ref too. The latter is an article about the journal ref anyway; it simply tells of the journal refs findings. Why not use it directly? PureRumble (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

More Info?

Hi,

There's an interesting part in the article that says: "Others, for example American Society of Addiction Medicine, argue that there is no "Medical marijuana" because the plant parts in question fail to meet the standard requirements for approved medicines.[29]" I was wondering reading the article what those requirements are. It might be good to list them in a footnote so that people can think for themselves whether they agree with the FDA's decision. It would greatly help neutrality and an informed opinion about marijuana...

70.72.45.131 (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Jumping the gun

I was in the midst of creating an article (kronik (slang)) when it was tagged for merging with marijuana. Since the there are slang usages and cultural references that are not directly related to marijuana, this was both premature and inappropriate. It appears that kronik is not on the list of slang terms for marijuana.FriendlyFred (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• This merge proposal was misplaced at Talk:Marijuana, the talk page of a redirect. --BDD (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought a redirect is appropriate, but if you have some good references discussing how it is routinely used in some other context, I'm open to changing my mind. JoelWhy?(talk) 20:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I would strongly support making this into a redirect, given its current shape or it will open the floodgates to 1001 different slang terms for cannabis. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The entire article on Cannabis is about the drug, nothing about the pop cultural references such as "The Kronik". I have looked at other articles in the Cannabis portal and see no target for the merge. Shouldn't there be at least a list of the slang terms? FriendlyFred (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a Wiktionary appendix of marijuana slang, but kronik is not there. FriendlyFred (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kronik (slang)‎♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

COX-2 Research

This has received a lot of press and is very significant. It should definitely be included in this article:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.SearchBar.Db=pubmed&term=%CE%949-THC-Caused+Synaptic+and+Memory+Impairments+Are+Mediated+through+COX-2+Signaling

Exercisephys (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

PMID 24267894 is another primary source-- see section above this one and below this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Adolescent Brain Development

Every part in this part is well-referenced to support the argument. However, I think it's important to state in one line or two, or with a reference, that the association is somewhat weak. For instance, I may have smoked marijuana before the age of 18 and had low IQ scores and lowered concentration, etc. But it's not clear that marijuana itself caused this. I also ate a lot of pizza pops, drank coke, watched television, and any of these could have contributed to these apparent effects as well. In essence, what I think should be made clear is that associations (as the article puts it) are difficult to prove logically. The article as it stands gives the appearance that smoking marijuana has bad permanent long-term effects, and that it is marijuana alone that causes these. More importantly it gives the appearance that all of this is conclusively logical, and it's not. It would be worth revising this part for more neutrality in the article...

70.72.45.131 (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a ref to support this?. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the problem is the opposite: what is there now is medical/health content that is not cited to sources compliant with our medical sourcing guidelines. Those wanting to keep poorly sourced text need to source it to secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV??

While there is some phrasing issues I don't see how this article presents a non neutral point of view. The only thing wikipedia can do about a subject such as this is describe the drug as it stands is society which this article does. However some will never accept this goal. Presenting a non neutral point of view is not difficult there are just too many opinions on this subject to generate a legitimate article free from tags of bias and assertions of other problems.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.153.150 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 25 May 2011

The article is POV because it selectively uses primary sources and ignores secondary reviews (see WP:MEDRS which in fact contradict the primary sources used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Lots of problems here

This article is rife with primary sources and at odds with secondary reviews required per our medical guidelines on sourcing medical content. The use of primary sources creates original research and POV. It is also out of sync with sub-articles and needs to make better use of summary style. There is no shortage of secondary reviews on cannabis in the recent, high-quality published literature, and no reason for this article to be so outdated and poorly sourced. PMID 24234874 is one sample only of a recent secondary review: there are scores. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Sandy! I've found the problem in this article is that it tends to attract 2 camps of editors: (1) those who feel pot is evil; and (2) those who feel pot is a godsend. So, there will be a study with 8 participants finding some nominal health impact (positive or negative) and then a definitive statement being placed here. I've taken out or edited stuff in the past, but grew tired of it. This article definitely could stand for some more objective Wiki editors... JoelWhy?(talk) 18:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

