Talk:Medical cannabis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

What's in Santa's Pipe?

Perhaps these belongs elsewhere:

Cannabis as related to the historical figures of "Santa/Kringle":

Ratsch, Christian, and Muller-Ebeling, Claudia. Pagan Christmas: The Plants, Spirits, and Rituals at the Origins of Yuletide. Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions International, 2006.

There is legislative history relating to cannabis in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Prior to the prohibition of cannabis, it was listed in the pharmacopia. Copies still exist, as do apothecary jars.

Kringle (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Kringle, A Corporation Sole

Questioning "Green Crack" Image

This present image of "Green crack" might be better if it were in an article about marijuana as a street drug... I can't imagine taking medicine that had the word "crack" on the label. There are thousands of names for marijuana strains, i would imagine. Could we find a less negative one to display? Perhaps "Heroin Weed" or "Meth Grass"? [This one] seems more appropriate when talking about medicinal use. Is it possible to use this one instead?

And 2 more cents, if you don't mind: wouldn't the ancient looking bottle of sativa be better situated next to the "History" section? Sarah sko1221^talk 21:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

We're currently in a debate about the images. Most agree that the green crack image is not good for this article, and most also seem to agree that the image of the vintage bottle should go in the history section, rather than the top of the article. Agent Agent uploaded that image, and I think that it would be wonderful at the top right of this article. I think everyone has had enough time to cool down, and the discussion can continue. It seemed as if consensus was swaying in the direction of Agent Agent's image as the main one, with Viriditas being the only editor who voiced his disagreement. hmwithτ 22:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I must take exception with your assessment, both in your capacity as an administrator trying to mediate and as a participant who has chosen sides. I have offered evidence above showing why the tincture is used in the lead section; Please read it. This is a controversial article used by advocates and detractors to push various POV's one way or the other. Any attempt to form a consensus needs to take multiple factors into account, especially the history of the cannabis articles. Agent Agent's image contradicts the multiple POV's in this article, including the "criticism regarding medical cannabis" section and the opinion of the medical establishment, and I've offered several different proposals which meet and exceed the singular POV of offering smoked cannabis for medical use, namely: 1) showing actual sick people using the drug 2) using an image that includes all types of medical cannabis available from a dispensary, i.e. foods, tinctures, smokable forms, etc. 3) Using an image of a dispensary to avoid editors coming in here and changing the lead image for whatever reason every few months. The discussion spawned by The Pot Snob and Agent Agent is simply a continuation of an advocacy attempt favoring one POV. The current image favors the dominant POV, whether we agree with it or not, which is using non-smokable forms of cannabis for medical use. That is, of course, the opinion of the medical establishment and shows a form of cannabis that was prescribed by physicians and distributed by pharmacies for a very long time (in the UK, for example, from the mid to late 19th century to 1971, according to sources). I, like probably most advocates here, personally believe that smoking cannabis is not as harmful as the medical establishment claims, and that it does offer significant benefits. But my opinion is not considered the dominant POV in regards to the medical use of cannabis. Therefore, my opinion must take a backseat, and the image in the lead section needs to reflect the current research. Choosing just to show an image of raw cannabis ready to be smoked in the lead is pushing a single POV, and it is one that is not widely shared. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And the above from the one who asks for fewer words? I have revised the images as per the majority of the voices here. I guess there is a rule about being bold, and then dealing with the differing opinions afterwords. (Sorry, now i realize you all have been discussing this for awhile, i did not take the time to read each section here.) Thanks, Sarah sko1221^talk 02:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Majority opinions (in a discussion furthered by multiple SPA accounts who only advocate one POV) do not trump policy. The article must maintain a NPOV, that includes images. This is especially true with user-created images that cannot provide provenance, as I have requested above several times with no response. I have, on the other hand, offered evidence for the tincture image being in wide historical use by multiple pharmaceutical companies, and this is documented by multiple reliable sources on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not even affiliated with any kind of advocacy group, what-so-ever. I strive to make this article objective as possible. I think the historic lead image is biased in favour of a historical POV that negates the fact that most people today use medical cannabis in the raw form, and that the medical container reflects medical use. Cannabis IS prescribed by doctors, and there's nothing wrong with medical cannabis being distributed in medical containers. There is nothing fake about them. Viriditas, please try to be polite, assume good faith, avoid personal attacks, be welcoming, and hold a neutral point of view. --Agent Agent (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you, but to the arguments offered for inclusion. I've asked for provenance of the user-created image. I've repeated the position of the dominant POV in the article, which should most certainly be represented fairly in the lead section. Smoking cannabis is not recommended by most physicians. There are a number of ways of ingesting it, and a neutral image would portray these methods, as I've suggested above. Other images are also possible, such as showing a sick person using it, or simply photographing a dispensary. Choosing one method to represent in the lead section, especially when that particular method is criticized in the article, isn't neutral. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What does the group think of taking this to a third party ~ is there anyone who has the time to do this? Thanks, Sarah sko1221^talk 03:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection. But keep in mind, there are many images available, so insisting on a user-created image with no provenance doesn't make sense. The most important issue here is NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." That's it. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No reason to repeat what you've already (just) said. My question is to the group, and whether anyone has the time to take this to Admin? Sarah sko1221^talk 03:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm repeating myself, so that I'm understood. The dominant view of medical cannabis, is that it should not be smoked. I can support that statement with many journal articles on the subject. That's why the tincture is in the lead. I will gladly accept an image that represents the tincture, cannabis foods, raw cannabis for smoking, sativex, etc... Cannabis advocates have been using this page (and others) to further their POV, and the use of SPA have been problematic both in the past and at present. Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If there's a neutral third party, I think that would be good.

Viriditas, there is no method of use suggested in medical_cannabis.jpg so, your argument that the image not being 'neutral' or 'criticized in the article' is unfortunately invalid. Again, it does not insinuate anyone smoking it. medical_cannabis.jpg is a neutral image of raw medical cannabis from which any tincture or preparation would be made from. Raw medical cannabis is purchased and used far more than historic tinctures. Also, we have been discussing using medical_cannabis.jpg UNTIL we can get a better image. So this discussion shouldn't be about what the best image would be per se but, what is the best image we have currently. And that image should be used simply because it is most representative of what is used in the real world. Thanks.--Agent Agent (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion. I've already addressed your points in previous discussions, but since you keep repeating them, I'll be happy to address them again: 1)Dispensaries offer many cannabis products, not just raw cannabis 2) The idea that raw medical cannabis is used far more than historical tinctures is false. The raw cannabis dispensed for medical use is an entirely recent phenomenon. Please be mindful of giving weight to recent events. 3) We don't add a new image UNTIL we get a better image; we add the better image FIRST 4) Unless you have provenance for the user-created image you propose, and unless you can support that it is "most representative", it is simply your opinion. Tinctures have the longest historical use in medicine and are considered safer than smoking. The emphasis on the raw cannabis in the lead image neglects the historical use, and ignores the other methods of ingestion, some of which are safer as the article mentions. Taking the criticism section into account, and the dominant view on medical cannabis by journal articles on the subject, neutrality would imply using an image that avoids lending weight to a minority POV and seeks to portray the dominant view first, and any recent, new, or secondary views in relation to it. Surely you can find a neutral image that has provenance and takes all POV's into account. To be clear, I am open to any number of new images, but you are insisting on one image. That seems to be a stubborn position to take. When you created your account to post to this discussion, in your very first edit, you agreed to consider using an image of a medical cannabis club.[1] I agree with you, and I think that image would go well in the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"The idea that raw medical cannabis is used far more than historical tinctures is false." Where's your evidence? --Agent Agent (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In the context of this discussion, I've addressed this multiple times, but let's get down to brass tacks. Hopefully, we'll both learn something. To begin with, I was responding to your claim, so I don't have to provide your evidence. So tell me, how long have physicians prescribed raw cannabis? To remind you, you claimed, "Raw medical cannabis is purchased and used far more than historic tinctures." Of course, there's no way for you present evidence, so you're just distracting from the issue again. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting down to the brass tacks, what you said is that historical tinctures are used more than raw medical cannabis.--Agent Agent (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

How long have physicians prescribed raw medical cananbis and how long has it been dispensed? I've already provided dates for the tinctures, which is over a century, possibly a century and a half. Viriditas (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas says: "The idea that raw medical cannabis is used far more than historical tinctures is false." --Agent Agent (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(comment removed per request) It's your claim, as anyone can see above and from the edit history:"Raw medical cannabis is purchased and used far more than historic tinctures." You said it. Now, please support it. I don't have to prove that it is false, but you have to prove it is true. That's how things work here. I think I've explained this to you three times now. Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No, my claim is that MEDICAL CANNABIS IS USED FAR MORE THAN HISTORIC TINCTURES. You said that's false so, you should back up what you said.--Agent Agent (talk) 06:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you did say that, and you need to prove it is true; it's not the other way around. To help you along, I've tried to point you in the right direction. Answer this question: How long have physicians prescribed raw medical cananbis and how long has it been dispensed? I've already provided dates for the tinctures in the above discussion, which is over a century, possibly a century and a half. So, I already have provided the evidence that it is false. This is implicit. Viriditas (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What I said is obviously true. I don't think we need evidence that people use medical cannabis more than historic tinctures. But what you say, that people use historic tinctures more, c'mon who are you kidding? You can find plenty of images and videos of people using raw medical cannabis but, historic tinctures? no, i don't think so. --Agent Agent (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is "obviously true" in this discussion. Can you please answer the question I asked you? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your talking about historically, which is even more reason why that tincture image belongs in the history section. But the question was how many people use, as in people who are still alive... --Agent Agent (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

We can talk in any context you like. Were you able to find the origin of the image you have proposed including? Where was the photo taken? Viriditas (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What I said is that medical cannabis is used more than historic tinctures. Then you said that is false. You essentially said, "historic tinctures are used more than raw medical cannabis." I think the burden of proof is on you my friend. --Agent Agent (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You can wiggle out anyway you like, but this isn't the first time you've refused to support your claims with evidence. I already gave you dates, and I can provide sources in books and journals. You are welcome to support your claim that "medical cannabis is used more than historic tinctures", although I have no idea what you mean nor how you would support it, so essentially, what you have said doesn't mean anything at all. In the future, it's best to just make claims that 1) mean something, and 2) can be supported with evidence. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, more with you deception. You have not given me any dates, evidence, etc that historic tinctures are used more than raw medical cannabis. My statement is very clear and simple. "Medical cannabis is used more than historic tinctures". Since you say you have "no idea" what that means, then obviously you are playing games, and should perhaps go back to DEA or NSA school, wherever you come from, or better yet, seriously reconsider your purpose in life. --Agent Agent (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The dates were given in the previous threaded discussion above this one, and I've provided them several times in this one. Since you can't provide dates or evidence, by implication what you are saying is false. So, you've disproved your own claim. I think it's pretty clear who is "deceiving" who here. Of course, you are welcome at any time to answer one of the dozens of questions I've asked you, none of which have received a single reply. For your information, I have fought long and hard against POV edits from both sides of this issue, and anyone who has been here for any length of time (meaning longer than you) knows that. You would do well to read my contributions on the subject, but I suspect you are seriously blinded by your own POV, so blinded that you are unable to discuss this topic in a rational manner. You are welcome at any time to return to the discussion simply by answering the questions, very simple questions mind you, that I have repeatedly asked you about the image and your own claims. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And the fact that more people smoke raw medical cannabis over historic tinctures, is obvious. It's an axiom, like 2 + 2 = 4. Obvious like you are obvious.--Agent Agent (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop promoting your opinions as facts and "obvious". Medical tinctures were used for more than a century. How long has raw cannabis been prescribed by physicians? Do they recommend that patients smoke it? Please answer these simple questions. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Look man, I've never said anything to the tune of medical tinctures not having any historic precedence. So don't misrepresent my position. Nor have I said anything about smoking. Nor have a disputed the historical use of medical cannabis. So seriously, stop misrepresenting my position. We're talking about what people actually use as medicine. Not a hundred years ago, as that belongs in a history section. But you don't seem to get that. Or your just pushing an agenda to discredit medical cannabis. You made a statement that people use historic tinctures more than they do raw medical cannabis, and not just historically. And I'm holding you accountable to that statement. --Agent Agent (talk) 07:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You are avoiding supporting your own claims. I haven't made any claims. My "statement" as you call it, is a reply to your claim. I don't have to prove anything false, but you need to prove what you are saying is true. This is a very simple concept. Have someone explain it to you if it doesn't make sense. Viriditas (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't see with your own eyes that people aren't using historic tinctures anymore?--Agent Agent (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Tinctures are still available. In any case, I'm not arguing for keeping this particular image in the lead section, so bringing it up in relation to new images is constantly getting you in trouble. I've asked you several times to argue for the image on its merits, but you don't seem to understand what that means. In any case, "ACP [American College of Physicians] encourages the use of nonsmoked forms of THC that have proven therapeutic value. The negative effects associated with long-term smoked marijuana use necessitate consideration of varying modes of cannabinoid delivery."[2] Although this is only a sample position paper, all of the reliable sources on the subject say the same thing. The photograph in the lead section should reflect this statement in some way, but not appear staged. There is no reason why the photo of the prescription drug Sativex isn't just as appropriate. Then again, a sick person using a vaporizer would also work. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What you said is that people use HISTORIC tinctures more than raw medical cannabis. Perhaps you should go back and cross out what you said.--Agent Agent (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the claim was made by you: "Raw medical cannabis is purchased and used far more than historic tinctures".[3] What evidence are you using to support it? I've already explained that during the 19th century and up until 1937, cannabis tinctures were prescribed by physicians and have a long history of use. Pharmaceutical companies like Eli Lilly and Parke-Davis (now part of Pfizer) produced cannabis tinctures in the United States, and in the UK, cannabis tinctures were legally prescribed up until 1971. To this day cannabis dispensaries have tinctures available and nonsmoked forms are both for sale and in development. But we aren't talking about tinctures. The questions revolve around your image proposal, not the tinctures. It's obvious you aren't interested in discussing your proposal or supporting it. I know you created a SPA to edit here, and I appreciate the time and energy you spent doing that, but the talk pages aren't used for trolling. Viriditas (talk) 08:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ya, since these talk pages aren't used for trolling, you should leave. I've already explained to you more than once why I had to create a second account. There's nothing wrong with that. And actually, this has a lot to do with my proposal. You see, you base your rational to keep the historic tincture image as the lead image because of it's historic use. But that is history. The history of medical cannabis is only a part of the entire article, and a historic tincture is only reflective of the history section, not the entire article.

Read carefully this statement, "Raw medical cannabis is purchased and used far more than historic tinctures". That is different than saying, "Historically, raw medical cannabis is purchased and used more than tinctures." What you have said is that historic tinctures are still being used more than raw medical cannabis. So really you should correct yourself.

The basis for using medical_cannabis.jpg as the intro image is that it is an image of raw medical cannabis, which is what most people actually use, whether they smoke or vaporise it.--Agent Agent (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Raw medical cannabis is purchased and used far more than historic tinctures. The only way you could know that is if you knew how many people used tinctures from the 19th century to 1971, and then after that from the 1990s till now. So, since you obviously know that, why don't you share your wisdom? How many? And, how many people use medical cannabis in the world? In the United States? In Europe? Do you have these figures? I don't think you understand what you are saying, but I appreciate the time you have taken to say it. What you consider "obvious" and "facts" are nothing more than personal opinion, and we don't deal with that here. The lead image should best represent the significant POV in the article. Why don't I just use the image of Sativex in the lead? Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious.--Agent Agent (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitary section break

As yet, the provenance of the image of raw cannabis cannot be guaranteed. It is possible that it is genuine packaging, or it could be a construct. That is one problem with the image that has already been pointed out. I would be very unhappy using an image that it is possible that we later find out that it was someone's own product with their own labelling, to look like medical cannabis supplies.

I have already said someone should contact Stephen Fry (as he is afaik pretty pro-Wiki) about gaining an image (so this would be with OTRS validation) rather than spend further time discussion images that are problematic, gaining a new image that covers multiple bases would be a better overall solution. That or contact one of the local wikipedians and ask them to go photograph it - I have done this before with various things on wiki and I was pleasantly surprised with the results.--Alf ^melmac 09:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant. Does anyone know how to get in touch with Fry? Sarah sko1221^talk 17:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, i am wondering how this statement from hmwith could be seen as anything but a fair unbaised assessment?

"We're currently in a debate about the images. Most agree that the green crack image is not good for this article, and most also seem to agree that the image of the vintage bottle should go in the history section, rather than the top of the article. Agent Agent uploaded that image, and I think that it would be wonderful at the top right of this article. I think everyone has had enough time to cool down, and the discussion can continue. It seemed as if consensus was swaying in the direction of Agent Agent's image as the main one, with Viriditas being the only editor who voiced his disagreement."

Admin do share their opinions, it isn't 'choosing sides'. What i am seeing on this page by Viriditus is 'Disruption of the community by failing to accept consensus.' I could be wrong, admittedly, i am really new to this.