If we focus on high quality sources and relay their main points faithfully, neutrality is an automatic consequence; though yes, maybe it's been the "let's get pro/anti point in" mentality which has been responsible for the disgraceful state of these articles. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, JoelWhy, good to run into you again! That problem is eliminated by following MEDRS-- the articles were full of primary-sourced original research, when we have an abundance of secondary reviews that do the "synthesis" of the primary sources for us. For editors who might not be familiar with the application of our medical sourcing guidelines (MEDRS), Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches may help you understand how to access PubMed, restrict your searches to secondary reviews, and determine if a source is a primary study or a secondary review. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it a good idea to use such a recently published review on the health effects as PMID 24234874 ? If there are so many available, it would seem more sensible to use ones that are slightly older, which have been heavily cited by other authors demonstrating that they are review authoritative. Looking at the text referenced in the article to that review it appears to readers as if cannabis causes hep C, but in actual fact it increases the severity of hep c in those already infected. That's quite a difference! This 2009 review in The Lancet would seem like a much better source (cited > 200 times compared to 0). SmartSE (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Rationalization needed

Why do we have Cannabis (drug) and Cannabis, and what is the distinction? The medical and long-term effects of this article are poorly sourced and out of sync with Medical cannabis and effects of cannabis and long-term effects of cannabis, and there is a walled garden in here of duplicate information across multiple articles. Can someone explain? I will begin deleting the poorly sourced, out-of-sync medical content here , with main hatnotes to the main articles, unless someone has a better plan for how to sync this suite of articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Cannabis is about the plant genus, Cannabis (drug) is about the usage of the plant as a drug, be it medicine, recreational, spiritual, etc. There are too many effects–of–cannabis–consumption articles with duplicated and out-of-sync contend. Unless they are expanded (with the corresponding WP:MEDRS sources) after the cleanup, there may be no need for so many of them. —Götz (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Cannabis is about the plant genus in general and is the parent to this article about the use of cannabis as a drug. That article is needed to cover taxonomic information and uses such as hemp and seed. This article should serve as a parent for all the other articles related to cannabis as a drug with suitable summaries of the content in each of them used here. As I think you've already noticed though, all the articles are a bit of a mess. Perhaps it would make most sense to concentrate on improving this article and then begin on the others once this is better. SmartSE (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, both-- most helpful. So, looking at cannabis, I think (?) that the only MEDRS fixin' needed is in the sections on "Psychoactive drug" and "Medical use". Is that correct? If we can get those sections cleaned out and briefly summarized with a hatnote, would that article be done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes the split into cannabis and cannabis (drug) was made precisely because we needed an article on the plant genus as a plant and this seemed separate from this plant's use as a drug, we certainly shouldnt be doing more than hat-notes re cannabis as a drug in the plant article♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, SqueakBox. It's very slow going trying to rationalize this huge suite of articles and the duplicate text everywhere. I've made a number of suggestions at Talk:Medical cannabis that are being ignored so far, and I hesitate to move forward without more feedback. But that article is huge and hard to work on ... if folks would be willing to weigh in on the various merge and separate proposals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I am wading through this page to try to catch all the articles that link to the plant when they should link to this article on the drug♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Safety

Re links between cannabis use and lung cancer risk, this article seems to stress studies that indicate "no connection", and light use. But see also http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23846283 regarding long term heavy use. Ptilinopus (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Considering this study was published just some 10 days ago, it's hardly surprising that it's not yet included here. I'll add when I have a moment. JoelWhy?(talk) 21:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

PMID 23846283 is a primary source; see WP:MEDRS. There are numerous secondary sources compliant with MEDRS that can and should be used. For those who don't know how to determine if a study indexed in PubMed is a primary (an orginal study) or secondary source (an independent review of an original study), Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches may help. Medical content should be sourced to recent secondary reviews. For example, PMID 24234874 is a recent secondary review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy, having read through the wiki on reliable sources for medical articles, I have a better idea of what to use. Would it be ok to reference this link from the National Cancer Institute regarding the link between pot and cancer? JoelWhy?(talk) 14:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Jmh649, MastCell Hi again, JoelWhy! On the surface, I'd probably say yes, since it appears to be a secondary review, but I've pinged some folks who would know better because a) I'm not familiar with that source (they may be), and b) I'm wondering why we can't just use the secondary reviews they reference. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

IMO it is better to use the published review article. This would be an okay source if better ones are not found. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, we have Gordon 2013 that does specify cancer risk:

• Gordon AJ, Conley JW, Gordon JM (2013). "Medical consequences of marijuana use: a review of current literature". Curr Psychiatry Rep. 15 (12): 419. doi:10.1007/s11920-013-0419-7. PMID 24234874. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Gordon says: "there does appear to be an increased risk of cancer (particularly head and neck, lung, and bladder cancer) for those who use marijuana over a period of time, although what length of time that this risk increases is uncertain". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Great minds think alike, JoelWhy. I just cited the NCI overview at medical cannabis. I think it's a good source, as is this detailed overview from Health Canada. The bottom line is that cannabis products are carcinogenic in a variety of in vitro assays, but human studies have been limited and inconclusive to date. MastCell ^Talk 17:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Got to make sure we mention its when burned that there theses problems. As the studies indicate oral consumption as in eating (not smoked) is not a precursor. Also have to be carefull when it comes to sources here...this is not a medical article and the sources dont have to be medical - just reliable in nature about drugs. -- Moxy (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Medical and health statements require WP:MEDRS sourcing no matter where they occur, and some portions of this article are about health (in fact, most). Think of it like WP:BLP; just because a statement about a living person occurs in an article that is not a biography does not mean we can violate BLP. This articles is about a drug; MEDRS will apply to a good portion of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with what your saying....but a comprehensive review by the Drug and Alcohol Review Board would be a fine reference... we need to source the wider views of experts on the topic over just medical reports. Lots out there that has validity that is not just medical in nature. On a side note the section "History" is way to big for here. -- Moxy (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I just created History of medical cannabis via a merge, and we also need to spin a lot of content from here and cannabis into History of cannabis; these articles are a bear to work on! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

David Nutt and the removal of his remarks on British Lung study

Professor David Nutt, who used to chair the UK's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, was fired after releasing the results of his examination of drug scheduling and its relationship to drug dangers. He found that cannabis was less dangerous than both tobacco and alcohol.

His remarks on the British Lung Study should be in this article. This encyclopedia needs to include the voice of prominent critics, as well as government agencies, etc. Please add this back to the paragraph discussion the BLS. Smoke without fire: Scaremongering by the British Lung Foundation over cannabis vs tobacco. We have good coverage of the study, it is not too much to ask for the one sentence about Nutt to be once again included. petrarchan47tc 00:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Is the BLS study considered a reliable sources? As those are medical claims, we should adhere to WP:MEDRS. Someone mentioned that blogs are not RS, but blog is a technical description of a website's structure and layout, it is not possible to generalize.

From WP:BLOGS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." which David Nutt meets.

But we should make a summary from Effects of cannabis‎‎ and Long-term effects of cannabis‎‎ and add it to the relevant section(s) in this article. Götz (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I take it that you didn't notice, but I already removed the BLF reference before you posted this so the comments by Nutt aren't important now. The BLF publication wasn't peer reviewed as far as I can tell and so we shouldn't be referencing it. If the claims it makes are valid, we'll be able to find them in the literature. SmartSE (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I've read more than a couple dozen secondary journal reviews this week, and it's a) amazing the amount of information that is untapped in these articles, and b) apparent that it is unnecessary to be resorting to lesser quality sources when there is such an abundance of information from high quality sources that often say the same things. It will take some time and effort to upgrade the sourcing in this suite of articles, but very good sources are available and there is no need to resort to advocacy sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

In my reading, came across this from the most recent (2013) Cochrane review:(PMID 23633327)

The use of cannabis (marijuana) or of its psychoactive ingredient delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) as a medicine is a hotly contested issue. Those in support of its medicinal use assert that marijuana is effective in the treatment of wasting syndrome in patients with AIDS and cancer; neurological disorders such as multiple sclerosis; and glaucoma (Aggarwal 2009). A counter argument might point to the existence of effective treatments for many, if not all, of these conditions. Not unlinked to this debate is the question of the legalisation or decriminalisation of marijuana as a recreational drug. A recent re-appraisal of the harms to individuals and others in the United Kingdom associated with various substances rated cannabis as less harmful than both alcohol and tobacco (Nutt 2010). Nonetheless, the current legal status of marijuana constitutes an important philosophical obstacle to the legitimacy of its use as a medicine (Cohen 2009). (From PMID 23633327 )

This reinforces my belief that most of the problematic text in these articles can be better sourced to recent high quality reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

THC fatalities?