Anyway, while we are trying to track down a movie star for help with images, i have asked a friend in California to help us get a photo that can be somehow proven to come from an actual medicinal supplier. Sarah sko1221^talk 18:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I contact Stephen Fry? is answered here by giving a UK postal address.--Alf ^melmac 22:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, you may be interested in reading WP:CONSENSUS. Choosing to follow it or not, is up to you. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's up to the group. I am not doing anything but trying to work as a group. Hopefully the final result will be from showing our arguments to a 3rd party. i do not have the time to engage in these long typing fests that go on here. And i don't see them as productive, that's the worst part. It shouldn't have to take up that much time. Again today on Larry King the topic of medical marijuana was front and center (highly recommend this video, it is on topic). Yesterday it was on CNN Headline news. There is one person who seems to be totally in charge of what those people who might end up here after a quick 'google', will see when they get here, and that is You. That strikes me as a POV issue. Many of us are feeling that what people get out of this page is lacking at best and i wish it wasn't so impossible to change it. I wish we could all quit believing in "my way or the highway". You may not be happy with the final result and that is just part of the deal when you work as a group. (sorry so long a response!) Sarah sko1221^talk 05:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, i didn't mean this article is lacking... that's not the word. It's just not what it should be and the main thing might be the gargantuan misleading lead image. Images are powerful that is why it might be the first thing to fix. Sarah sko1221^talk 05:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like you read the WP:CONSENSUS link I gave you. If you did, you would not have responded like that. There's a format for reaching consensus, and the SPA account(s) did not follow it in the slightest way. What you have described above is not defined as POV, so you may want to read up on that well. I'm not entirely sure what you were trying to say about the popular media's coverage of medical cannabis, but if it has anything to do with this article, let me know. We generally do not rely on the popular media when we write articles about medical topics. Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I was saying that popular media might be responsible for a greater number of folks coming here to this page for information. Giving my reasoning for being interested in helping to make sure they get a good amount of unbiased information. That is all i was saying. As for POV, i believe that you see it as a problem, and i do too ~ which is why we are planning to use Admin help to help determine where the middle ground might be. Sarah sko1221^talk 19:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Fry uses snail mail ~ is there anyone of the editors who live in Europe, who could write him? My friend in California recommended getting a picture from Dr. Abrams. I can give that one a try. Sarah sko1221^talk 20:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Abrams has been sent a request for help with image. California friends are contacting Oaksterdam University for further images. Sarah sko1221^talk 20:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Abrams just called me (believe it or not) and although i can't prove to you what he said, i will share anyway. He said that a tincture is not really how it's used except for a smaller number of people in San Francisco and in other parts of the world, but mostly it's a historical picture. He felt that a cannabis bud should be the picture that represents medicinal cannabis. And he said just get a picture of a bud, who cares where it comes from. (hey, i'm just sharing what he said). He recommended going to Rick Doblin for further image help, which i will do. Sarah sko1221^talk 21:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I believe you. I've talked to him in the past as well. He's very nice. You might want to consider interviewing him for Wikinews. But, more to the point, we care a lot about things on Wikipedia that do not matter outside of this site. We have a set of policies and guidelines, for example, that apply nowhere else but here. Dennis Peron probably has access to a lot of good images as well. As I've said previously, Peron and the buyers clubs made use of the media, and they released lots of photographs and videos from their dispensary operations. Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you help us find one then? Sarah sko1221^talk 02:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first thing I tried to do was find the dispensary where I live so that I could take photographs, but from what I can tell, it was shut down or has moved. I'm still trying to confirm if this is true. But, there are a bunch on YouTube that we could try to get permission to use. In other words, frame grabs, screenshots, stills, etc... Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!! Sarah sko1221^talk 02:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Response from efforts to contact Rick Doblin through NORML: (please note, i do not have the time right now to follow up on this, and please know that i am just sharing and not saying that any of this is Wiki-ready info as it is referencing some blogs)Sarah sko1221^talk 22:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Hmmm....so you need a photo of cannabis from a ‘medical source’? Does that mean an official source for cannabis? If so, the Univ of MS/Oxford does have the only ‘legal’ govt-sanctioned cultivated cannabis. Are you looking for photos of this cannabis?

If so, MAPS/Rick Doblin/UMass-Amherst are suing the govt to end the U of MS’s monopoly on cannabis cultivation, and MAPS, et al introduced into evidence photos of U of MS’s really bad cannabis.

Also, the govt grows and ships five med mj patients in a closed program. They receive 300 ‘joints’ per month, free of cost:

[[4]] [[5]] [[6]]

If you want the photos of U of MS’s mj, please contact Rick <rick@maps.org>

I did contact Rick, who sent me to the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana [[7]], who has pictures of medical cannabis. They had some questions for us, if someone wise to Wiki ways could respond, I will get back to them pronto ~ (sko1221)68.13.134.213 (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "certifiable?"
• What is Wiki's image requirements (300dpi? Creative Commons? Does it have to be free of a wamm.org tag?)
• Does it need to be of a bud or can it be plant?
• Can our members be in the photo?

WAMM, if you are able to upload images of Medical Cannabis for Wikipedia, it should be a picture of the Cannabis bud(s). To quote from above, Dr. Abrams said regarding the current image, a tincture is not really how it's used except for a smaller number of people in San Francisco and in other parts of the world, but mostly it's a historical picture. He felt that a cannabis bud should be the picture that represents medicinal cannabis." 72.213.23.110 (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Dispensaries

"... although California is currently the only state to utilize "dispensaries" to sell medical cannabis". This statement needs to be updated. According to this NORML blog post, New Mexico is a grower and dispenser of medical marijuana. Also, this NORML blog post the Rhode Island General Assembly recently overrode the governor's veto of legislation to allow the licensed, regulated sale of marijuana to patients. This made Rhode Island the second state (after New Mexico) to license and regulate medical marijuana dispensing. However, the dispensing method used by these two states clearly differs from the California model--perhaps these differences should be discussed in greater length within the article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I understand NORML blog posts do not make the best source for citation, but I am sure newspaper articles could be found online discussing both. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Believer that the dispensary situation needs to be discussed in more detail. California has a very different system for distribution than most states now dispensing. You can contact Americans for Safe Access which is a patient advocate organization here in California. They will have all the information about the different dispensing methods. There signs, t-shirts, and information booklets are all over the dispensaries in California. --The Pot Snob (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

250 (!) Indications

I don't think that it makes sense to come up with ‘250 indications’ in the first paragraph. Going deeper into ref. #13, it's clear that sources are mainly not controlled studies but case-reports (some pre-1937), reports to hotlines, posts to internet-forums, etc. Just as an example epilepsy / grand mal seizures: Ref. #13 for epilepsy was complied from pre-1937 medical literature, and for grand mal seizures from 'Dale Gieringer, PhD CA NORML Hotline'. I don't call these suitable references. On the contrary the current label for Marinol states:

Seizure and seizure-like activity have been reported in patients receiving MARINOL Capsules during marketed use of the drug and in clinical trials. […] MARINOL Capsules should be used with caution in patients with a history of seizure disorder because MARINOL Capsules may lower the seizure threshold. A causal relationship between MARINOL Capsules and these events has not been established. MARINOL Capsules should be discontinued immediately in patients who develop seizures and medical attention should be sought immediately. […]

Ref. #14 is pure speculation.

So I would call epilepsy not an indication, but a relative contraindication! Don't get me wrong (I'm working in clinical research on dronabinol myself), but 250 indications are just a wild exaggeration (10% would already make it the wonder-drug). -- Alfie^±Talk 16:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Would it not make sense most clinical studies on cannabis as medicine were done prior to it being outlawed in 1937? Marinol does not constitute as medical cannabis in all its forms. Using Marinol as the basis for any facts associated with medical use of the plant is not real. Unfortunately, no clinical studies are being done on humans with the plant in the United States because of its legal status.

Alfie, while it may seem right to someone who is synthesizing the plant into individual chemicals, to someone who doesn't take marinol but smokes the plant for relief, I can tell you it is not the same. In fact, could it not be a symbiotic effect of multiple chemicals in the plant that actually causes the relief patients feel? Why don't we have any studies on that? O yeah, because its criminal for scientists to do so in most circumstances.

Quite frankly I think you are confusing the plant with individual chemicals that can be sold by pharmaceutical companies. Too bad the scientific data on these subjects is in its infancy, perhaps we will know more soon.

I don't consider using marinol as a basis for removing epilepsy appropriate in this case. We just don't have any data on the effect of orally administered or smoked cannabis and extracts on epilepsy to come to the conclusion it is a contradiction. As far as I know, people are recommended medical cannabis for seizures in California by legal Doctors. Because of this utter lack of data, and the fact it is used in the United States for such purposes in the state of California, I recommend it maintain its position as being for medical use.

Thanks for reading, --The Pot Snob (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pot Snob! No, I'm not confusing dronabinol (the INN for (-)-trans-Δ⁹-THC), the marketed capsules Marinol (dronabinol dissolved in sesame oil; BTW I'm not happy with the redirect in WP), the plant, and their administrations (oral, smoked, vaporized, cooked, etc). It's quite possible that there's a synergistic effect of dronabinol, cannabidiol, cannabichromene and any of the other >60 cannabinoids, as well as interactions with their metabolites. Just as an example the main metabolite of dronabinol is 11-Hydroxy-THC, which is about equally active as the parent compound, but has a much longer elimination half-life. Therefore in chronic use, this compound is likely responsible for the effects.

Now for a personal story. I had one seizure as a kid and two others when I was 46. I'm a recreational user myself for 30+ years. My neurologist told me about the possibility of a lowered threshold. Well, I didn't care - but sometimes (OK, rarely) I had rather strange experiences in the past 5 years. But does that mean anything? No, it's just another anecdotal report.

And please stop blaming me for my job. I only want to improve the article. I'm from Austria, where the law on medical cannabis has changed last year in a positive way. Right now the government is growing Cannabis in their greenhouses (a gen eng'd variant optimized for content) in order to support scientific research and medical use. Personally I'm working on the pharmacokinetics and metabolic pathways (pre-systemic in the gut wall and first-pass in the liver) in humans, as well as on genetic polymorphisms involved. If you still think that I'm not qualified to write on the topic, please seek moderation with an administrator. BTW, it's really a pity that the legal situation in the U.S. is quite well behind. -- Alfie^±Talk 15:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually in the most important state economically, California, medical marijuana is dispensed to patients in hundreds of storefront dispensaries. And it seems our President has ended the raid of those clinics, so things are actually ahead of Austria by leaps and bounds. They have had a regulated distribution system here for Medical Cannabis for over 12 years. The state charges 9.5% tax and profits hundreds of millions of $ off of the sale of medical cannabis in California in the United States.

You should be able to be part of any discussion about improvement of the article. We must maintain a plant centric focus though, because that is how it is being distributed when people say medical cannabis. It would not be controversial if everyone was taking the pharma versions. Let me know your thoughts. --The Pot Snob (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

Dear all!
Due to the most recent edits I lost track. More than 50 edits within the last three days were just too much for my simple mind. Work on the references helped, but I think the article needs a general overhaul. Nonclinical (animal) studies are referred in the 'Indications' section, etc. I counted the words ‘may’ and ‘believe’ six times each. An example is the first reference for epilepsy. The title ‘Marijuana may benefit epileptics, scientists say’ is telling. The original article in Science deals with the endocannabinoid system. Even the referred article contains following statement:

But Dr Lutz warned that giving cannabis to epileptic patients to simulate the body's natural defence against seizures might only work for some people and could harm others depending on the type of seizure.
"We'd rather suggest that a better strategy would be to develop new drugs to target your indigenous cannabinoids," Dr Lutz said. "It is a self-defence system and is only active when it is needed. You don't have it active all the time so flooding the brain all the time with cannabis may not be a good thing."

I wonder if people quoting such references in the article do read anything more than the title. IMHO the article is far from WP:NPOV and contains a lot of unproven assertions, speculations, etc.

The article currently is 93kB long, which also calls for some chimney sweeping. I added some quality-templates and will call for help at WT:MED. -- Alfie^±Talk 22:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just noting here that the quotation you have chosen from the article contains the word 'may'. You don't have it active all the time so flooding the brain all the time with cannabis may not be a good thing I personally still see this article as appropriate for the section. It is a large job for non-scientists to edit this page. Suggestions are helpful. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. ‘May’ as well as ‘may not’ are speculative terms and do not refer to suitable encyclopedic content. I really appreciate your efforts in improving the article. But to be honest – as a scientist working on dronabinol I would delete at least 50% of assertions based on questionable references published in some not-peer-reviewed journals. IMHO it does not make sense to present this kind of wishful thinking as facts. Just have a look at this sentence: ‘Other studies have shown cannabis to be useful in treating […]’ followed by 31 (!) terms. In medicine/pharmacology the phrase ‘studies have show’ is used as a synonym to ‘it was demonstrated in studies’. Both phrases refer to prospective clinical studies, where safety and efficacy were assessed in a large enough group of subjects in order to be able to

• either show superiority to placebo, or
• equivalence to a standard treatment

I don't see any reason to quote any indication which goes beyond the labeled one for Marinol, Sativex, etc. Anything else (as seen in in vitro-studies in cell-lines, organs, animal models, etc.) is only ‘pink hope’. As an example: in developing NCEs only 1 of 5000–10000 compounds ‘survives’ all pre-clinical and clinical studies. And yes, Big Pharma also hopes for every single compound to make it through to market approval.
For an overview what's a reliable source see WP:MEDRS. -- Alfie^±Talk 23:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that we must differentiate between Cannabis and Sativex, Marinol in terms of uses. For instance, with nausea, Cannabis inhaled (smoked or vaporized) takes seconds to provide relief. With pills and edible forms of Cannabis, it takes up to 1.5 hours. Here is an article by Dr. Lester Grinspoon, M.D. on the matter: [8]

From the article:

"One of the most important characteristics of cannabis is how fast it acts when it is inhaled, which allows patients to easily determine the right dose for symptom relief. Sativex's sublingual absorption is more efficient than orally administered Marinol (which requires 1 1/2 to two hours to take effect), but it's still not nearly as fast as smoking or inhaling the herb.

That means "self-titration," or self-dosage, is difficult if not impossible. Further, many patients cannot hold Sativex, which has an unpleasant taste, under the tongue long enough for it to be absorbed. As a consequence, varying amounts trickle down the esophagus. It then behaves like orally administered cannabis, with the consequent delay in the therapeutic effect."72.213.23.110 (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right with the rapid onset of action of inhaled cannabinoids. From a pharmacokinetical point of view oral administration is really a bad idea (there's a 30 min delay in absorption due to the high lipophilicity of cannabinoids, only 5%-10% of a dose are absorbed, and metabolized both in the gut wall and the liver). Don't get me wrong, I have no problems with nausea as an indication. But colorectal cancer? The reference deals with the endogenous anandamide – not with medical cannabis. Leukemia – an in-vitro study in cell-lines, not even an animal model (any study in humans?). Parkinson's disease – again endocannabinoids in mice. And so on… I would again estimate at least 50% of the so-called indications just promising goalposts for further research. Keeping the failure rate in clinical reseacrh in mind, I would also say that the majority will never lead to an approved indication. Now it's 4 o'clock in the morning in Austria; time to go to bed. ;-) -- Alfie^±Talk 02:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I took a stab at just one of your list: Leukemia. Immediately I found the following [9]

THC has previously been shown to attack cancer cells by interfering with important growth-processing pathways, however its mechanism of doing so has remained a mystery. Now, Dr Liu and his colleagues, using microarray technology – allowing them to simultaneously detect changes in more than 18,000 genes in cells treated with THC – have begun to uncover the existence of processes through which THC can kill cancer cells and potentially promote survival.

How would this work as a reference? 72.213.23.110 (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'm sorry this does not help. Please see WP:MEDRS. ‘Laboratory News’ is a UK vendor of laboratory equipment. The web page is a commercial one packed with advertisements and does not qualify as a reliable source. It's not even clear what the reference is: undated, an article, an interview, who is the author? THC has previously been shown to attack cancer cells […]: by whom? how? […] its mechanism of doing so has remained a mystery. Mystery belongs to pseudoscience; if a problem in science is still unresolved it's open. The only original reference of the quoted author I could find was a review (Liu WM and Powles TB; Cannabinoids: Do they have a Role in Cancer Therapy? Letters in Drug Design & Discovery 3(2), 76-82, 2006) which refer to in-vitro studies of type-2 receptor. Again, no study in humans which could support the indication.
I must admit that it's not easy to estimate the scientific credibility of a study for a non-scientist, but WP:MEDRS gives really good hints. When it comes to indications, it's easy: all in-vitro and animal studies are useless (although they serve well in understanding the mechanism of action). When it comes to studies in humans, forget about anecdotal reports (it helped me, believe me) or case studies (I gave it to my patients, and it helped them, believe me), etc. Only controlled clinical trials count. -- Alfie^±Talk 22:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with the scientist on many of his points, I also point to his own quote. "as a scientist working on dronabinol I would delete at least 50% of assertions based on questionable references published in some not - peer-reviewed journals."

We can hold scientific points of view without working on synthesizing and patenting the chemicals in this article at the same time. In my opinion any alterations made by the one who made this quote should be null and void. Bias would present itself to someone who is profiting off of the synthesizing of chemicals in cannabis. Does anyone agree?

Hi Pot Snob, come on! Have you reviewed the history of the page? I did not edit a single word in the introduction- and indication-sections but opened a discussion here. Can you support any alterations by a diff? The one who made this quote has a name which can be found in my signature. -- Alfie^±Talk 02:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

All things were once a mystery to humans. We made up fantastic stories about our creation etc. Through the scientific method we have been able to uncover mysteries and convert them into science.

Full AKN.

The ease by which you cast that study into the realm of pseudoscience shows inherent bias.

Maybe I have expressed myself not clearly enough (sorry, I'm writing in a foreign language). The article which was suggested as a reference by IP 72.213.23.110 is not suitable according to WP's standards (not my personal opinion). After doing a literature query on the cited authors I found only the review I quoted. This reference should be OK, but it does not fit in the 'indications' section of this article. It would perfectly support Endocannabinoid system or even better CB2 receptor.

Quite frankly Alfie because of the lack of federally controlled studies on humans, it has been near impossible for science to uncover any of these mysteries, or pseudoscience as you call it. The continued illegalization of cannabis for medical uses is more to blame for this lack of scientific data than anything related to how the studies were conducted.

I agree that the legal situation in the U.S. is terrible. There are two sides of the sword. On one hand many natural drugs have been used for ages, but on the hand other legal requirements (actually just two: safety and efficacy) emerged in the last 50 years due to fatal incidents. Natural is not necessarily better. If you are an epileptic on carbamazepine a large glass of grapefruit-juice may kill you due to a pharmacokinetic interaction. St John's wort is safe and effective in treatment of depression, but interactions with a lot of other drugs are known.

Because of this lack of data associated with this plant as opposed to those which were legal the past 50 years, I do not think it is appropriate to dismiss the studies that do exist into the realm of pseudoscience. Perhaps animal studies were the only studies that the scientists were legally allowed to test.

That's not true. There have been studies performed and others are ongoing. Any study in humans has to be planned according to current scientific standards, and the protocol has to be approved by both an independend ethics committee and the competent regulatory authority (in the U.S. the FDA). If studies are sloppily planned, they are rejected by at least one of them. There are essentialy two types of studies: (1) exploratory ones, which should discover new relations, blabla. Based on these studies a hypothesis is build, which is tested in (2) an confirmatory (or prospective) study. (1) gives us only hints for further research and contain a lot of words/phrases like ‘may show, assume, probably,…’. The second type has only two possible outcomes: the hypothesis is rejected or not. Quite often you have one main outcome you are assessing by means of statistical methods, but observe other things also. In such a case this part of a type (2) study is only a type (1). Unfortunatelly the majority of studies on medical cannabis currently is of type (1) only. I just argued somewhere above that in medicine an indication is based only on studies of type (2).

I think your display here of pomp and circumstance is misguided when you enter a part of science that has been basically criminal for the past 50 years. More leeway should be given to these studies until countries such as the United States are able to conduct real studies on the effect of medical cannabis on the human body.

The U.S. have a frightening drug policy. I'm always politely asking these guys from the FDA, why they call it The Agency; I always thought the only Agency around is the CIA. They never laughed. Have a look accross the border: Canada, the true land of the Brave and the Free.

Because of my inherent bias because I am a medical cannabis user, I will not alter the article. But I think it is important I express views that stand up for those who do not understand science as well as the rest of us. Alfie perhaps because of your inherent bias because you profit of the synthesizing of cannabis, you should express your opinions but keep from altering the article as well.

Thank you kindly, --The Pot Snob (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not profit on the synthesizing of dronabinol, and I do not profit on the cultivation of cannabis for medical use. But yes, I'm doing research in this area. Yes, I'm getting paid for my job. In WP I love WP:NPOV. Don't call me biased. Since I'm coming from Austria, this is the section I've written in the article. Got it? Would you seriously suggest that a cardiologist should not write on cardiac arrest in WP, because he makes a living from his job?
All the best, -- Alfie^±Talk 02:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Alfie, you don't research the effect of medical cannabis on patients. Your expertise in the area of pharmaceuticals is an essential contribution here to this talk page. I just feel that the purpose of this page was to focus on medical cannabis as a plant, and its effect on the body, mind etc. I am willing to disagree with you on that, but I can't allow this article to become a pharma focused article, its just not reality. --The Pot Snob (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pot Snob! I agree, the article show definitely be split. Unfortunatelly the majority of referenced research was not done on the plant (including extracts, tinctures, etc.), but on isolated compounds. Franjo Grothehermen's book contains a good amount of recent research on the plant itself. Right now the article IMHO is a mess. 160+ references (aspirin has 102 [sic]), and I would estimate at least two thirds refer to research on single compounds. The last two days I went through articles quoted in Mikuriya's book and some of them have been done on strange synthetic derivatives which went 30 years ago into the pharmacological garbage bin - but he used them to support some claims. After the split I will be happy to work on the article, but right now IP-72-something doesn't seem to be cooperative. -- Alfie^±Talk 16:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with any split of the primary topic. Medical cannabis is a broad subject and should cover all major aspects. Subtopics may be split out of the article as they grow larger, but the primary topic of medical cannabis should not be forked into multiple POV. Alfie, I suggest ignoring the anonymous IP's. They have been causing trouble on this article for a very long time. Viriditas (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

When people use "medical marijuana" does that mean they take a pill from big pharma? If that were the case, wouldn't it be legal? Could you please clear that up for me.

Thanks and regards, --The Pot Snob (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Recent Edits

Just a quick review of recent edits done today, I am left baffled. Please explain the removal of "MD" after Donald Tashkin, regarding his study with lung cancer.[10]

WP:CREDENTIAL: "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name."   —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 09:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please also explain why a study showing pulmonary problems arose when smoked cannabis was mixed with smoked tobacco, was added under "Indications" and tacked on to Tashkin's study?

WP:CRITS because separate criticism sections are a sign of bad writing.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 09:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am having trouble believing these edits are in good faith and not POV. It seems some folks are here to slander rather than present facts in an orderly fashion. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we put a lock on the article so that only registered members can edit? This article receives way too much vandalism. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I protected the article for 24 hours. I fully protected it (instead of semi-protecting), because one of the users in the dispute is registered and one isn't. You guys can discuss the changes on the this page and see if you can reach a decision. If not, check out dispute resolution. hmwitht 21:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If people can help look through all these recent edits by Chris Cappocia, it would be greatly appreciated. It might be my computer, but to look at just one revision takes a good 5 minutes for me. There were no notes telling what he was editing, so we have to look through them. From what I have seen they are fishy. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are some edits which look to me like vandalism. Studies which show negative results from Cannabis are being inserted into the Indications section instead of the appropriate place: [11]

Here is a section I removed, same story as above: [12] which was then re-added: [13]

Next we find this edit which I do not understand [14] (Forgive me, it was just reformatting)72.213.23.110 (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone look at these and explain to me what is going on here? 72.213.23.110 (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You used the right URL for the 'diff', but enclose them in square brackets, not in <ref></ref>. I corrected your diffs. I just left Chris a note to come over and help us out. -- Alfie^±Talk 22:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have scoured through them all and it looks to be only the 3 diffs above which need explaining. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

All of the edits done by the individual who makes money off of synthesizing cannabis need to be removed and changed back. It is not right that someone in such a position with such a conflict of interest become involved in editing this article.

Thanks --The Pot Snob (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please check the history of the article before calling me biased. Here are my diffs of the article: templates added, started the dsicussion at the talk page, update of broken links to FDA, Austria and Germany updated. So what's your problem?
• The individual has got a name.
• Cannabis is not synthesized, but grown - or cultivated, if you prefer a snobish word.
• Read the last paragraph in my reply I gave you here.
• I'm awaiting an excuse. -- Alfie^±Talk 03:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There are far too many press releases and otherwise self-published sources in this article instead of peer-reviewed journals and books published by reputable publishing companies.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 09:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggest we revert to before all the recent edits by Chris and discuss each one before making changes. Sources which do not work we will remove and find ones that do to replace if possible. That's my suggestion for dispute resolution. I would appreciate it if someone could explain all the edits by Chris, and convince me that it is OK to inject sections like he has done (see above). Thanks 72.213.23.110 (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

if you want to file a Request for mediation, go ahead. all of my edits are perfectly legitimate. meanwhile you don't own the article.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 19:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I think Chris did a good job in clearing the references - a revert would leave us with all the work to do again. My personal concern is just terminology. Please look up the term indication (also helpful: evidence-based medicine). I would suggest that we add two new headings Proposed indications and Ongoing studies. Every effect which is demonstrated in controlled studies (Level I rank) should go to Indications, all human studies with Level II-III ranks should go to Proposed indications and everything else (basic research, in-vitro studies, animal studies) should go to Ongoing studies. In this process we can check the references more deeply. I would suggest that all non-reliable sources should be dropped. What do you think? -- Alfie^±Talk 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The few I checked did seem to point to journals but seem to lack links, if you had links at least to abstracts or pubmed would help. I guess you could argue citation doesn't support text but the citations seem more credible than the popular secondary sources already cited. Wiki calls out medical as a place to go for primary sources. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the studies could be listed under new headings. As for mediation, that process is unfortunately not one that I can take on. Nor can I go through each ref change by Chris. Nor can I argue and get into heated debate with the both of you. so for now, unless someone else steps in to help out, you have won. Have at it. Congrats. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing better to do. I will begin a mediation in this article, I am not going to let anyone hijack this article and transform it into an article that will help pharaceutical companies. --The Pot Snob (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to help too, TPS (per messages on my talk). hmwitht 17:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anyone "hijacking" anything. All I see is a group of editors trying to improve it. Viriditas (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Chris, did you happen to notice that you used another advertisement for a book as a reference? You choose this as a reference for the Tod Makyumiri paragraph. Another strange edit was the change you made to the refs in the first sentence of the article. You switched the ref from this to this. Please consider adding notes to your edits on the history page. It would help us to know what you are changing, thanks.

I cannot go through every single ref change Chris made. Look through the history since August 8th, there are far too many edits (with multiple ref changes in lots of these edits) for one person to sort through. I have found enough problems to warrant another request to revert to before this editing took place and discuss each change.72.213.23.110 (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Chris used this as a ref for the AIDS section. These are hardly improvements. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What the h… are you talking about? #ref 84-87 are OK. —Alfie^±Talk 02:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

[Book reviews] are not acceptable refs, Chris. Nor is [this]. Please fix them and all other instances you've used crud like this in your work.72.213.23.110 (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits will be changed soon regardless because the article is being split. --The Pot Snob (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Prescription?

After reviewing the introductory paragraph, I was confused by the term Prescription. I know of no doctor who can prescribe cannabis to a patient. The system in place in California where the cast majority of medical cannabis patients lives is given by recommendation and not prescription. "Use generally requires a prescription," should probably be recommendation. In the same way Advil or Toothpaste is recommended, cannabis is distributed in California under a similar system where a doctor recommends cannabis based on specific conditions, and does not give a prescription.

Prescribed medicines are not taxed, and in California where the majority of Medical Cannabis is sold, since it is not prescribed but is treated like advil, it can be taxed. Should this word be changed to better fit the reality.

In effect Medical Cannabis is more of an over the counter medication, and has no limits on how much you can smoke or purchase. --The Pot Snob (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Will someone please respond, or I will change it. --The Pot Snob (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Go on. You made clear in another section above how the Californian status is. -- Alfie^±Talk 16:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

When I change it to say Recommendation, there is no article on Doctor's recommendations on Wikipedia, whereas now there is a page on Prescription which does exist. While I am not positive that Doctor's don't prescribe the plant in all countries, I am pretty sure they don't. Could anyone tell me if the actual plant matter is prescribed in any country? Does any doctor write a prescription for smoked cannabis? That would really help clear up this issue. Thanks --The Pot Snob (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I hardly think we write encyclopedia articles based on the perspective of cannabis use in California. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Which country or state has Doctors prescribing plant form cannabis to patients? What kind of limits are given in those prescriptions? I think it is worth including in the article if it is the case. --The Pot Snob (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

every test and research and all citations in one spot link by link

http://forum.grasscity.com/medical-marijuana/314173-granny-storm-crows-list-2009-a.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.139.134 (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

here is a link to every legal document state and federal level enforcing state medical marijuana as the supreme law, over federal law http://www.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/ and here is every religious case as we believe all cannabis no matter how or why consumed is medicinal http://ethiopianzioncopticchurch.org/Documents/Default.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.139.134 (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly most references are not suitable (the article is named Medical cannabis), but there are some serious ones included as well. This site maybe inspired Tod H. Mikuriya to come up with his list of 250 indications. ;-) -- Alfie^±Talk 00:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This might satisfy your curiosity about Dr. Tod M. [15]. But what has this to do with anything? 72.213.23.110 (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please gimme a break, I know who this guy was. Didn't you see the smiley? Please don't use <ref></ref> for links; they simply don't work without a reference-section. -- Alfie^±Talk 03:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important you recuse yourself from anymore edits because of your association with making money off of synthesizing cannabis.

Thanks, --The Pot Snob (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As you might have noticed the article is locked. Do I get you right: are you suggesting that I don't write on the talk page any more? -- Alfie^±Talk 03:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think having a scientist on the talk page is essential. The edits are being done by Chris apparently to sabotage the article and make about the pharaceutical side of the medical cannabis debate. The article should remain an article about the plant, not about the pills. --The Pot Snob (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks against Chris. The topic is about all aspects of medical cannabis, not just the plant. Viriditas (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, people are not required to register in order to take part in discussions and editing. Further, you look ridiculous defending the guy who said this "HEY MISTER 72.213.23.110!!! RULE NUMBER ONE OF THE INTERNET IS DON'T BE A JERK!! " Don't waste our time, he is obviously able to fight his own fights, but unable to follow the simple Wiki rules of behavior listed at the top of this and every discussion page. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You must be kidding. You and The Pot Snob have been lobbing personal attacks at editors to chase them away. "Don't be a jerk" is entirely correct. Viriditas (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Medical cannabis dispensaries don't sell pharaceuticals. To try and include pharmaceuticals in this article is trying to confuse the issue. I do not mean to attack Chris, I mean to point out that fact. Could someone please tell me how Sativex is medical cannabis? Do they sell it as medical cannabis to the public? Thanks --The Pot Snob (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's absurd. Medical cannabis sources discuss and cover the topic of pharmaceuticals, and are historically, an important part of this topic. Viriditas (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Medical cannabis is quite controversial, I am not sure you are correct on that subject Viriditas. States legalizing medical cannabis in the United States are not enacting legislation to further Sativex, or any other pharmaceutical. --The Pot Snob (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Please see Controlled Substances Act for further information. Viriditas (talk)

Suggest splitting this article

As it has been noted, this article is quite long. There are 2 types of Medical Cannabis: the kind we make in a lab ("Pot-based" drugs), and the kind which can be made in the back yard. What if we were to have a separate article for each type?

Regarding scientific sources, it was my understanding that since this encyclopedia is for the general public, not necessarily for scientists, a peer-reviewed or 3rd-party source (an online article from a reputable news source) is required. If we can add the actual scientific article, that is a bonus. Abstracts, however, don't help much.

In one edit, Chris notes "replaced press release with journal citation". This is not the way I was taught Wikipedia works. We want both types of sources, one for those who don't know how to read a dry scientific journal, but preceded by a source that is written by an unbiased source for those with no scientific background. So don't replace but rather add, does that make sense?

We DO need to go through all these sources. My problem with the edits Chris is doing non-stop, is that when you click on the ref, it no longer goes to the article. One that I tried out went instead to an empty Wikipedia page when it used to go to a scientific article. That is why I am suspicious of these edits and they are clearly far too numerous to dig through. There are not many other edits in between, I think the best way forward is to revert and look at the refs, separate Lab Cannabis (for now, that is what I'll call it) and those referring to the natural form. Then we are well on our way to splitting this article.

I have a problem with the fact that one editor is in "the business" working on Marinol. This is clearly a POV issue. It's the same thing as a member of PETA editing the Meat article. Can we get a comment on this from Admin? 72.213.23.110 (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please initiate a Request for mediation if you have a problem with that one author (having a name, BTW)! Please take a minute and check again, what kind of "business" I'm in. I haven't seen a single capsule of Marinol in my entire life. There is no equation like "scientist = biased". It's grotesque that I'm invited to join WP:CANN and you want to kick me out. Go ahead. What do you actually suggest? Pharmacologists should not write on effects, lawyers not on the legal status, medical historians either, et cetera, ad libitum, ad nauseam. If it boils down to "The article should be edited by users of medical cannabis only and acceptable sources are only free online newspapers." I'm getting tired. -- Alfie^±Talk 10:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

These edits are vandalism, and using an abstract as a ref is unacceptable, no? Chris offers us this and removed this. Does anyone see the problem with this type of editing? 72.213.23.110 (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

nope. you're completely wrong. replacing a low-quality but free source with a high-quality source that carries some subscription price is perfectly acceptable. go visit a library to read the whole article.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 05:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an online encyclopedia, therefore we cannot point people to the library for further study. That is the opposite of the way Wikipedia works. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

{{citation needed}}. there is no actual wikipedia policy or practice that resembles what you claim.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 09:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chris! You added {{pn}} to the Further reading section referring to Mikuriya's Marijuana: Medical Papers. The direct link states pp. XIII–XXVII, which seems to be correct according to a scanned/OCR-processed document at the late Mikuriya's homepage PDF. You are much better than I am in dealing with refs and I'm also reluctant editing anything in the article myself since other editors display a high degree of animosity. -- Alfie^±Talk 13:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

fixed.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 14:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Chris, you are not doing such a great job with refs as Alfie seems to think. Please explain using this as a ref. Thankyou. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

fixed.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 14:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the english edition, only the first (german) edition of 2001. OK, USD 150 are a lot, but the book is a really excellent reference. The second (german) edition was published in 2004; maybe you wait for the translation. BTW, browse through the preview. At page 124 you will find: 1. Established effect: nausea and vomiting, anorexia, and weight loss. 2. Relatively well-confirmed effect: spasticity, painful conditions, especially neurogenic pain, movement disorders, asthma, glaucoma. 3. Less confirmed effect: allergies, inflammation, epilepsy, depression, bipolar disorders, anxiety disorders, dependency and withdrawal. 4. Basic research stage: autoimmune diseases, cancer, neuroprotection, fever, disorders of blood pressure.  ;-) -- Alfie^±Talk 14:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you answering a question to Chris as if you are the same person? Are you? You sure did arrive on the scene as the exact same time with the same agenda, and you seem to be a huge fan of his editing. It is frankly offensive that you do not realize how transparent your actions (Alfie and Chris) and motives are. Offensive that you assume the other editors are stupid enough not to notice. And sad that Wikipedia can so easily be taken over by an interest group who has editors with inordinate amounts of time and patience to change every single ref with no discussion or regard for others' work or opinion. You know darn well no single person can take on the both you. And while mediation sounds great, it requires the person to stay on their computer as if they have no other life or real job. It's really too bad no one else seems to care about the integrity of this article. You change refs to scientific articles into an ad to buy a book?! Give ME a break. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No, we are not the same person. You are free to initiate a sockpuppet investigation. Once more: I haven't edited the article a single time since I started the discussions here. No, I don't have a hidden agenda. I'm registed with WP:EN since 2008-06-09 (homewiki WP:DE 2006-04-18, check), Chris since 2005-06-02 (check). -- Alfie^±Talk 15:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You have edited the page since the 9th. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, today — after [sic] my post above! Do you have any problems? In case you can't interpret a diff: I corrected "synthetic THC pills" to "capsules" (according to the reference), the year of approval of Marinol (1992→1985), the year of the new indication (1992), and fiddled around with the table (updated price, etc). If you don't believe in the validity of changes, go to a library and look it up in your favorite newspaper (I guess you don't trust in the link to the FDA). I didn't know that I had to ask you for permission. Or use your revert-button (you know how to do that). I think you are not only a troll, but a paranoid one. Sorry, I tried to be calm and polite for the last days, but this is too much. I will work together with the other editors to improve the article. You may post here whatever you want, don't expect any response from my side any more. I consider it just a waste of time. Bye IP! —Alfie^±Talk 00:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack removed. —Whig (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edits of the work accomplished by 72 categorizes you more as a jerk, than anything said in this discussion.

The article needs to be split, people searching on this subject are seeking information on the medical cannabis plant, and not the pharma compounds. If people search Sativex they shouldn't find the medical cannabis article. They should go to the Sativex article.

I am going to get administration involved in eliminating the edits done by Chris, and a split of this article to make sure pharmaceuticals do not become confused with the Doctor recommended plant.

Case and point, marijuana is not prescribed like Sativex or Marinol but is recommended. We must not let this article get confusing for information foragers online. --The Pot Snob (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pot Snob! Fully agree about the split. Do you have any technical experiences how to do that? -- Alfie^±Talk 15:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a point of view issue, because I use medical cannabis myself. I can't do what needs to be done, unless everyone agrees it is OK. Perhaps if we have a review panel to handle it? --The Pot Snob (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What needs to be split is the "National availabilities" section, which is a duplicate of legal and medical status of cannabis and takes up too much space in this article. The same is true with the history section. The criticism section is also too long as well. The fact is, there are lots of things that need to be split, but the "pharma compounds" aren't one of them. That information is essential to this article. So, I must strongly disagree with "The Pot Snot" and the anonymous IPs who seem to always follow him around, both of whom do little but make personal attacks and poorly reasoned arguments. Viriditas (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion: First we have to agree about suitable titles of the two articles. Then I can offer to create two subpages at my user-page as a kind of sandbox. If we have sorted things out there, when can transfer the content to the article-space again. But at that them someone will have to help, because I have no idea how that's done without loosing the history, etc. -- Alfie^±Talk 16:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Alfie66, what exactly are you supporting in regards to a split? Per Wikipedia:Content forking we generally don't split out material concerning the same subject. "Medical cannabis" does not refer only to the plant, as the lead image makes clear. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there was a rather lengthy discussion about this image before. My first thoughts were to keep this article, but remove all references to pharmaceutical formulations (regardless whether extracted from the plant or partly/total synthesized). The second article could be named "Medical cannabinoids" (or the like). If there's a consensus (and not earlier) that "Medical cannabis" refers only the plant (Pot Snob's position I'm willing to accept), IMHO all references to work which was done on single compounds should be moved from "Medical cannabis" to "Medical cannabinoids". I'm not sure whether this is a true fork. I think the title of Franjo Grotenhermen's book gives a hint of this possible option: Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology and Therapeutic Potential. But its too late late now for me. Read you and Wikipedia:Content forking tomorrow again. -- Alfie^±Talk 00:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the tone of your response Viriditas. I disagree with the context of the first paragraph that medical cannabis refers to compounds sold by pharaceutical companies. Medical cannabis refers to the plant only.