We say "Recorded fatalities resulting from cannabis overdose are generally only after intravenous injection of hashish oil.[38]" sourced to PMID 16225128, but according to this old edit this is a misrepresentation of the source, as this material relates to animal studies. Has somebody got access to the full text and so can check? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 03:19, 11 December 2013

That was my - possibly mistaken - reading of the cited abstract. (It seemed from the language of the abstract they were discussing humans - "hair" not "fur", "autopsy".) However, reliably attributing death to an acute effect of cannabis ingestion seems to be problematical in the rare instances it's suspected, and this BJP review from 4 years earlier says, "no deaths directly due to acute cannabis use have ever been reported." So, I'd be comfortable citing that and dropping the Przegl Lek. abstract - unless we can find a more recent authoritative statement on death as an acute effect. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully someone at the Resource Exchange can get hold of the full text. This is an important thing to get right. SmartSE (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Considering it's an obscure and dated source, and that Petrarchan47 is apoplectic about what may just be a mistake by another editor (hey, mistakes happen, but never by Petra apparently), I'm going to remove it for now. We have secondary reviews of mortality and fatalities; we don't need this text anyway. And Petra, people make mistakes; be glad no one is as hard on you as you've been on Anthonyhcole for what may or may not be a mistake. Oh, and thank you Alexbrn (gee, a MED editor) for spotting the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Alex didn't spot the problem, I did, and pointed it out to him at Gandy's talk on 10 December. So what you call "drama" is actually what it took to get this *oopsie* out of the encyclopedia. petrarchan47tc 21:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This 2011 paper in Forensic Science International states:

"As THC overdoses are exceedingly rare and almost never a direct cause of drug-overdose deaths, no “lethal” THC concentration in humans is described. Except in the setting of trauma resulting from drug-induced impairment, THC measurement in post-mortem specimens has little impact on the ultimate determination of cause and manner of death by medical examiners, and this fact is likely responsible for this relative scarcity of information."

"...no fatalities from cannabis (or THC) overdose have been reported..."

It doesn't make any mention of intravenous injections though (but I did find Intravenous Marijuana Syndrome). I've searched for other IV info in other papers but couldn't find anything else even mentioning it other than this which was an experiment where the LD50 of cannabinoids was found for monkeys. Perhaps it is best to remove the obscure source and use the FSI paper? Let me know if you want a copy. SmartSE (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Smartse; I just added a 2010 review of mortality that says the same thing (no reported fatalities from overdose).[1] Possible mistake made, error spotted, error fixed, would have been fixed even faster without the drama. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

removed

Recorded fatalities resulting from cannabis overdose are generally only after intravenous injection of hashish oil.

And also removed

We have a 2010 review citing no fatalities in the article; a 15-yo review saying the same thing is not needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2013

Photo with caption as follows: 'A joint prior to rolling, with a paper "roach" at left.' is incorrect, and disagrees with the caption on the full-size version. The item at left is not a "roach," but a "filter."

Mrnews (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have revised the caption.--Soulparadox (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Adverse Cardiovascular Effects

A new source (PMID 24176069) has been mentioned at User talk:Jimbo_Wales#Reliability where this article is one of many topics being aired. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

George Washington wanted Hemp and Cannabis in America

George Washington pushed for the growth of Hemp and even grew hemp himself. In may 1765 he noted in his diary about the sowing of seeds each day until mid-april. Then he recounts the harvest in October which he grew 27 bushels that year. He and Thomas Jefferson (also a hemp farmer who developed a better way to break the stalk by modifying a thresher) would also share the flowers of the plant for smoking. They both preffered this to drinking alcohol or using tobacco, which they both saw as health concerns for the new land.