I will change my username if that allows me to become a part of the discussion. I do not appreciate being castigated and treated like I don't have genuine points and arguments. I do not feel that is appropriate Wikipedia activity. I am calling someone at Wikipedia by phone to discuss this article. I will make sure this kind of blatant rudeness never happens again. --The Pot Snob (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please. The personal attacks, conspiracy theories, and poor arguments are all over this page. I don't understand what kind of "split" you are proposing or what material you disagree with, or what your beef is about. Wikipedia:Content forking is pretty clear. Viriditas (talk)

Hi Pot Snob, please calm down. I have — and never had — any problems with your username. I'm glad you started calling me by my name (i.e., not using "the one person" any more) as well. I understand your arguments and will start editing the article earliest if we have found an agreement here. -- Alfie^±Talk 00:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding article split proposal, we have also been having quite some discussion about renaming the Cannabis (drug) article, which also has some relevance to medical use. We may want to consider discussing this on WP:CANN where multiple article renames may be accomplished by finding some consensus. For instance an Herbal cannabis article may be one possibility to distinguish from pharmaceutical derived compounds. —Whig (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Right now the most pressing things needing splitting have nothing to do with pharmaceuticals. Viriditas (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked, and Meat is a separate article from Steak and Bouillon. Marinol is one ingredient of the over 200 in the natural form of the plant. Sativex is the liquid extract of just one variety of Cannabis. The history, controversy, advocates and detractors, and most of the scientific studies have no overlap between the Lab versus Natural Cannabis. They should be separate articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.23.110 (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You are confused about what "splitting" means. The placement of these topics in the current article is satisfactory. Are you actually claiming that an article on medical cannabis should not mention Marinol or Sativex? That's at odds with every reliable source on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to inform you all. IP 72.213.23.110 has got a name: Sarah sko1221 (according to this diff). —Alfie^±Talk 10:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not surprising, but she seems to enjoy pretending to be a new user.[16] She's been playing games like this for a long time now, and it needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not contributors. —Whig (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

An established user was pretending to be a new user, and the use of multiple accounts on this page is a long-term, continuing problem. This particular issue has nothing to do with content, and your response is just as bizarre as the previous response you made, when you ignored dozens of personal attacks and removed a comment that was asking another editor not to be a jerk. I seriously question your judgment "Whig", and I do not require your running commentary here. Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi 72.213.23.110 (aka Sarah / sko1221 / Sarah Katherine)! You wrote in the poll below: "It is strange that Marinol and Sativex don't have their own articles already." In the future please check yourself before posting: Marinol, Sativex, Nabilone. As per style-policies of both WP:MED and WP:PHARM articles should by named based on the INN, not the commercial product. Therefore Marinol and Cesamet are correct (redirects to Tetrahydrocannabinol and Nabilone, names of the approved drugs given in the intros). Sativex is debatable (a commercial combination product). —Alfie^±Talk 10:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the most important thing right now is splitting this article. We must remove all pharmaceutical content and create a separate article for it. This article is long and confusing, and needs to be shortened. I have calmed down Alfie, and agree that the article split must happen. The only one who is not in agreement is Viriditas I suppose. Viriditas, can you please explain why the article should not be split, you are the lone holdout now. Thanks --The Pot Snob (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not how it works. If you are proposing a split, you need to explain why. I don't have to argue why not. And unless I know why you are proposing a split, I can't respond. And so far, I have not seen a single argument justifying any split, and in fact, all of the reasons that I have given to split other content from this article have been ignored by you. I have previously addressed the length and content problems many times on this page, and none of the solutions to this problem have anything to do with removing the pharmaceutical information. Of course, whenever possible and necessary, we use summary style to point to longer articles. So, you have the burden of proof to explain why you only support the splitting of some of the material, rather than all of the material that I have been pointing to for a long time on this page. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Poll: Split cannabis-derived pharmaceutical compounds and analogues from herbal cannabis.

Note: Polls are not a substitute for discussion nor do they represent consensus. Simply stating "yes" or "no" without a reason is not adequate to determine consensus.

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, you may also include a brief comment. Further or extended discussion about this poll may be placed under the heading below.

• Yes: Herbal cannabis and pharmaceutical cannabinoids should be split into separate articles.
  • —Whig (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC) They are separate (though related) topics which should be given their own articles.
  • —72.213.23.110 (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC) It is a lot to ask of this article to also cover the different Pharma compounds. It is strange that Marinol and Sativex don't have their own articles already. I've made my case in more detail above.
  • —Kpstewart (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC). I suggest the name for the new page be Pharmaceutical derivatives of cannabis. There is a difference between smoking an natural substance (which may contains hundreds of different chemicals) and swallowing a pill that has primarily only one or two chemicals.

Reasonable. —Alfie^±Talk 10:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• No: Medical cannabis should remain a single article covering both herbal and pharmaceutical cannabinoids.

• Yes and No: All sections should be split when it reaches a length that exceeds the focus of the topic, per WP:SUMMARY. This is not an either/or issue. Medical cannabis is a broad topic should include many different aspects of the subject for balance and breadth. The scientific study of medical cannabis, including cannabinoids, is essential for an understanding of the topic.
  • Comment: This option should probably be regarded as equivalent to "No". I think it should be moved under the discussion below for clarity. —Whig (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • ±… —Alfie^±Talk 10:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Poll: Discussion

• There is no valid reason given for splitting cannabis derived pharmaceutical compounds and analogues from herbal cannabis in an article about medical cannabis nor is any reason supported by reliable sources. Every major reliable source on the subject discusses pharmacology, cannabis extracts, derivatives and cannabidiol. As such, this poll is a POV farce. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  It seems to me that cannabis derived pharmaceutical compounds and analogues are a separate subject from herbal cannabis. This is not a POV fork, to be sure. Calling the poll a "POV farce" seems unduly harsh. —Whig (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  Statements like "it seems to me x is y" doesn't substantiate anything. Good reliable sources cover the topic of medical cannabis in full. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm in a strange stituation. Lots of recent studies were performed in vitro (i.e. not even in an animal model). As an example Recent studies / Alzheimer's disease: THC enzymatic binding studies were performed on the mouse AChE structure. I did some interspecies scaling and would estimate that effective concentrations can never be reached in humans. ^yes! Neither by the oral route (10% bioavailability at it's best, regardless whether a pharmaceutical formulation or a 'cookie' is used) or by the pulmonary route as well (smoking, vaporizer). Even if an intravenous route is chosen (difficult, because of the lipohilicity of all cannabinoids) in order to prevent first-pass metabolism, adverse effects would be nasty at such high concentrations. Even if the reported effect would be present in humans, we only could prevent Alzheimers', not cure it. That would mean regular use for decades.

Another strange section is the last paragraph of Criticism. Marinol is less effective than megestrol. True, that's the reason why Marinol is approved as second-order treatment (essentially only for patients, who are non-responders to megestrol or the benefit/risk-ratio for this drug is too low). But now the article talks about adverse effects of megestrol.

I'm not sure yet how to deal with the situation. Right now the article IMHO does not comply with NPOV, but presents assumptions, extrapolations, etc. instead. Remember that less 10% of drugs which are already in clinical phase I will make it to approval. Due to advances in high-throughput synthesis hundreds of new chemical entities are developed every day, but the majority will never reach even the stage of animal testing. The rate of 1/5000-10000 candidate drugs has not changed since the 1960ies – actually it's getting worse. I assume the interested reader will get the impression, that "[…] cannabis could be the “aspirin of the 21st century”.", but we are far from that. Also "Whatever the future holds, there are many challenges to be overcome before we view cannabinoids as routine medicine in neurological disorders." Quotes from the Review in The Lancet Neorology (2003).

Right now the 250 indications in the introduction are an extreme exaggeration. Looking at reliable sources (reviews) only, and even including indications that were described as 'promising, but unproven' the list would boil down to less than 20 (optimistic). The style of the article does not follow NPOV, because simple facts like "the effect of […] was studied in […], reference" is lengthy quote as "Scientist / name(s) at the institution […] have shown [sic] that […]. They concluded, that […]." We are just raising hope. No, medical cannabis is not (and most likely never will be) the wonder drug some people still believe in. To prevent attacks: of course the same holds true for all derived pharmaceutical formulations as well.

Sorry for the essay. —Alfie^±Talk 17:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

These comments are interesting but don't seem to relate to the poll question. —Whig (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

They have everything to do with the poll question and with the continuing NPOV problems in the article and the current one you are supporting. We have simply had enough of this nonsense, and attempting to split material out that is essential to the topic is absurd. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Poll: Split "Recent studies" into a separate article(s) away from "Indications"

Note: Polls are not a substitute for discussion nor do they represent consensus. Simply stating "yes" or "no" without a reason is not adequate to determine consensus.

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, you may also include a brief comment. Further or extended discussion about this poll may be placed under the heading below.

Yes: The contents found in Medical Cannabis#Indications#Recent studies should be split away from Medical Cannabis#Indications.

• Kpstewart (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC). See my comments in "Poll discussion".
• I don't see any reason why they should be kept at all. —Alfie^±Talk 21:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No: "Recent studies" should be kept within Medical Cannabis#Indications

Yes and No: "Recent studies" should be kept in Medical Cannabis but in a separate section from "Indications"

• —Whig (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC) If this section grows to a length justifying its own article, then it can be split, but presently it should have its own section as recent studies do not necessarily imply indications.

Poll Discussion

First, "recent studies" do not give an indication for treatment with medical cannabis. Example: Just because a study showed that anandamide promoted neuron growth in the hippocampus of a rat at high doses does not indicate that people should consume high doses of cannabis inorder to grow neurons in their own brains or in the brains of their sick loved ones. (This is also false because neither anandamide or HU-210 are found in cannabis).

Second, there is a difference between Endocannabinoids (the neurochemicals naturally found in the human brain that have effects similar to ingested cannabis) and Cannabinoids (a category that includes individual chemicals found in Cannabis sativa). Moveover, both of these research areas may be considered separate from the research involving the health effects upon ingestion of Cannabis, which is the primary topic of Medical Cannabis.

Suggested actions for splitting: There is enough text under "Recent studies" to warrant a separate article. The title "Recent studies" should be avoided as a title for a new article as the word "recent" indicates time sensitive. Because of the reasons given in the paragraph above, it may be necessary to split up the subsections under "Recent studies" into the three difference articles mentioned above. Kpstewart (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Another discussion going on

Hi, just to inform you that another discussion is going on at Hmwith's talk page. :-) —Alfie^±Talk 01:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's move it back here. Let's keep the discussion on the content and not the editors. hmwitht 18:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

MiszaBot archiving

I propose to set up automatic archiving for this Talk page, as it has become long and contains old threads dating years back. If there is no objection, I will configure MiszaBot to archive threads more than 30 days old. —Whig (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me (I hate scrolling). Maybe 60 days are better? —Alfie^±Talk 17:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll wait for another day or two for comments, but 60 days is fine with me if that is preferable. —Whig (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative, but I'm of the opinion that 30 days is sufficient. —BetweenTheEchoes (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no preference personally. Or we can split the difference and make it 45 days? —Whig (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. —Alfie^±Talk 14:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, set to 45 days, but if BetweenTheEchoes or someone else objects, feel free to reset it to 30. —Whig (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Further reading

Here is another submission for inclusion in the further reading section: 2009 Conference on Cannabinoids in Medicine [17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.178.225 (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added this to the further reading section. 68.13.178.225 (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Organizational support

There are about three dozen major medical organizations that publicly support medical marijuana, and about a dozen major medical organizations that oppose it. Should the "Organizational Support" section be renamed and redone to focus on those organizations that support AND those that oppose instead of just listing support which seems biased? Here's a good place to get started (http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sources.asp - click on Organizations to see who is pro or con medical marijuana). I would add some of those organizations myself, but one Wiki admin has a problem with my using ProCon.org, so I'd rather have other people do what they think is appropriate than do it myself. Regardless of the source used, I do think this section should be redone to show support AND opposition. It seems only fair. I also think that rather than focus on all organizations and their views, this list should focus on medical organizations (after all they should have the greatest expertise) or the list could get out of hand and become appealing ground for link spammers. Anyone with some Wiki experience and expertise want to step up and make changes? Redondomax 22 October 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redondomax (talk • contribs) 19:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, the External Links section is totally biased towards proponents of medical marijuana. Other than DMOZ, every other source listed supports medical marijuana. Can someone besides me include a neutral source (you already know I think medicalmarijuana.procon.org would make a great add but one Wiki admin will just remove it if I add it), remove some of the pro sources, add a con source, or do something so this presentation has no biased POV. Redondomax 22 October 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redondomax (talk • contribs) 19:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the use of ProCon as a source, you might want to review the admin input [here] and do not promote it's use as a source until this matter is cleared up. 68.13.178.225 (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

With regards to ProCon, Redondomax is well aware that the reason its use is discouraged is because a) the site has been spammed extensively on Wikipedia by single-purpose editors; b) the site sponsored a contest to create a Wikipedia article about itself, complete with cash prize; and c) several admins (myself included) have noted that the site is not suitable for use as a reference source. It certainly can be used as a starting point for research for this article, as long as we don't use it as a reference or link to it. Any sites they happen to list can certainly be referenced by going straight to the source, that being the actual organization.

As for the external links section, it should be pruned rather than expanded. (The Open Directory Projectlink is intended to replace an extensive list of links, not complement it; DMOZ is recommended under the external links guideline as a viable alternative to link bloat.) That would address Redondomax's observation that the list being biased in one direction. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The utility or useability of ProCon.org is still very much subject to discussion. It is not a banned source by any means. Rather than rehash the reasons why I find CKatz to be completely wrong in his assessment of ProCon.org (a view also shared by other editors on Wiki), I agree that this article is not the place to have that debate.

My question was about whether or not to change the section to "Medical Organizations" vs. "Organizations" only and whether or not to include pro organizations and con organizations. I'm still interested in CKatz's and others' views on this issue. The External Links listed are mostly biased (except for arguably DMOZ) and should be cleaned up to reflect high-quality neutral sources. Granny's List and People United for Medical Marijuana as unbiased external links? Are you kidding me? I'd delete them but CKatz has been giving me a really hard time, and I'm tired of getting into Undo wars with him/her, so I regretfully leave meaningful edits to others. Redondomax 22 October 2009

The only thing we've been differing on is the ProCon issue, and that site's viability as a reliable source. (Note that other admins have also agreed it isn't.) If you want to clean up the links, I certainly wouldn't have any reason to object. Keep in mind that I'm here in an administrative capacity due to the ProCon problem, so I'm not planning on getting involved in other content-related discussions. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yay. That's great news. I'll get to editing. BTW, do you think I should raise the "ProCon problem" in the reliable sources discussion board (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard)? Another admin suggested that I do. or have you already done so? Redondomax 22 October 2009

Caption

The lead image to this article is a bottle of 1930's Cannabis extract, yet here is the description it should be illustrating: "Medical cannabis (commonly referred to as medical marijuana) refers to the use of the dried flowers and subtending leafs and stems from pistillate Cannabis plants" Can someone explain this? Any thoughts? 68.13.178.225 (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What exactly needs explaining? Feel free to read the article on tinctures, and remember to stick with one user account. Viriditas (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

When not signed in, my IP address shows up, that is not the same as 2 accounts, or am I missing something? 68.13.178.225 (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

How in the world...?

How does marijuana cure PMS (premenstrual syndrome) and cancer when it really causes irregular menstruation and has more carcinogens (cancer-causing agents) than cigarettes? I don't get it. Qotsa37 (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

How marijuana cures PMS [18]. (I am not aware of a relationship between irregular periods and PMS.)

How marijuana is different from cigarettes [19] and doesn't cause cancer [20]

Marijuana cures cancer [21] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpipos (talk • contribs) 17:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead

as i see it, the lead is both too heavy on legal distinctions and a non-global, us-centric viewpoint. the stated focus of the article is medical marijuana, and the lead should introduce and summarize the main subjects that are related to the subject, such as description, indications for use, legality, history. I would say the first three and then the last article of the lead do a a good job of this(although the last might need some broadening), while the middle three seem overly specific (and US-oriented). I´ve tried to move parts of those sections down to the national availabilites>: united states section, but other editors evidently thought they were important enough for the lead, so i don´t want to do any moving again until there´s some kind of consensus on wher this information should be (i will try to fix the next to last paragraph, since i can´t see it making sense right now)

also, i agree with people above that the lead image could be changed to something more current or removed, and barentz, if the netherlands page is a lot better, try integrating it in (i don´t speak dutch). I feel like another major problem is the article has gotten weighed down by people wanting to educate others about the benefits of medical cannabinoids, and referencing and describing every potential use of the drug, so you get the cure for cancer thing and sections like "partial list of clinical applications" that at this point includes every major disease. I do think the that some of these sections can be condensed with a reference to a new article that preserves the content that people want others to know about while giving a more concise main article.

specifically, for right now, what do you think of the lead rearrangment idea Iowawindow (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, be bold and go ahead. Crude translation of Dutch and German articles may give you some inspirations. When I started the discussion this summer I considered the article by far too long (89 kilobytes then). Now it's 100… (WP:SIZE!) →Alfie^±Talk 02:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As for the lead image, why not simply move the current picture to the history section and meanwhile look for a better one... Tpipos (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Because that's backwards. The way it works is that we decide on a new image and then add it. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Medical" mariujuana

This text was entered in Cannabis (drug) talk page: "I was some years ago supplier to a factory that manufactures a drug that is approved by the FDA for sale in the United States. I do not work for any drug manufacturer today. The drug was manufactured by fermentation (compare with fermentation of alcohol, but a very different product). All materials that came into the factory was controlled accurately before they could be used, even trivial things like water, employees in the production have clothing like the emergency department at a hospital, the air in the room, the water etc. must meet strict requirements for purity, there should be traceability back to the provider of everything. Every package that came into the factory, every raw material must come from an approved and reviewed vendor, supplied with a batch number which could be traced. Anyone who worked with the process must show proof that he was trained on the particular work situation. If you had visited the wrong area close to the factory the contract ordered you to go home for the rest of the day, take a shower and wash all clothing. Approximately 1 / 5 part of the workforce belonged to the powerful control department with the power to immediately reject the entire production from that week. All products that are shipped from the factory had a standard potency and purity. The product was used by patients with one very special defect. There was no doubt about very positive effect with no known serious side effects if you took recommended dose, not less and not more than the recommended dose.