George Washington also imported the medicinal Indain Hemp plant from Asia, basically Marijuana, which was used for fiber and intoxicating resin production. In a letter to William Pearce who managed the plants for him Washington says, "What was done with the Indian Hemp plant from last summer? It ought, all of it, to be sown again; that not only a stock of seed sufficient for my own purposes might have been raisied, but to have desseminated seed to others; as it is more valuable then common Hemp." He anxiously sent more letters to Pearce, to get the most out of the seeds.

Other president's known to have used cannabis include James Madison (claimed it inspired him to found a nation on democratic principals), James Monroe (used until he was 73 years old), Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, Franklin Pierce, Bill Clinton (pretty sure), George W. Bush (pretty sure), and Barack Obama.

This would make more sense if it was at the main parent article. -- Moxy (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is this article's neutrality disputed?

I noticed that someone placed a {{POV}} template on this article in December 2013. In particular, which sections of this article are perceived as "non-neutral"? Jarble (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

See substantial earlier discussion, you may need to look in archives. CFCF (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Alot has chnaged since the tag was added ...will have to review the article again see if others still see a problem. -- Moxy (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There sure is still a problem but until the dispute over naming, which has massively overtaken any work that might be done on the page, I'm just sitting on the sidelines waiting to resume work. This talk page is now 180KB, there are scores of reliable secondary sources that are not reflected in the article, and dozens of editors are arguing over what to call the stuff, yet not fixing the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The article was tagged in this edit: [2]. The actual discussion seems to have primarily taken place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 44#Medical cannabis. I have no idea if the issues in question were resolved or not!  — Amakuru (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

At this point I believe that we can move on with fixing the article. We should summarize where we are at this point. -- Moxy (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Really? Every time I've tried to restart work, I've found the name going back and forth and my edits getting reverted, and as far as I can tell, this little spat over the name is ongoing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Death report by BBC

I am not convinced this is a reliable enough source.[3] Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Too much speculation, and we can't trust the laypress. Specifically, cardiac, lung, or related to other products, who knows? (We do know that the oft-repeated claims that cannabis has no effect on mortality are demonstrably wrong, but this isn't the source to demonstrate that.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in the WP:MEDRS debate, because it's not my area, and I do think it's broadly a very good guideline; but something seems wrong here. From Sandy's comment I'm gathering that the line "Fatal overdoses associated with cannabis use have not been reported as of 2008" is either not true, or no longer true in 2014, compared with 2008. So yes, we go for verifiability not truth, but personally I think including a mention of the BBC's claim, explicitly labelling it as speculative, is more valuable to readers than the pure verified but probably inaccurate or misleading line above.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem there, Amakuru is in the wording (which is leftover POV that hasn't been addressed yet, and shows the problem with not relying on secondary reviews). We have recent secondary reviews that deal with mortality overall, and if we use those reviews and their wording, we can avoid the use of "fatal overdose" wording. The POV here (one we see throughout the cannabis suite) results from relying on only one aspect of mortality (fatal overdoses) rather than looking at mortality risk overall. At this moment, I can't recall which recent review does that best, and I'm uninterested in working on this article until the silly naming dispute is resolved, but I believe one can find that text and adequate sourcing for it in the medical cannabis article. You are correct that the wording in the article now is a wreck; my comment above was restricted to whether we should be sourcing mortality to the laypress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying that, Sandy. At least it's not just a case of our being happy with inaccurate information; and I understand your frustration over the naming distractions. It's an interesting question, maybe, what we would do in the scenario that there had never been an overdose death in history, then suddenly there was an unambiguous case that was recognised as such across the medical community. Inevitably I imagine it would take time for such a development to make its way through to peer reviewed secondary sources and in that interim period press articles might be all the evidence we have to go on. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree ... if that were the case, I suspect we'd have to use the laypress selectively. But what took hold across the cannabis suite of articles is that editors wanted to use (and quite selectively) some silly quote by a TV reporter claiming that no one had ever died from cannabis ... which is a subtly incorrect statement, dealt with by using secondary reviews of mortality rather than narrowing the focus to overdose. Otherwise known as cherry picking :) We've got it throughout this suite of articles, in which primary sources which selectively create a POV are used, to the exclusion of secondary reviews. I'd say about a third of the cleanup was done before the silly naming issue took over and stalled work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This case is not just BBC, it's widely reported in the UK media without significant deviation, google it and look. Here it says, "Bournemouth coroner Mr Sheriff Payne asked Dr Hussein <pathologist>: ‘You are satisfied it was the effects of cannabis that caused her death?’ Dr Hussein replied: ‘Yes sir.’"

In 2004, Lee Maisey was the first man to be registered as dying from a cannabis "overdose", cause of death being "misadventure". I'm sure you're either aware of that case, or can google it. A fatal overdose is something different for everyone, it's something that triggers some pathological response of that person and they die. In both of these cases, there was nothing found by the pathologists to suggest the "cause" of death was anything else.

"Lay press" is used in many articles, including medical ones. I'm guessing that here pub med rules despite what actually happens in the real world? Just for the record, I have no beef with cannabis nor any other drug, but do believe in accurate information. Currently this article is inaccurate.Cjwilky (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

A few thoughts.... I always mistrust any product advertised as having no side effects. It's a pretty basic rule that if something has documented and measurable effects, then it will also have side effects of some sort. The same applies to cannabis. What's relevant is the relative difference when comparing its typical use with typical use of other types of drugs, both illicit and pharmaceutical. There the impression is pretty strong that it's generally much safer. But, can one really consider it truly "safe" under all circumstances? No, there are circumstances where adverse reactions, side effects, and dangers can exist, especially if someone has a weak psyche, concomitantly uses other drugs or medicines, or has some type of pathological condition which cannot tolerate more "excitement" from a drug such as the modern, high-THC, versions of cannabis products.

I suspect that with time we're going to see more unfortunate cases being tied to high-THC products, and if recreational marijuana use becomes legalized even more, I would hope that regulations are established which create proper evaluations and descriptions of content, much like on food items, where the contents must be declared. Example: joints being sold under different brand names, with each one having its CBD/THC ratio accurately described. If that happens, then we'd be able to understand which types have a greater "danger profile." Then reports in RS will be more "reliable". Right now we're in a limbo situation, where our definition of RS only means that the source is there tomorrow and has some sort of editorial control, and sometimes that's about it. That doesn't make it truly "reliable", in the sense of "true".

This is a pretty sensationalistic SINGLE case, regardless of how many report it, and there are probably other cases, involving other substances and even crimes, where the testimony of a lone coroner is not considered good enough to use as a source here. I'm pretty sure I've seen an article and situation like that here, but I can't think of it right now. I'll return here if it comes to mind. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Cannabis is in a study(Kenneth J. Mukamal et all,2008) of 1913 adults reported as a possible hazards for patients who survive acute myocardial infarction [[4]]Dala11a (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I suspect you're referring to this URL. Interesting, not surprising, but not MEDRS compliant, and the author adds the usual disclaimer at the end. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: No one is suggesting that it doesn't have any side effects, just that it can't cause death in a healthy person taking a worldly dose. Exercisephys (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. No normal, healthy person has yet died from a cannabis overdose. We have no literature to support claims to the contrary. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

That's an important point Exercisephys, and the article doesn't actually say this. Looking at the safety section of the article, there are 5 paragraphs, and overall is about as clear as THC fog.

1) The key issue I have there is the word "overdoses". The coroners reports are of overdoses, very clearly. So the article is wrong, there are documented "overdoses". Using the phrases "healthy person" and "wordly dose" or similar, would be helpful to the reader. Defining a healthy person - tricky one. The woman who died recently may well have been healthy in the sense that without the cannabis, she may never have had her latent condition triggered.

2) "human deaths from overdose are extremely rare." A direct contradiction of paragraph one.

3) I don't think quoting info about sativex is justified here. It's not cannabis and no-one can extrapolate the safety of cannabis from a derivative of it.

4) Good para :)

5) Also good. Though it does suggest a problem with overdose.

Cjwilky (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Extended content
Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2014 Not many people know what an immunoassay is. Please change "Commercial cannabinoid immunoassays, often employed as the initial screening method" to something that contains a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunoassay . Thanks 74.12.207.17 (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Done. Cheers, LittleMountain5 01:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)