From a scientific view is almost all “medical” marijuana from another planet, a joke, compared with the factory above. Traceable raw material?, standard potency ?, purity ?, approved suppliers?, trained staff?, approved clothing?, tested?, batch number on all raw material in the process?, batch number on finished products? and so on." Dala11a (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You raise valid points, but please consider looking for and citing sources to show that the issues you mention constitute a substantial barrier to the effective use of marijuana as medicine. If such sources exist it would improve the article to include them, perhaps along with discussion of the multiplicity of strains in use and their possible variability in the treatment of disease. Thank you. Ohiostandard (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Where to present new efficacy review?

In a landmark article, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Opioid Management, University of Washington researcher Sunil Aggarwal and colleagues document no fewer than 33 controlled clinical trials -- published over a 38-year period from 1971 to 2009 -- confirming that marijuana is a safe, effective medicine for specific medical conditions. 66.37.153.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

"The most common misconception among doctors and the general public regarding medical marijuana is that its effectiveness claims are substantiated only by compelling anecdotes from patients," Aggarwal told SF Weekly. "What is not acknowledged is that 33 separate controlled clinical trials with patients, at least a third of which are of gold standard design, have been conducted and published in the United States by investigators at major research centers using the same federal cannabis supply and mode of delivery.

"In fact," Aggarwal and colleagues write, "nearly all of the 33 published controlled clinical trials conducted in the United States have shown significant and measurable benefits in subjects receiving the treatment."

The Study: [22], PMID: 19662925, Journal of opioid management. 5(3):153-68. ,ISSN: 1551-7489, Medicinal use of cannabis in the United States: Historical perspectives, current trends, and future directions. Sunil K. Aggarwal, PhD; Gregory T. Carter, MD, MS; Mark D. Sullivan, MD, PhD; Craig ZumBrunnen, PhD; Richard Morrill, PhD; Jonathan D. Mayer, PhD

Link corrected. Please sign your contributions in the future. —Alfie^±Talk 11:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this should be added to the article, in my opinion, asap. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been added to the further reading section.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 11:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone else agree this deserves a mention in the article? 72.213.23.110 (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this new review paper does merit inclusion in the article body rather than just in the "further reading" section. It's much more current than the 2002 review article cited presently in the "indications" section, and is more comprehensive. My preference would be to see the whole first section, "Indications" revised; it's kind of choppy and discontinuous now, with its two subsections. Also, "indications" is medical jargon, not a word that's widely understood by lay people. I'd propose the "indications" section be retitled to something like "Clinical applications and effectiveness", with a brief summary (as above, in talk) of the Aggarwal, et. al. paper forming the intro/opening-paragraph to that section. Further, the separation of the section into "Partial list of clinical applications", and "Recent studies" subsections is artificial and distracting. If the consensus is that the clinical applications detailed in "Recent studies" merit separate mention from those of the previous subsection then I think they should be broken out to separate articles by application, eg "Medical cannibis for Alzheimers", etc. Comments/objections? Ohiostandard (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I like your ideas very much.68.13.178.225 (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Splitting

This article is too long, it includes various types of medical cannabis, only one of which is mentioned in the intro. The description of medical cannabis in the intro refers only to the raw material. Yet, we have a picture of a pharmaceutical cannabis extract, and a whole section on studies done with constituents of cannabis, not mentioned in the intro.

If this article is covering 3 issues: raw plant matter and it's current legal issues, it's history, it's supporters and detractors, as well as the lab studies on cannabinoids, and pharmaceutical versions, it seems they should all be mentioned in the intro. As stands now, this article is quite confusing. Tpipos (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. It's one giant mess but I don't think it should be split. A8UDI talk 18:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

So, a good focus for now could be to get the introduction to match what's actually being presented, and the introduction's image to better represent the subject. Tpipos (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This article obviously requires deletion! There is no one congruence in anything I read here. Claims that cannabis cures cancer (?) juxtaposed with other peoples inability to imagine a medicinal delivery of cannabiloid medicines in any other fashion than they themselves have sampled the drug: smoking. To patients such as myself who benefit from medicinale cannabis (not the smoked variety) and who therefore actually "know something" about modern means of delivery of the medicines, I personally an gutted that some monkey continuously alters the wikipedia page referring to me and my personal situation to the utter crap that is contained on this page. There is here a "map" of the legal situation of "cannabis" in the EU. What a total misconception! There is "illicit cannabis" and there are medical VAT Sales Tax products that happen to contain derivitaves of cannaboloids. one issue deals with criminals, and the other issue deals with people whose physicians prescribe VAT Sales Tax products (reimbursed by their medical insurers) to patients with certain conditions for various reasons ranging from increased calorific intake and increased appetite for some illnesses, to the immuno-suppressive qualities that such derivatives have on auto-immune illnesses. These illnesses are no joke, and medical treatment is something that is a very personal thing. IT is also rather scientific. If you care to see how a page on an important lifesaving subject such as this one should appear, then check out the Nederlands version of this waste of space. [23] Please spare a thought to newly diagnosed persons and those that receive recommendations from their physicians to battle the symptoms of VERY SERIOUS illnesses. They get home and look up wiki on the suggestion and this is the shite they are greeted with. Referencing "refer racism" as a source ? omg Barentsz (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Couldn't agree more. I don't speak Dutch, but Google-translate helped in getting an impression. It's quite similar to the German one (de:Cannabis als Arzneimittel). I tried to start a discussion this summer (see the archive), but was editwared and finally gave up. There are still the crazy 250 indications in the article, which I would consider a world-record for any known drug. Wow! →Alfie^±Talk 01:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Then just do triage and notify the talk page of your edits. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the 250 indications. The source is a self-published paper relying on doubtful references. See the archive. →Alfie^±Talk 19:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a good idea to place large chunks of removed content on the talk page for other editors to review, along with a diff. I'll do that below. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Viridatas! Fine; I thought that the link to the archive was enough. Anyhow, if someone feels that the section should be kept, IMHO it should be moved from "Indications > Partial list of clinical applications" to "History > Modern science". I added a ref-tag to the section below. →Alfie^±Talk 12:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

tags

After some cleanup, I agree with the additional cite tag, but I think the neutrality tags can go, especially the one with the weasel words part. There really isn't a big problem with these (I'm not an editor of the article). Also, do you think a general cleanup tag, mostly the "Modern science" section is needed? Mjpresson (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I see lots of problems just scanning the article. Start with the "partial list of clinical applications" section and the statement leading from "Other studies have shown cannabis or cannabinoids to be useful in treating.." All of these things are picked from primary studies, and it is not clear if this is neutral or accurate. Let's see good secondary sources talking about what is useful treatment, rather than an editor picking and choosing. Do you know of any physicians who are treating alcohol abuse or ADD with cannabis? That's just to start. Please address the problems with this section first. One thing you could do is ask WP:MED to review it for accuracy. I think it is bogus. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to get involved here, but I'd like the article to have at least a hint of authenticity. Unlike some, I'm aware that "what I know" isn't recognized here. I'll go ahead and make a few bold cleanups, expecting the usual result.....Mjpresson (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, this is a bad article. Too much OR in this field. This needs deletion and a start from scratch by qualified and neutral editors. Adios. Mjpresson (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's a bad article, exactly, but I agree it's in a sad jumble. Much of the trouble is structural; there's some good material here, but we need places to put it that make more sense. Of course, the article also badly needs exacting attention from folks who are willing to respect the scientific method and to write carefully, regardless of their POV.

In principle starting from scratch would be beneficial, beginning with the development of an outline, a fundamental structure we could all live with. Unfortunately, I just don't see that happening in practice. So it seems to me to be a case of working with what we have, trying to sort through the jumble, keep the good stuff, and generally put it into better order.

But "Adios"? If you can keep the drama from bothering you too much I, for one, would really like to see you stick around. I reviewed your edits, and thought them very constructive, as I know another editor did too, one who assumes (erroneously, btw) that I'm in his opposing camp.

There's been so much contention over this article that I think it would be better to discuss proposed changes first, before going ahead with the "bold cleanups" thing. I appreciate your good will in thinking of doing so; cleanups are certainly needed. It's just that in a polarized setting such as this, performing them without first trying to gain consensus for the direction they take, and allowing sufficient time for that consensus to develop, can generate a firestorm of wikidrama. Thanks, Ohiostandard (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you present a a new outline here? Other editors have tried (check the archives) but they were too focused on advocacy rather than the sources themselves. Viriditas (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What, and touch the third rail? ;-) As desirable as a rewrite from a new outline might be, I think we're likely to be stuck with a more incremental approach. ( I think I've read every word of the archives at least once, btw, and I agree with your observation re advocacy. We could certainly use more appreciation for the truth Grotenhermen & Russo (2002) point out here, that "the history of clinical use of cannabis and cannabinoids has demonstrated that the scientific evidence for a specific indication does not implicitly reflect the actual therapeutic potential for a given disease." )

I will try to find time to present some less-sweeping structural suggestions, though. I'll present those in a new talk page section for that discussion, however, since - as I understand Mjpresson's intention - this section is primarily about the {{pov}}, {{refimprove}}, and {{weasel}} tags Alfie66 placed at the head of the article on 10 August 2009 (UTC), and then restored on 6 November 2009 (UTC), after another user had removed them the previous day. Ohiostandard (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

confusing sentence

This sentence appears at the start of the second paragraph.

"Some studies show a positive correlation regarding its use in a medicinal context.[2][3][4][5]"

I am not sure this means anything at all. Marijuana use has a positive correlation with what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.131.22 (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is pretty silly, but this is the kind of prose you get on Wikipedia, when you have two factions fighting to write an article, both from different POV. It can probably be rewritten to simply state what the correlation and context is, instead of talking around it. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is silly. I've made a temporary "de-uglification". Only temporary because the change is admittedly a quick and inadequate fix, and since "benefit" is mildly stronger than "correlation". ( I thought it was just too silly to let it stand as it was. ) The sentence doesn't really belong where it is, either, but I have no time now to find it a better home. Wouldn't want to see it just deleted, though, since some of the refs it carries would be orphaned without it. ( Those refs are useful ones, although useful in what context or section of the article remains to be discussed. ) In the same edit I fixed an error at the end of the second paragraph, concerning synthetic cannabinoids: I restored the erroneously-truncated sentence to its intended meaning, based on a previous article version, and preserved the inline links that had been added since. Ohiostandard (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I see Iowawindow finished the job very nicely. (Thanks!) No connection, btw, despite the similar-sounding user names; I was a bit startled to see that myself when I first noticed the user name a while ago. The refs still need attention and proper formatting, but we'll all get to those, and the refs weren't anything that were addressed by the changes documented in this talk page section, anyway. Unless anyone objects, I'd say this talk page section could be archived soon. Ohiostandard (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

These issues are not yet resolved, so I don't think archiving is needed right now. Viriditas (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Structure and Sourcing

Many editors here have expressed concern over the somewhat random treatment of indications for use, or "Clinical applications", or whatever it is we're calling them at the moment. With all good will, people have thrown individual papers at the section, at the "Partial list of clinical applications" section, in particular, with indications for use in allergies shown alongside indications for nausea from chemotherapy or for muscle spasms associated with multiple sclerosis.

Now I do not mean to disparage any one potential use, but it's certainly the case that some uses are better supported by the literature than others, and that some uses have been more broadly applied if not necessarily more broadly researched than others. It would seem helpful to me to rank clinical applications according to how extensively they're supported by the literature, and particularly by how well they're supported by review papers, i.e. by papers that review and summarize the results of multiple different studies from the same general area of research.

I don't have time to expand on this much at the moment, but if we can find a way to work in maximum accordance with wp policies, then I think putting together an updated structure similar to the "Hierarchy of Therapeutic Effects" presented by Grotenhermen & Russo (2002) would give us a very sound basis by which to proceed.

Further, any rancorous contention over which potential applications merit inclusion in which of the various value-judgment hierarchical categories that we ultimately decide upon could stymie progress for six months or more if people couldn't put aside their feuds and ego-involvement to work cooperatively with editors who hold an opposing pov. But if we could all manage to remain fairly civil, and agree to stick to the rules with each other, I think this structure, or a similar one, would likely be our best bet to organize the great many clinical applications that are now shown in the "Partical list of clinical applications" section the current article presents, and deal with the fact that they're now all of them shown as being pretty much all on the same level with respect to how well they've been proved. Note, btw, that Grotehermen & Russo (2002) present their then-current version of a "hierarchy" based on at least eight different review papers.

I think it's also important to disclose, for all articles we cite, whether they're in vitro studies, in vivo animal studies, human trials, single or double blind trials, etc. I've placed this section immediately below the "Where to present new efficacy review?" one, btw, because the two sections seem to belong close together. Since that's a form of top-posting, however, anyone who objects should feel free to move this to a new section at the end of the talk page.

Finally, I've added quite a lot of text to this talk page in the last few days, so I'll mention that I'm going to be away and mostly offline for something like 15 days beginning quite soon. That will give other editors their chance to criticize, respond, and suggest new ideas. Too, I hope that this will also allow time for some beginnings of consensus to form in response to some of these ideas for structural/outline reorganization, and around any new ideas for an outline/structure that we can all accept and use as a framework for respectful cooperation with each other in the future. Cheers, Ohiostandard (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ohiostandard, I like your suggestions very much! I think that Grotenhermen is an excellent resource according to WP:MEDRS (at least I have the German edition on my bookshelf - maybe easier than to fiddle around with Google-Books). I'm a little bit short in time, so don't expect too much active editing from my side - but I'm monitoring the talk page. So, I would be glad if I can help in discussions. →Alfie^±Talk 17:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Alfie66. I'm not sure there are many others here who have the same "hard science" background and level of training that you have - I certainly don't - and I value your participation greatly. I just wanted to say so, and mention that I'm truly sorry if I gave a contrary impression via my very clumsy coi query earlier. I look forward to collaborating with you to improve this article once I'm back online, and to the extent you can find the time. I need to buy a copy of Grotenhermen, myself, btw, although I really wish he'd write a revised edition. So much good work been done, and so many fascinating developments have arisen since 2002. Best, Ohiostandard (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ohiostandard! Since you didn't contact me on my talk page with the COI-story, I followed it only from the distance (including the sockpuppet investigation…). Be warned, Grotenhermen's textbook is not cheap - but every cent worth. The English 2002 edition is a translation of the 1st German edition of 2001. The 2nd revised and extended German edition was published in 2004; hopefully it will be translated as well. I can send him an e-mail and simply ask. ;-) You may also find the website of the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines interesting (see especially the 'Science' section). →Alfie^±Talk 01:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

AMA endorsement

Today the AMA reversed it's 72 year stance regarding medical cannabis. Do we need a better source before adding it to organizational support? [[24]]68.13.178.225 (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. I would wait until it's officially published on AMA's website and use it as a primary source. If you are in a hurry, use The New York Times as a source in the meantime. →Alfie^±Talk 23:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it'd be premature, nor would I describe their policy shift as organizational support or endorsement for the use of medical marijuana. Ohiostandard (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, see page 14 of AMA's report. →Alfie^±Talk 01:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

250 indications

Disputed content removed here and copied below:

Tod H. Mikuriya, a psychiatrist and an advocate for the legalization of the use of marijuana for medical purposes, has recorded over 250 indications for medical cannabis, as classified by the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-9).

Edit; 00:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC): The entire section was erroneously not signed – neither by Ohiostandard (who moved the original text to here), nor by myself when adding the references. This effectively prevents automatic archiving. Therefore I added my signature with the original timestamp. →Alfie^±Talk 13:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

History section

Mjpresson, I just took a closer look at the "modern science" sub-secton you mentioned. It seems to have been intended as a sort of culmination of the History section, to say something like, "So much for ancient history re medical uses of cannabis, here's what's been going on in the last 150 years or so." It would make more sense, and seem less out of context, I think, if the section were named "Modern history", or "Recent history". Statements that are more about efficacy than about its use in modern history, though, don't belong in the section, imo, but rather in the "Clinical Applications" section, assuming they can be supported by proper citations. E.g., most of the text below seems somewhat out of place to me,

"Later medical use has focused primarily on its role in preventing the wasting syndromes and chronic loss of appetite associated with chemotherapy and AIDS, along with a variety of rare muscular and skeletal disorders. Less commonly, cannabis has been used in the treatment of alcoholism and addiction to other drugs such as heroin and the prevention of migraines. In recent years, studies have shown or researchers have speculated that the main chemical in the drug, THC, might help prevent atherosclerosis."

and that last sentence just has to go, or (less controversially, I suppose) be moved to the Clinical Applications section, and properly cited or given a "citation needed" tag, at least. Likewise, Marinol is certainly historically significant, and thus appropriate for a modern history section, but this section doesn't seem to me to be the place to discuss its efficacy or to compare it unfavorably (or favorably) to smoking marijuana. Such a comparison may have a place in the article, but this isn't it. Thoughts? Ohiostandard (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the underlying problem you describe, as the points raised in that paragraph are a significant part of the history of medical cannabis. Later medicinal use, primarily beginning with the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, was historically focused on relieving the wasting syndromes and loss of appetite experienced by patients, and there was much funding, research, and clinical study focused on medical cannabis. The dispensary movement grew out of this research, as there was a need for a distribution point. I would strongly disagree with this being moved. Perhaps you could take a moment to look into it for yourself. It's entirely appropriate to the section, however a rewrite is needed to clarify chronology and sourcing. Viriditas (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point re AIDS --> Dispensaries; I was aware of that, and agree it's of historical importance. I was a bit careless to have included the first of the three sentences in the example I placed above, and did so mostly to preserve the context of the second and third one. But do you see the objection to the latter two? I know Mikuriya published very early about cannabis for alcoholism; did anyone else? If so, I guess you could make the case that the alcoholism mention belongs here. There are probably other early examples re migraines, heroin, etc, but were those applications ubiquitous enough that they rate mention in a history section? You may be more familiar with the history than I am; were those also early uses of historical importance? And ameliorating or preventing atherosclerosis was an early use that was investigated enough to make it prominent in history? ( The earliest mention of cannabis and atherosclerosis that I can find via PubMed, even using "stenosis", alternate spellings of marijuana that were in use early on, "THC", etc., is in 2004. )

My thought re the structure of the thing was that we could throw much that occurs in the "Clinical applications" section into this one, too. ( No, I'm not suggesting we should. ) In other words, as we talk about more and more recent history we converge more and more with the "Clinical Applications" section. But aside from that, you're fine with the sub-heading "Modern Science" in a history section? Seems to me that most or all of sections 1 & 2 of the article is "Modern Science", too. That's why I suggested the admittedly less-than-elegant sub-heading name, "Modern history". Although I think the change would be a small improvement for that reason, I don't feel particularly strongly about it. What do you think? Ohiostandard (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you go ahead and change it to your preference? If someone objects, we can always modify it or change it back. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean you agreed with the a change from "Modern science" to "Modern history", with dropping the last two sentences I quoted above re alcoholism, heroin, migraines, and atherosclerosis, or to both? ( Note that those uses are all well-discussed previously in the article, along with literature citations, which they didn't have in the "Modern science" section. ) I thought "both", and was about to make a corresponding change, but then noticed (only via the article's auto-generated toc) that the "Modern science" section was not, as I'd assumed, actually a sub-section of "History" at all, but an independent section that follows it. ( I don't understand why the "Modern science" section heading showed up as much less bold than the subsection "Medieval Islamic world" that appeared immediately above it, as can be seen here. That seems backwards to me. ) But I didn't want to talk the thing to death, so I went ahead and made the change I inferred was agreed upon anyway. If my inference was incorrect, or any other user objects, free to revert and discuss here. Cheers, Ohiostandard (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work. I have not had a chance to read Appel's article, but it seems that you have. Is it significant enough to include here? I see that you removed the bit on migraines, but I recall that there was significant research results in this area, but I could be wrong. Should we consider re-adding it with sources? Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The two sentences I removed that mentioned cannabis use for migraines, alcoholism, heroin, and atherosclerosis didn't carry any citations, and each of the four conditions is mentioned (with citations) elsewhere in the article. More specifically, migraines are already mentioned in the "Partial list of clinical applications" section, with a citation, and also in the second paragraph of the "Modern History" section (which used to be the "Modern Science" section, of course.) Will reply below re Appel's article, in the talk page section entitled "Medicinal alcohol paragraph changed". Ohiostandard (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, also: If anyone gets around to a cleanup of the just-renamed "Modern history" subsection for chronology and other remaining issues, I'd very much like to see something included about the point Viriditas raised above re AIDS --> Dispensaries. In my previous edit to the article I thought about including his talk page statement (see above), "Later medicinal use ... (snip) ... The dispensary movement grew out of this research, as there was a need for a distribution point." I didn't include it because I don't have a supporting citation ready to hand, but it seems so non-controversial and well-known a fact to me that I think it'd be fine in the article, even without a citation. Ohiostandard (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A more careful reading of your (Viriditas') comment re migraines leads me to believe I might have misunderstood the suggestion. The question was about whether there was enough early research to qualify that research as historically significant, yes? In a very brief search via PubMed I didn't find much early research on cannabis to treat migraines at all, just a 1987 paper entitled "Marijuana and Migraine". There's another relevant paper, though, one that talks about the long historical use of cannabis for migraine. That paper is a 1989 review article entitled "Cannabis for migraine treatment: the once and future prescription?". In it the author appeals for more research into its efficacy for migraine.

I think a citation for this second paper should be added to the already existing mention of cannabis for migraine in the newly-renamed "Modern history" subsection's second paragraph, although doing so would require a little rewriting of the paragraph. Do people think it's also obligatory to add the same citation to the mention of migraine that occurs in the "Partial list of clinical applications" section, as well? I'd add it to one or both places migraine is mentioned in the article myself, but I'm not sure how to do that quickly (uncertain, too, about which ref format should be used to to cite PubMed abstracts) and I'm out of time for now. Ohiostandard (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Medicinal alcohol paragraph changed

I made this change because the wording that was used didn't accurately represent the thrust of the essay it relied upon and cited. I'd actually prefer to see mention of the medicinal alcohol movement dropped from this article entirely, for brevity's sake, but if we're going to mention it at all then we need to reflect the meaning of the source correctly. The paragraph would be fine if we were to break out the "History" section to a new article, and just briefly summarize that (new) "History" article in this one, as has been suggested. Ohiostandard (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're saying you'd also like to see it dropped, then please go ahead and strike the paragraph. It's an interesting comparison, certainly, an interesting commentary on history. But it's not really history itself, and we're very tight on space. Besides, I haven't seen the entire paper, just the abstract, and my rewrite was based on my observation that the article's language seemed rather at odds with the paper's abstract. In performing that rewrite, though, I relied too much on the say-so of a previous editor who evidently had seen the whole paper. See diff I provided above. The previous editor's wording was at odds with the abstract, and (relying on his wording) my initial revision said more than I'm personally aware of, i.e. more than the abstract says. I've since revised my previous revision to try to ameliorate that (see this diff) but the paragraph still says more about the paper than I personally know, and I'd be happier just seeing any mention of the cannabis-alcohol comparison dropped altogether, or at least dropped until someone who has an Athens login can retrieve the full text of the paper and sort this out. Ohiostandard (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Coincidence or not, this annoncement was published today: "Answer to booze problems may lie in cannabis"[25], and "Is cannabis the answer to Booze Britain's problems?"[26]. Reiman, Amanda. "Cannabis as a Substitute for Alcohol and Other Drugs", Harm Reduction Journal. Unfortunately, the journal article does not appear to have been published just yet.[27] Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

National and International Regulations

I'm not sure why this section heading was changed, but in any case, the entire section should be split out to the legal and medical status article and replaced with anywhere with 2-4 paragraphs of summarized status, mentioning the most important points related to legal status and regulations. We do not need any of the detailed information that we currently have in this article. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Source

LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-medical-marijuana18-2010feb18,0,1023346.story AniRaptor2001 (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Autism

In the list within the "Partial list of clinical applications" section, prefaced by "Other studies have shown cannabis or cannabinoids may be useful in treating ...", autism was included with two citations given:

[28] [29]

However, neither of these sources give any information about a study showing any such thing. After a fairly extensive search, I am reasonably convinced that no well-publicized study exists with that conclusion, which is why I have removed "autism" from the list rather than placing a "citation needed" on it.

mistercow (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

More Controlled Studies Needed

I personally think that we need to cite a few more controlled studies before putting up a giant list of possible benifits. I am not opposed to medical cannibis, but I think there needs to be more evidence-based medicine in this article to refute those who actually do oppose medical cannibis. Ronk01 (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ronk01, full ACK! Be bold, and go ahead. →Alfie^±Talk 22:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I second that. The article could use some assertive editing. Mjpresson (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I am currently doing research, and will begin editing in about a week, I want to have as much information as possible before I sit down and edit. Ronk01 (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Medical Marijuana Activism

Perhaps it should be noted that the movement against acceptance of marijuana as a medicine has reached a dangerous level. Recently, a terrorist fire bombed two medical marijuana dispensaries in Montana. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/medical-marijuana-dispensary-fire-bombed-in-montana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.11.123.218 (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved to end of page. →Alfie^±Talk 21:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

NDC Code...

does medical marijuana have ndc codes like other prescription medications at the pharmacy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.115.96.197 (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Does this link answer your question? For pharmaceutical preparations see here (enter "dronabinol" in the search field). →Alfie^±Talk 00:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

So, THC (dronabinol) and medical marijuana/cannabis are synonymous? 72.213.22.87 (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC) The laws regarding the two are very different, as is the number of cannabinoids. This is perplexing and should be made very clear in the introduction to this article, no? 72.213.22.87 (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The original question was on NDC. Did you follow the links I mentioned? The NDC for 'MARIJUANA CIGARETTES' is 65171-*500-10, whereas there are different ones for pharmaceutical preparations containing dronabinol. What gave you the impression that «THC (dronabinol) and medical marijuana/cannabis are synonymous»? IMHO it would be misleading to mention the NDC (for marijuana cigarettes) in the introduction, because no NDC exists for other preparations (tinctures, oil). →Alfie^±Talk 12:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, sorry to waste your time. 72.213.22.87 (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference desk discussion... awaiting Alfie's comments

Isn't medical marijuana provided by prescription to cancer patients throughout the United States for drops of THC they can smoke in their electronic cigarettes? 71.100.0.29 (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We have an article about this very topic, Medical marijuana and Medical cannabis in the United States. Vespine (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, 4th paragraph in Medical cannabis which states the route of administration is varied; the cannabis can be taken in a vapourised form, or it can be ingested. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  22:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

These articles provide a lot of information but do not state what the issue is with use of medical or recreational marijuana. What exactly is the issue? I've heard it keeps people from remembering but does that mean it keeps them from reasoning as well? Why are so many people against the use of cannabis? The articles fail to say. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't read that into your initial question, to answer that the relevant article would be Marijuana. Vespine (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Cannabis might increase the risk of certain psychological disorders, does increase your risk of cancer, and can increase your heart rate significantly compared to its usual rate increasing the stress placed upon your heart. There are other risks which have not been firmly established in scientific literature, such as it's role in strokes. Cannabis is also often mixed with other ingredients, which can present their own hazards. No one denies that cannabis can have very (sometimes enjoyable!) effects, but there are also problems associated with smoking it, the most widely proven one being cancer. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  00:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not correct. "No strong epidemiologic or research evidence indicates that cannabis smoking causes lung cancer."[30] The study you are most likely referring to in support of your claim was a study of tobacco users who also smoked cannabis. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In all fairness I think there is pretty good evidence that it does cause cancer, and this is based upon a simple assumption and various sources. Yes, when smoked with tobacco, it's a clear relationship, but burning any organic material is going to present at least a slight carcinogen risk. There are various sources on PubMed, for example, and whilst some suggest cannabis smoke is more harmful than tobacco smoke and the others vice versa, none deny that smoking cannabis produces carcinogenic compounds. I don't know about other routes of administration, but it seems to me fairly clear cut that smoking it will increase your risk of cancer. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  10:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Please provide good evidence for your claim that cannabis causes cancer. I've looked at the literature, and such claims are either false or misleading. In fact, there is evidence showing that cannabis slows the growth of tumors. More recent evidence shows that it slows the growth of cervical and lung cancers. (Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2008-01-02).[31] In any case, anyone familiar with the cannabis literature knows for a fact that there is no conclusive evidence that cannabis causes lung cancer and that if the drug is going to be used for therapeutic purposes, most physicians would therefore recommend that the patient ingest the drug orally or by spray to avoid the risk of inhaling carcinogenic material, therefore lessening the cancer risk, if any.[32] Scientific studies of cannabis vaporizer usage have shown that a "safe and effective cannabinoid delivery system seems to be available to patients." I therefore seriously question whether legal prescription drugs could be said to be as safe and effective as cannabis, and I question the safety of legal alcohol and tobacco in comparison. It can even be seriously argued that legal fast food restaurants pose more of a threat to human health than cannabis. Let's be perfectly honest and clear: Cannabis prohibition has nothing to do with protecting public safety or human health, and it never has. Viriditas (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely disagree that cannabis prohibition has nothing to do with public safety or human health. Do you accept that inhaling any form of burnt organic material is likely to expose your body to carcinogens? This applies to cigarettes, to joints, and to incense and to fuels. I agree that a vapourised form of the drug is unlikely to cause cancer given our current evidence, but smoking a joint will expose your body to carcinogens. I was a little quick on the gun to say it causes cancer; what I should have said is smoking a joint will increase your chances of getting cancer--since you're smoking benzene and goodness knows what else!

Furthermore, there are new, slight links in cannabis smoking to chronic liver disease [33] and there is clear evidence that cannabis inhibits your senses sufficiently to impair your driving ability. These properties alone make cannabis very similar to alcohol in that regard, and as such there is an aspect of public safety and human health involved in this discussion.

Whether, as you mention, cannabis has a role to play in initiating mental health disorders or exacerbating them, surely it is a void argument? Not everyone will know they have a predisposition to mental health disorders, so not everyone who took cannabis, were it legalised, would be safe in taking it. As such. a minimisation of cannabis availability can only be a good thing in protecting the collective health of everyone.

I'll say again, I don't doubt that cannabis is beneficial in the right, pure form given medicinally under strict supervision. I do have issues with it being suggested as a safe drug on the street--especially as it's usually mixed with tobacco. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  15:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The legal history of cannabis in the United States shows that cannabis prohibition is rooted in immigration issues related to its use by Mexican immigrants, African Americans, and other minorities. Technological competition may have also played a significant role, since hemp production threatened to replace the use of other industrial products. Cannabis was once prescribed by physicians as medicine, and the AMA opposed prohibition; At the time, the drug was widely available in tinctures and did not require combustion. Your concerns about cannabis and liver disease appear to be out of proportion to its risk. In the U.S., the legal, over-the-counter analgesic drug paracetamol (acetaminophen) causes three times as many cases of liver failure as all other drugs combined and is the most common cause of acute liver failure in the U.S., accounting for 39% of cases...In the U.S. and the United Kingdom [paracetamol toxicity] is the most common cause of acute liver failure." Cannabis is safe in comparison. For the record, cannabis is not "usually mixed with tobacco" in North America. Mixing tobacco and cannabis is common in the UK and Europe, however, for reasons that elude me. Mental health issues (and human health issues in general) are greatly aggravated by poverty, unemployment, social and political unrest, lack of access to education and health care services, and many other factors; Cannabis is not the fundamental cause of any of this, but an excuse, a political distraction to avoid having to take responsibility for the real issues facing society. Viriditas (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Whilst immigration as a reason may have been used in the United States, the worldwide view by governments and usually their official medical bodies have roughly agreed that cannabis is an illegal drug. Presumably, this is not without good reasoning. I don't doubt it had a role in the US in the way you mentioned, but these issues don't apply everywhere: particularly islands. I doubt that industrial production would be significantly affected by people smoking a bit more cannabis.

As I have said many times, I have no quarrels with cannabis being used in a liquid or clean vapour form. I can see the benefits of the drug in those cases, so your comment regarding the usage by historical physicians doesn't concern me. It does have it's uses! The problem comes with combustion of cannabis, whereupon carcinogens are released. This presents a risk to the active smoker and the passive smokers, whether established in epidemiological studies or not.

You cannot compare the use of paracetamol to cannabis with respect to liver failure. I'll explain why. Paracetamol is the leading cause of acute liver failure, as you rightly suggested. This is mainly due to people in quite a bit of pain taking above the daily recommended allowances, or due to suicide attempts gone wrong (where the person is admitted to hospital well before the particularly fatal symptoms take hold). Cannabis, according to studies, is a potential cause of chronic liver failure, not acute, and produces a risk of liver failure over several years of consistent smoking of cannabis. Chronic and acute liver failure have different aetiologies. I'd like to see sources for your statements regarding its comparative safety compared to paracetamol.

With respect to mental health issues, it's naive to believe that cannabis smokers who get mental health issues only do so because of other factors; this is not clearly established in literature. So far it seems that some cases are greatly aggrevated by the factors you mentioned, but you fail to notice that most of those factors can come about from a drug addiction! People who get addicted to cannabis are likely to be less wealthy (since they're spending money on their habit), more likely to be unemployed and are likely to have disrupted social habits. I don't see how political unrest can directly play an effect on someone's immediate mental health, this seems very unlikely, but I'll accept your point regarding inadequete access to health services. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  20:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, there is no good evidence that cannabis use contributes to chronic liver disease, and you have yet to provide any. And cannabis is clearly safer than commonly prescribed, OTC medicine, let alone prescription drugs that have known side effects. I've asked User:Alfie66 to comment as a professional drug researcher who has worked with cannabis in the lab. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how are you allowed to question my sourced claims, yet you provide no evidence for yours that OTC drugs are significantly safer than cannabis? Just in case you have a problem with that one source, how about this one [34]? There IS evidence that cannabis is harmful, you're just choosing to ignore it. I welcome comments from Alfie66 on this matter. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  16:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks. I'm not sure whether you are montoring my talk page. I'll be back from the conference by next Thursday. In the meantime, does anybody know how to move this discussion to Talk:Medical_cannabis? I would reckon that would be a better harbour. →Alfie^±Talk 20:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

In that line after fast reading the article I am still not sure what the cause for rejection is. The only thing in the article that comes close to describing the only personal experience I have ever had with a person who was smoking marijuana is mood change. They seemed to go from being neighborly and friendly to threatening within almost the same sentence. Not the kind of relationship I want to have. Is this the general negative, turn off experience or is there something else? 71.100.0.29 (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes in behavior are typical of any psychoactive drug use, including periods of euphoria and depression. This is more pronounced with heavy users who are at risk for cannabis dependence. Of course, the person you are talking about might have been suffering from a mood disorder to begin with. Some studies have shown that these users may self medicate, as the cannabis might help them regulate their mood or possibly make it worse. I suspect it depends on the individual. In other words, it might help or hurt. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, hang on, back the truck up. what exactly are you asking? What do you mean "rejection"? Do you specifically mean "Why is it illegal in a lot of countries?" There are a few countries and states where it is not illegal, there are places where it is decriminalized. As with pretty much all drugs, the debate is about benefit vs. risk. Both sides of the debate have valid arguments, it's not a cut and dry issue. The people who argue for the drug to be illegal use the arguments that it is a dangerous drug, has been linked to various adverse health effects, such as psychosis and depression. There's a reason why it's called "dope" it can lead to apathy, can be a gateway drug to other more "hardcore" drugs.. Where it is illegal, these factors and probably others I fail to mention are argued to outweigh any "benefits". We also have an article specifically about Effects of cannabis which might be useful. Vespine (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly you would consider damage to a legally binding relationship such as abridgment of the obligation to comply with marriage vows due to smoking marijuana to outweigh any benefit such as relaxing at a weekend party? Does marijuana represent a risk to marriage if the wife or husband smoke marijuana at a party and loose all comprehension of their responsibility? While the initial effect may be physiological the end effect is sociological. What I am asking is if this is the reason or one of the reasons why some states still object, reject and outlaw marijuana? 71.100.0.29 (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no "scientific" or "medical" reason for cannabis prohibition. It is primarily a social, political, and religious issue. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well believe it or not social science and political science are sciences which rely upon empirical data and statistical analysis no different than physical science relies on similar empirical measurements to approximate the weight of an electron. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC).

Issues, not science. Read the below. There's a lack of good data. Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There may be a lack of physical effect data but not a lack of social effect data recorded over the past 3,000 years. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, you're kidding. Viriditas (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As most anyone who has been near a university campus in their growing years I had to make a decision as to whether to be a pot head or not. Since I was aware that effect data was the key I decided that was the place to start. I do not need physical effect data to tell me that pot is not good for society and not good for me. However, it would be a waste of time to try and persuade anyone who has not looked at the social effect data not to use pot themselves. Each of us has to make our own decision and live in a cloud of smoke or carry a bit of responsibility. I chose the latter. I hope that you did too. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Responsibility requires making informed choices based on facts. Booth's Cannabis: A History, Pollan's Botany of Desire, and the culural history related to cannabis are at odds with your assessment. Willful ignorance is irresponsible and unethical. Viriditas (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Facts are important but the hallmark of informed choice does not exclude the other side of the argument and/or metaphor. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. Appealing to "social effect data recorded over the past 3,000 years" is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. Viriditas (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

How about the serious risk of injury to the public from devices with safety flaws that have found their way to market through companies who hired the engineers that designed the devices who are on crack and pot? 71.100.0.29 (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

How about the serious risk of injury to the public from rampant greed and political corruption? Surely, you must remember the Chinese protein adulteration scandal, the 2007 pet food recalls, the 2007 Chinese export recalls, the 2008 Chinese milk scandal, the 2008 Chinese export recalls, and the 2008 Chinese heparin adulteration? It might be time to reevaluate your priorities. Need I say that cannabis was not involved in any of the above? Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

←

How about the serious risk of injury to the public from crazy lunatics who get high on pot and start shooting cops while in a state of reefer madness? 67.170.215.166 (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Should be ban hydroxyethane? Many innocent bystanders are killed every year because some people attempt to operate heavy machinery when their reactions are dulled under its influence. 62.56.65.189 (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Greed and ambition are natural and healthy phenomenon which can not be adequately regulated by legislators or politicians or bureaucrats or protesters or law enforcement who are on opium, alcohol, crack or pot. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You've changed the parameters of your query three times now. This is an anonymous forum and no one is going to judge you based on the question you ask. Well they might but you can safely ignore them if you want. I suggest you think about specifically what you are trying to ask and just ask it, you are much more likely to get a straight answer then if you try to circle around the issue. Vespine (talk) 04:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line is that if THC, cannabis and marijuana are already legal for medical use then what is the problem [ for drug dealers ] unless now the dealers and recreational users want to use it [ legally ] too because they consider the need to relax or to make money just as legitimate a reason as medical. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do some research on the topic before making comments like this. The so-called "dealers" are vocally against legalization and are one of the strongest opponents. California newspapers have covered this in detail. When you legalize something, you eliminate the black market, and prices go down. Follow the money. Who benefits? Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I said unless. Legalization for medical use presents a whole new opportunity for abuse of the legal system by giving non-medical users and drug dealers an excuse that will assure even greater black market sales and profit from non-medical use on the grounds that their needs are just as deserving but not recognized although profit from drug tourists has proven that legalization might increase profit by increasing the volume of users. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The opposite is true. This is not a criminal justice issue but one of public health. Throwing drug addicts in prison only makes them more addicted to drugs and burdens the prison system. Your ideas have been tried, and for forty years they failed miserably in the U.S., only increasing the profits of the black market and ruining countless lives. Your ideas don't work and society as a whole has decided it's time for a new approach. Experts acknowledge that the act of altering ones consciousness is not only a fundamental human right (cognitive liberty), but a basic human need. Viriditas (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

My ideas? I think not. What's more I said nothing about prison. Were it up to me I would simply fine them to help fund enforcement, revoke their citizenship and then deport them. Altering your consciousness is no problem until or unless it interferes with your legal obligations, which to the contrary requires your consciousness not be altered. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

So, you would have tried to remove Ronald Reagan from public office during his presidency, and deported Rush Limbaugh to Costa Rica? Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As a schedule I drug, the US FDA sees no medical benefit to marijuana and doesn't allow any scientific study of its medical efficacy. The lack of scientific studies demonstrating medical efficacy is then used to argue that marijuana should remain a schedule I drug.

To answer the OP's question: no, THC and cannabis are not one and the same. Cannabis has THC, as well as dozens o other compounds that provide synergystic effects that haven't been thoroughly studied. On top of that, I was under the impression that the synthetic THC prescribed by doctors was in pill form. Either way, electronic cigarettes may not offer sufficient temperature control for vaporizing THC. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Cannabis oil is about 80% THC. Anyone cam make an electronic cigarette with a battery and a piece of nichrome wire of the right length and resistance to vaporize most any liquid but that was not the purpose of the question. The purpose was to confirm if the sale of THC for medical use was already legal. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Many pills are 90% inert filler. Percentages of ingredients are not a good indicator of their effect in a medication. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The first result of my search of WebMD is Marijuana - Marijuana Use and Effects of Marijuana, which mentions physiological effects, psychological effects, and risks. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a couple things about that link.

1. "the rates of addiction to pot have risen significantly over that same period" The rates of people being admitted into drug rehabilitation for marijuana has risen. However, because drug court referrals make up the majority (56%) of people in rehab for pot and because drug courts themselves came about in the early 90s, it's easy to see how non-addicts caught with marijuana would prefer treatment over prison time.
2. "marijuana is addictive, at least psychologically" Part of the measurement of addiction (per the image in our article on substance use disorder) is "social effects" but marijuana's illegality is part of that social effect. Does this mean that legalized cannabis would be less addictive because there would be fewer social repercussions for using it? Also, many things can be psychologically addicting (work, chocolate, Wikipedia).
3. "The jury is still out on [the gateway theory]" Actually, the gateway hypothesis was refuted over 11 years ago in "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," (specifically page 99).

WebMD is probably reliable on other things, but it seems to have a few facts wrong about cannabis. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Edit: The following section copied from the reference-desk/science archive. →Alfie^±Talk 08:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Mr./Ms. Greek, there's been an article in the New Times (a publication by Voices United) that corroborates the increase in the addiction rate to marijuana, as well as the fact that today's marijuana is much more addictive than it used to be because of its much higher THC concentration (over 10% currently vs. 3% when pot smoking first became popular). The WebMD website is not wrong on these points, your evaluation is. 67.170.215.166 (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Although strictly we're on the same side of this discussion, I'd prefer to see these statistics in a peer-reviewed journal than in a small-press newspaper. Newspapers aren't renounced for scientific accuracy. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  01:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Another falsehood about marijuana. The potency of THC in marijuana varies considerably from what season it is cultivated, the climate it grows in, and how it's prepared when it's harvested. Even if Drug War reports about Marijuana's increased potency were true (which I doubt) I don't see how this makes marijuana more addictive or dangerous. Does that mean that pure THC pills are even more addictive? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but 1 note of caution regarding the THC pills: "Marinol" has 4 deaths directly linked to it's use since 1985, whereas Cannabis in it's natural form has not one. See middle of page - [35] (a specific case - [36])

As for the argument regarding the use of cannabis and lung cancer, Dr Donald Tashkin researched for 30 years looking for the certain link, and found there was no association between smoked marijuana and cancer. [37]72.213.22.87 (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Don't take it personally, but you are not telling something new. See the respective section of the MC article. ;-) →Alfie^±Talk 12:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I was addressing 2 issues that were brought up in the above conversation. That Marinol can be deadly is not in the article, and may be news to some. 72.213.22.87 (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

To Anon/IP Users and Newcomers, and more re Lung Cancer

(1) Speaking as an individual, I would be *most extremely grateful* if IP/Anonymous editors would consider creating a named account, and use it to post here. I don't intend the least personal imputation to any current contributor, but regular readers and contributors to this article have spent absolutely HUGE amounts of time in the past six to twelve months dealing with unscrupulous users who've employed IP/Anon accounts to "tag-team" and "sock-puppet" this article, to sway it to their own particular point of view. It's just so much easier to have confidence in an editor or discussion contributor if he or she is editing from a named-account. It's not required at all by Wikipedia, but I would offer my *very* sincere gratitude if you anon/IP posters would honor this request and adhere to it every time you contribute here.

(2) Also, please don't take disagreement or the rebuttal of any of your statements as any kind of personal affront, especially when that rebuttal is supported by reliable-source references. Preferably just follow and examine those references with an open mind. ( E.g., see expanded mention of very surprising, even counter-intuitive recent research results concerning the effects of cannabis smoke upon incidence of lung cancer that follows after these numbered points.)

(3) Discussion here can sometimes appear as unnecessarily contentious, but my experience has been that the actual information content of most editors' comments has usually been outstanding. I know it can be very difficult, but it'd be best for the article if we can all try to ignore any contentious remarks and focus instead on just the substantive information content that may be present.

Now a brief fyi about the lung cancer question: I'd like to say that I, too, have been astounded to discover the seemingly sound research by bonafide experts showing that cannabis smoke does not cause lung cancer among non-tobacco smokers at all. ( see, for example, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006 Oct;15(10):1829-34. PMID 17035389 ) My general recollection is that cannabis smoke is a very serious hazard when used by tobacco smokers, however, in that it has - as I recall - been recently reported elsewhere that tobacco smokers increase their already-high risk of lung cancer by as much as 300% when they also smoke cannabis in addition to their usual tobacco. Ohiostandard (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The following applies to a variety of oral cancer, rather than to lung cancer, directly. But perhaps any protective affect that smoked cannabis confers with respect to lungs operates similarly?

According to research at the University of New York, THC inhibits cellular respiration of human oral cancer cells. The scientists noted that their "results show that cannabinoids are potent inhibitors of Tu183 cellular respiration and are toxic to this highly malignant tumor." (Source: Whyte DA, et al. Pharmacology 2010;85(6):328-335.) Abstract here.

I wouldn't want to introduce this into the article since it's a new result from a single in vitro study. But perhaps it will be useful to people who have found it hard to accept the possibility that smoking cannabis might reduce the incidence of lung cancer among people who don't use tobacco. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Recentism tag

On 13 March 2010 SandyGeorgia added a WP:recentism tag to the "Recent studies" section of the article, and also improved a reference to a paper about the treatment of muscle spasticity in MS. I could find no corresponding talk page entry about the edit, but I'm guessing that part of the motivation for placing the tag may have come from the Dec, 2009 date of the spasticity article that had come to her or his attention. I note, however, that the paper was a literature review, and that (naturally) the studies it cites are considerably older; e.g. from up to ten years ago. The article is a little awkward in the compartmentalized or "choppy" way its presents the timeline of the research it includes (we've talked about that at some length, previously) and we all seem to be agreed that we'd like to see a somewhat more rigorous standard for inclusion of results, or at least a better classification scheme for the results that are reported. But recentism doesn't seem to me to be a special problem for this article, so I've removed the tag, something an anon/IP editor had also done previously. Feel free to revert and discuss. Ohiostandard (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

PLease see WP:MEDRS; a good deal of the content here is primary studies and recentism, and needs to be replaced with peer reviewed studies, according due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That's why the section is titled "Recent studies". That's absurd. Mjpresson (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Which have no place on Wiki: please see WP:NOT and WP:RECENTISM if you still don't understand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SandyGeorgia for the reminder about what constitutes a reliable source in this context. I'll just observe that every paper published in a legitimate scientific journal is peer reviewed. But if you meant that secondary sources ( so-called "literature review" papers ) need more weight in the article, and that the primary-source research papers it cites should be scrutinized for compliance with wp:medrs, then I certainly agree with you.

I probably should have mentioned above that people here really liked the idea, discussed last December, of using an updated structure like the "Hierarchy of Therapeutic Effects" ranking scheme presented by Grotenhermen & Russo in 2002. Introducing such a structure into the article, and populating it according to consensus would take a lot of work, though, which is probably why it hasn't been done yet. But I think that's probably going to end up being our best long-term solution to the problem you called attention to with the recentism tag, along with more careful attention to wp:medrs.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

multiple problems within sentence

The following sentence is not supported by its citation. "Nevertheless, the memorandum is seen by some United States commentators to be the first step in which President Obama's Administration may come good on its pre-election promise to address the issue of medical marijuana in federal policymaking." Dallas News, Editorial: Feds make right call on medical marijuana, October 23, 2009. Further, its use of the words, "some," and "may" make it a weak statement. Lastly, there is no evidence that the Obama Administration ever made such a promise. The sentence should go. If it reappears, it needs a cite that backs it up. Petergkeyes (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved new section to end of the page. →Alfie^±Talk 22:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is this section separate from the page on cannabis?

The therapeutic effects of cannabis cited on this page result from its physical composition. That composition is constant; it doesn't vary with social opinion. There's no such thing as "medical cannabis." There's just cannabis. Chompy12345 (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the article should be titled Medical Uses of Cannabis. The articles should be split because of the size and breadth of the topic. I just suggested in the Cannabis discussion that the medical uses section for Cannabis should be pared down to its absolute minimum and redirect to this article.Geodanny (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"There's no such thing as medical cannabis", Chompy12345? Sure there is, you've just tripped yourself up on two problems of semantics:

• In your first two sentences, Chompy, you're talking about a physical substance, and you're perfectly right in what you say. But in your third sentence you switch to talking about a "thing", saying there's no such thing as medical cannabis, and that doesn't follow, because "thing" is a broader idea than "substance".

• Also, you're ignoring a concept called "role naming". If you google that you'll see that all the highly-rated hits you get will have to do with creating names for data elements in a database design, but that's just because so much stuff about database gets put on the internet. Role naming is ubiquitous in natural language, as well.

The first error is pretty self-evident; the easiest way to illustrate the second error is to consider a related example. Let's choose the phrase spending-money, as in the sentence, "How much spending-money do you have?". Now "spending-money" isn't a different substance from "money", it's just money that's intended to be used in a particular way. It's not a different substance but it is a different thing, and it would be absurd to say, "There's no such thing as spending-money."

Likewise with "medical cannabis". The adjective "medical" doesn't apply to the substance itself, but to the way that substance is used: under medical authority to address a legitimate healthcare need. The substance is named for the role in which it is used. We do role-naming all the time in English without even thinking about it, and it's perfectly legitimate to do so.

I'm not trying to pick on you (or anyone else) and I'm not just being fussy: these may seem like very small errors, and they are quite subtle ones, but they nevertheless introduce a huge amount of confusion into the move-request discussion that follows below. These two errors introduce so much confusion, in fact, that if they hadn't been made it's very unlikely any move request would have been made, either. All that said, welcome to Wikipedia! :-) Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Putting this in the Cannabis article would definitely confuse people searching online. Imagine you search for medical cannabis in Google and get a link to a cannabis article hundreds of words long before you ever get to the medical section. Sounds pretty lame. Smart people can be real wrong, lets not make that mistake here. Medical Cannabis is the term people search, it is the term they expect, changing it because of semantics won't help anyone in the end. --Michael Latulippe (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Article organization

I think this article needs some tidying up and better organization. History should go above modern treatments, compounds, and organizational support. Clinical applications and Recent studies appear to be one and the same as the first is a list of the ailments that can be treated with cannabis and the second a list of recent research relating to those same ailments. With regard to ailments and research, the list actually link off to the specific ailments' articles sections that discuss cannabis as a treatment and recent research. That way only one set of updates needs to be done with new research or to correct mistakes. For example, Glaucoma will link to: Glaucoma#Compounds_in_research. Geodanny (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you read the archives you'll see that everyone involved with this article recognizes its structural problems. We've even developed a pretty strong consensus about how to best address these problems - please see the first and last paragraphs of the "Recentism tag" section on this talk page for a partial summary. The difficulty is that it will be a very significant undertaking to implement the needed changes well and in a way that won't set off a firestorm of acrimony and reversions. This article is a very contoversial one, after all, and regular contributors can attest that previous changes have occasioned quite a lot of drama and strife in the past. (Again, see archives.) The problems you mention need to be addressed, along with others, of course, but it's an unfortunately slow process involving a lot of compromise to improve very controversial articles in a way that will stick. If the article were about some less controversial subject these problems would have been corrected long ago, but I'm confident they will be resolved eventually. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with moving history above modern treatments. Why would we want to talk about uses for it 2 k years ago when people use it now for ailments on a daily basis in two of the largest US cities, San Francisco and Los Angeles? If anything information about its modern uses should be front and center because people coming to this article will want something relevant to them. If we have someone suffering from AIDS wasting syndrome and they want to find out about medical cannabis, would we want treatments thousands of years ago when AIDS didn't even exist to be front and center in the article?

The article should be driven for those who are seeking information about medical cannabis today not the past usage. Reality is some people may die without the information, it is an important article as human life is involved. It should be designed for the modern person looking for information on its uses, benefits, how to get it, and possible side effects. This I think would make it more usable and friendly to the people viewing it. --Michael Latulippe (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Medicinal compounds section

Which of the 66 known phytocannabinoids should be included and described as "medicinal" in this section? Until recently, we had only three: cannabidiol, beta-caryophyllene, and cannabigerol. In the last couple of days cannabinol was added. Some bumps in that process have left the section internally inconsistent in that only the first three are currently mentioned in the section intro and depicted as to their structural form. My first impression is that there might be some reasonable basis for singling-out cannabinol as "medicinal" from among the other 60+ cannabinoids, e.g. this abstract, which begins, "Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabinol and cannabidiol are three important natural cannabinoids from the Marijuana plant". ( Now that I think of it, how on earth did we leave delta9-THC out of the section!? )

No value-judgment implied as to whether cannabinol should be included, but the present inconsistency is a little troubling, and my normal inclination would be to revert without prejudice just to avoid that. Another user already reverted once, though, (that didn't stick) and I want to be welcoming to the relative newcomer who added cannabinol. So I'm going to leave it alone for now. But can we get some discussion, please, about which phytocannabinoids should and shouldn't be in the section? Thanks, Ohiostandard (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that user Mindovermatter77 has done a really nice job fixing two of the problems mentioned above: THC was added to the section, and its intro paragraph and the structural diagrams were brought into sync with the list of cannabinoids that are now included as being "medicinal". So where does that leave us now? Well ... see the following. Ohiostandard (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

collapsing "Discussion of candidates for inclusion in article's medicinal compounds section."

So where are we now with this section? Well, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) needs to stay in the section, obviously, as does cannabidiol (CBD) since it has well-documented health affects and constitutes "up to 40%" of the cannabinoid-content of raw cannabis. I'd say that cannabinol (CBN) should stay in, too, that it also deserves to be singled-out as a particularly "medicinal" constituent of cannabis by inclusion in this section. I base that opinion on the observation that so many papers treat cannabinol (CBN) as one of the big three cannabinoids (my phrase) present in raw cannabis, along with THC and cannabidiol (CBD). See, for example here, here, and here. Naturally there are more-inclusive, more-comprehensive views as to which are the most medicinally-important cannabinoids. This Belgian paper is one example. Perhaps more inclusive/comprehensive because more recent, btw? In addition to the aforementioned "big three", the Belgian paper also names cannabigerol (CBG) in its list of the "major ... cannabinoids present in cannabis plant material", so perhaps it (CBG) needs to stay in, too. ( Full Disclosure: for reasons I don't understand, the Belgian paper also calls out the acids of CBG, THC, CBD, viz. CBGA, THCA, and CBDA, as "major", and Delta8-THC, too. Echoing so fine - to a layman's eye - a distinction in our article here might be too exacting for a general-audience encyclopedia, though. ) I'm sure there must be other papers that also consider cannabigerol (CBG) to be an "important" or "major" cannabinoid for medicinal purposes, although I've not seen any. My search of PubMed for just the single word "cannabigerol" returned only 37 hits ( as compared to 813 hits for the word "cannabidiol". ) I suppose this comparatively low number of hits could be used to argue against calling out cannabigerol (CBG) as an especially "medicinal" compound from among the more than 60 candidate cannabinoids by including it in our article's "medicinal compounds" section. I don't feel very strongly one way or the other, though. So what do other editors want to do? Keep cannabigerol (CBG) in because we know it has beneficial medicinal affects, even if they might not be so very broadly documented? Finally, beta-caryophyllene is certainly an interesting component of cannabis. It's the first active component of cannabis that's been found to occur naturally in the foods and spices we eat, and it's approved as a food additive by the United States Food and Drug Administration. Further, a PubMed search I performed for the single word "caryophyllene" returned 654 results, and it does seem to have "medicinal" properties, so I imagine other editors will want to keep it in the section, as well? As regards beta-caryophyllene, btw, the mention that it constitutes "12 – 35%" of cannabis flower essential oil is true, but perhaps a little misleading in this context. Extracting components of raw cannabis through the process of steam-distillation that's used to make the essential oil leaves behind a lot of the cannabinoids; e.g. the process doesn't extract THC, nor cannabidiol (CBD) either, as I understand it. There's little to none of those two major cannabinoids in the essential oil that's extracted by steam-distillation, in other words, and the percentage of beta-caryophyllene ( which substance is extracted by the process ) that's found in the result is thus inflated by their absence. I do have some small concern that many of the remaining 61 known cannabinoids, or some of the many other components of cannabis, could eventually be shown to have medicinal properties as well, and that this "medicinal compounds" section would then necessarily become crowded. But my opinion is that we can live with calling out each of these five cannabinoids as "medicinal", at least for now. Does anyone disagree? Cheers, Ohiostandard (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC) There are 80 known cannabinoids at last count 174.74.2.72 (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC) I added the above comments in "collapsed mode" to avoid using up so much space on this talk page, but any user who disapproves of that formatting decision should feel free to remove this line, along with the "collapse" tags.Ohiostandard (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This might come in handy for you? [[38]] 72.198.208.7 (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No, this is not a proper reference. Do you have any idea where this graph originates from? →Alfie^±Talk 14:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The graph comes from: Non-psychotropic plant cannabinoids: new therapeutic opportunities form an ancient herb [[39]] 174.74.2.72 (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that; it looks like a really valuable reference. The PubMed abstract for it includes mention of a subsequent error correction, btw; see PMID 19729208. Also, I was relying on a January 2010 article (PMID 20078688) for my "66 known cannabinoids", viz. "Marijuana and hashish consist of at least 66 distinctive plant-derived (phyto-) cannabinoid compounds..." If I had to guess, however, I'd say that I suspect that the paper you've provided, now published, with its mention of "about 80" phytocannabinoids probably gives the more accurate number. Although I don't have convenient online access to the journal to see the correction, it seems improbable that it applies to the number of phytocannabinoids reported. Finally, the paper you've provided suggests we might do well to include cannabichromene (CBC) as well, in that it's reported to produce analgesic, anti-inflammatory, anti-microbial, anti-proliferative (with respect to cancer cells, I presume?) effects, and to stimulate the growth of bone. Does anyone wish to comment on its possible inclusion?  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

( I don't recall the reference, and wasn't able to locate it again with ten minutes searching, but a short time ago I saw a PubMed abstract for a late 2009 or early 2010 paper that mentions the likely existence of approximately 100 phytocannabinoids, i.e. 100 cannabinoids that occur naturally in cannabis. If I can find it subsequently, I'll add a link here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC) )

Requested move

Some users may dispute the validity of these !votes, as they are made by anonymous and/or newly registered users and therefore may be sockpuppet !votes. See Wikipedia:Sock puppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viriditas (talk • contribs)

Other users will reject any notion of vote-stacking when they observe that the only new account among the six !votes made so far belongs to a real person of the same name as the account he created, and that Viriditas does not accuse any of the remaining five !voters of any connection to that new account.  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move page, per discussion below. - GTBacchus^(talk) 06:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Medical cannabis → Medical use of cannabis — "Medical cannabis" is the item but the article is about its use. -- | Relisting billinghurst sDrewth 16:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)|Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support, and also support corresponding changes in the wording of the article. Most of the lead paragraph, for example, becomes superfluous after the rename. Alternatively, the article could be even more extensively rewritten to be about the pharmaceutical itself rather than medical usage in general, but the neatest solution is the proposed rename. Andrewa (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support neutral The organization should be changed as well -- refer to my post immediately above this one. Geodanny (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree with OhioStandard but am withdrawing my vote. The term commonly used is "Medical Marijuana" and not "Medical Cannabis." I have yet to see a news source, whether U.S. or U.K. use the term medical cannabis. The few research articles I looked at linked in the article refer to marijuana or cannabinoids, so I'm not sure how common it really is the term used in reliable sources as required by Wikipedia: Article Titles. That said, this is not a fight I presently want to have a stake in.Geodanny (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Makes sense to me.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

After reading User:Ohiostandard point of view on it I'll change my vote to oppose. Medical cannabis does seem more of a household name.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that if a move took place a redirect will be left behind. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Housekeeping. If this proposal were to be approved, then Medical cannabis in the United States would need a corresponding move as well.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment and request. I respectfully disagree with the definitions used above: @Alan: Cannabis is "the item", not medical cannabis. The latter just denotes the use of the former for medical purposes. @Andrew: "The pharmaceutical itself" is simply cannabis, and we already have an article for it. Request: This proposal seems to me to be based on several confused assumptions, and I doubt it would have been initiated or supported if those assumptions hadn't been made and accepted first. Would all parties to this discussion please look at the section above that got this ball rolling in the first place, and read the reply to Chompy12345 that I made there? The section is entitled "Why is This Section Separate ...?" Thanks.  – ( This entry consolidates comments I entered here on 06:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC). Refactor in response to "clutter" observation from Viriditas at my talk page.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC) )

• Oppose. The applicable policy says an article's name should be the most common one used in reliable sources. So that puts the debate between "Medical marijuana" and "Medical cannabis"; either would work, depending on whether you want to favor lay sources or scientific ones, respectively. The policy also recommends the so-called "search engine test", and that's likewise relevant here. The numbers depend on exactly how you search, but "medical marijuana" and "medical cannabis" ( in quotes ) get around 5,000,000 and 500,000 Google hits, respectively, while "medical use of cannabis" gets only about 200,000 hits, of which the vast majority probably use the phrase only as an in-line description, rather than as the actual name for the subject.

And while it's true that in entirely literal terms there's no such substance as "medical cannabis" distinct from just "cannabis", that doesn't imply that the phrase lacks meaning or value. On the contrary, "medical cannabis" ( or "medical marijuana", in lay sources ) has become standard usage precisely because of the meaning and value it provides. The phrase has become standard because people need words that enable them to sharply differentiate between the legitimate medical use of the substance and the recreational or drug-culture use with which the substance was historically identified. Journalists, for example, don't want to describe 70 year old chemotherapy patients as "marijuana users", even though it would be literally true to say so of many of them. So journalists use the leading word "medical", and it makes a huge difference in what's being communicated. It's concise, and it avoids tainting physician-authorized patients with any implication of drug abuse. This is an important distinction that should be preserved in Wikipedia. We also need to stick to policy on this by using the ordinary, standard designation of the topic that appears in reliable sources.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirects will be used from the common usages that will lead to the proposed target page. I want to have a descriptive title that describes the contents of the article. The policy mentioned does allow for deviation from common usage if an article title is inaccurate. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree With Move. This is a question of semantics and medical cannabis makes much more sense here. That is the keyword people search for in Google etc. The article has improved much since I started viewing it in 2007, and I feel this move is just a way to divert from its completion. Totally think this article should remain medical cannabis. --Michael Latulippe (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC) — Michaellatulippe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, it is a question of semantics and I feel that that it is important for an encyclopedia. As a descriptive title it must be accurate. As that initiator of the move proposal it is in no way a ploy to prevent its completion. As a supporter of medical cannabis that is the last thing that I would want. Note that both the current and proposed terms come up as the first google hit for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Liefting (talk • contribs) 20:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, I think you just reinforced the point that you're arguing against. You just used the most common name for this subject, rather than the description you'd have us use instead. You said you are a "supporter of medical cannabis", not a "supporter of the medical use of cannabis." Our readers likewise use the name rather than any more-strictly-accurate description to discuss this subject, and I don't think we should try to make them do otherwise.

Re the search engine comments you make, you're correct that as of today's date, google (and bing, btw) return our article as the #1 hit when searching for your proposed new title. Yahoo doesn't, however. If we were to go with "Medical use of cannabis" this article would move from #1 to #3 in yahoo results. That's not such a big deal in itself, but it would put us behind two pleasant but non-encyclopedic articles from www.schmoo.co.uk, one of which carries the title "Useing (sic) Medical Cannabis", while the other presents only a single paper's results, without citing its source or even providing its title. But this is a bit of a red-herring: the purpose of the so-called "search engine test" as per Wikipedia:Use common names is to determine the name for the subject that's in most common use in reliable sources. The favorable placement on search engine results that follows from using that most common name as an article's title is just a secondary, derivative benefit of the policy.

More about this wanting a "descriptive title" thing: I agree that "Medical use of cannabis" is a better description, but it's not a better title, imo. I'm not aware that article titles are supposed to be the most accurate description possible; as I understand the policy. Rather, they're supposed to be the most common name for the subject of the article as per reliable sources. Besides, when you move away from a common name, you change the meaning and allowable/appropriate focus of an article. Analogy may help clarify: consider a possible move of an article entitled "Spending-money" to the title "Use of money for spending". Or if you don't like that one, consider an article entitled with the role-name "Industrial lubricants". It would have its scope and purpose changed if it were moved to the more descriptively accurate "Use of lubricants in industry". Query: who could then convincingly object if an editor insisted on including information in such a renamed article about the use of lubricants in the sex industry?

Sure, that's funny, but both examples illustrate the trouble: changing an article's title away from the name of the subject that's most common in reliable-source usage also changes the scope and purpose of the article. For instance, your proposed change would quietly shift the meaning of the article to exclude any significant mention of Sativex, Marinol, etc. Now maybe such an exclusion would be a good thing and maybe it wouldn't, but I think that's a question we should talk about very directly, rather than allowing the decision to be swept up in a name change, essentially without explicit discussion.

Now that I think more about this, it occurs to me that "Medical use of cannabis" is actually a good category name, but not a good article name. I expect that's why we already have a very similarly-named category, Category:Medicinal use of cannabis. Btw, Alan, don't interpret my disagreement as any sort of personal reflection; I value your contributions, despite disagreeing with you on this particular point. I still think we need to stick to policy on this, don't see the basis for an exception to it, but I hope you'll stick around and help improve the article after this discussion closes, regardless of which way the consensus ultimately goes.  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Colorado dispensary arrest

In this edit user Newross deleted an improperly-sourced mention of the February 2010 DEA arrest at a Colorado dispensary/grow operation. I found a reliable source for the claim, but I'm not going to reinstate it because I don't consider the single raid important-enough to include in this already too-long article even though it was contrary to Obama's stated policy directive. Anyone who thinks otherwise, though, should feel free to revert Newross' deletion and source the claim properly; e.g. from this Denver Post story. Also, editors might like to read what the DEA supervisor who authorized the raid had to say about it, and about its media coverage, at this (non-RS) blog report.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There's too much detailed information about this kind of thing in the article. Links to subpages are fine and encouraged, but we don't need to go into this kind of detail here. Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted this edit by WP:Single-purpose account Stewart52ab:

• 03:33, 26 February 2010 Stewart52ab (talk | contribs) (→United States: Added news of event that appears to defy Obama's pledge not to raid and arrest medical marijuana patients and care-givers.)

  Despite the Ogden memorandum, DEA agent Jeffrey Sweetin ordered the raid and arrest of Chris Bartkowicz, a Colorado licensed medical marijuana care-giver, on February 12, 2010.^{gnostradamus (February 15, 2010). DEA ignores Obama, busts med. pot grower, DOJ complaint filed. dailykos.com}

• 22:24, 19 July 2010 Newross (talk | contribs) (→United States: revert inaccurate and misleading 26 February 2010 WP:NPOV violation by Stewart52ab; blog entry by "gnostradamus" is not a WP:RS)

because:

1. A pseudonymous blog post by "gnostradamus" at dailykos.com is not a WP:Reliable source.
2. The arrest of Chris Bartkowicz is not significant enough to include in this article—nor is Bartkowicz notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia biography—which didn’t stop WP:Single-purpose account Ubuntu12z from creating at 20:21, 17 February 2010 a WP:Coatrack "biography" of Chris Bartkowicz—with no biographical information about Bartkowicz—to use as a WP:SOAPBOX for Ubuntu12z's personal opinions (all content and "sources" in the Chris Bartkowicz article were added by Ubuntu12z—with only light copyediting by Ttonyb1 and one copyedit by 95.83.194.82).

   Christopher Bartkowicz is a 36-year-old convicted felon[40] [41][42] and medical marijuana user (for scoliosis following an automobile accident), who was found growing 224 marijuana plants—three times the number allowed by Colorado state law for the twelve "marijuana care-giver certificates," he possessed—in his $637,000 five-bedroom house at 2006 Glenhaven Drive[43] in a wealthy Highlands Ranch, Colorado residential neighborhood—500 feet from a playground at Sand Creek Elementary School—when he was arrested the day after he was featured in a KUSA-TV 9News.com video bragging about his plans to make $400,000 in profit from marijuana sales this year and showing off the jungle of electrical wires and water hoses snaking from room to room in his house and his 2-month electrical bill of $3,694.92.[44]

3. The February 13, 2010 Denver Post article by John Ingold, Owner who bragged of large medical-pot operation jailed in DEA raid, does not say that the DEA raid "was contrary to Obama's stated directive" because the February 12, 2010 DEA raid on a convicted felon's large, for-profit marijuana growing operation (not a "medical marijuana dispensary") in a residential house very close to an elementary school was not "contrary to Obama's stated policy directive"—please read:

   * Office of Public Affairs (October 19, 2009). Attorney General announces formal medical marijuana guidelines. U.S. Department of Justice.
   * Ogden, David W. (October 19, 2009). Memorandum for selected United States Attorneys: Investigations and prosecutions in states authorizing the medical use of marijuana. U.S. Department of Justice.

Newross (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I can't recall a time in recent memory when I've been corrected so definitively and have had occasion to appreciate it so greatly. Your deletion must stand, no question. I wonder if you've considered adding this information to the article about Chris Bartkowicz? Also, let me just say that I'd be very pleased if you'd consider helping out here from time to time if you have any interest in the health sciences at all, or in the social/political/legal issues surrounding medical cannabis. We could certainly use more editors of your high caliber here. Most cordial thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's my opinion that Newross' reply makes this thread "a done deal". I wouldn't like to see our 45-day "algo" (roll-off to archive automatically) MiszaBot parameter changed, but if we find we need space, and no one objects here in the next couple of weeks, I think this thread would be a good candidate for a manual archive at that time.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That info is more approp in Medical cannabis in the United States. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

New image request: showing modern use

The front image on this article is not only in a form (tincture) most people don't use today, it is from 100 years ago and on the verge of irrelevant. We probably should show a modern cannabis dispensary in operation. Anyone agree, and if you don't please explain why the image of a 100 year old tincture is relevant to medical cannabis users or potential users today. Wouldn't that be better off in the history section? Can't wait for comments :). --Michael Latulippe (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That is not correct. Tinctures are widely available in dispensaries in Canada and the United States, and have been for a long time now. Further discussion can be found in the archives. I'm not against a mosaic image, but I would encourage efforts focused towards the improvement of this article rather than an obsession with the lead image. Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Tinctures are available, but why one that is 100 years old? Doesn't improvement of the article include making it relevant to users of the page? --Michael Latulippe (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Take a moment to think about the question. An old image of a cannabis tincture is historically notable, and demonstrates that this topic is not new, but was used as medicine and was socially acceptable as a legal pharmaceutical drug, hence it meets the requirements of "medical cannabis". Viriditas (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree Viriditas that it is relevant in the article, but may be better suited in the historical section. --Michael Latulippe (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? I'm willing to compromise with a mosaic image, like the kind you see used in the ethnicity articles. What are you willing to compromise? Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally willing to compromise, can you please post a link to an article you think has a good example of a mosaic image? --Michael Latulippe (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A good example? I don't think there is any such thing. A mosaic image is just my way of saying that you can use more than one image in the lead, like we do in ethnicity articles. There really isn't a good or bad example. Look, I think this obsession with the lead image is continuing to distract us from improving the article. If you make some good improvements to the article, I'll consider some images you have in mind. Viriditas (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Your consideration is welcome news to my ears. My hope is any improvements I make are thoroughly vetted by you and others before finalization. In my humble opinion, the lead image is a way to improve the article, especially for more visual learners. The mosaic sounds like a great idea. I am a little concerned that we wouldn't add a mosaic because it improves the usability of the article, but only because I have proven myself to you in edits.

You won't find me changing any images until its approved, thats not my style. I don't even know how to make a mosaic yet, as I am a new user. Thanks for your input here. Anyone else have any thoughts on changing the image to a mosaic? --Michael Latulippe (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion. You are welcome to review it and report back with your findings. You'll find it in the archives. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Found it, but it was never resolved. The mosaic idea sounds like a great idea and a compromise that should have been reached before. Are you against the mosaic idea you suggested now? --Michael Latulippe (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Good summary. Yes, "unresolved" just about covers it, and yes, we should have agreed to a mosaic before, but the socks and IP's were getting out of hand. I am not against the mosaic idea, but I think it's more important to focus on improving the content. If you want to setup a demo in your user space that would be fine. I'll create User:Michaellatulippe/Medical cannabis and you can play around with different images if you like. Viriditas (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, and I do intend to help with some content as well. I am going to look into setting up the demo space. From a Web usability perspective, the image can be important in a variety of ways including relevance. We will all come to an agreement, and there will be no image changing until you agree. Will work on this next week. Expect updates soon as well as some possible content suggestions. --Michael Latulippe (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposing a new section on research

I would like to propose a new sub section for the wikipedia page Medical Marijuana. My topic is something that has very little information accessible to the public. It is medical marijuana research and the legality, morality, and funding issues that surround medical marijuana. No one really goes into depth the extensive research that goes into medical marijuana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.26.213.198 (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well – remember WP:NOR (as I did with my unpublished results). If you have references, post them here. Alfie↑↓© 15:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Looking at the edit history, I've noticed that the past good handful of edits are vandalism edits then reversion of said edits. Because all the vandalism appears to be from IPs, possibly a silverlock is in order? Maybe? lavacano201014 (yell at me here) 17:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, apparently my signature didn't seem to do enough to tell the autosigbot that I signed it. lavacano201014 (yell at me here) 17:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, remember that a bot has got no brain. This edit of yours contained just an external link to your talk-page; wasn't a signature in the eyes of the poor bot. ;-) Alfie↑↓© 21:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Link to forms site

I've added an external link to a non-commercial site, gettheforms.org. That site consists of a page of links to the forms each U.S. state that allows medical cannabis requires to document that a patient is authorized to use the substance. This link was previously added to the article by a single-edit account that I surmise was created by the site's owner. It was then deleted by another user, perhaps for that reason. The site provides a useful resource for this article, however, and I think policy supports its inclusion so long as it remains free of advertising or other objectionable content as time goes by. ( Please see What should be linked, item 3, and Links to be considered, item 3. ) Its url, www.gettheform.org does redirect to http://gettheform.blogspot.com/, btw, and in accord with our policy on redirection I've linked not to www.getttheform.org itself, but to its redirect. Finally, the site's owner is evidently using blogger.com merely as a site design template, and his use of that convenience doesn't automatically make the site "a blog" for purposes of WP:ELNO, point 11. I've tried to be careful here to comply with applicable policy. The only objection I can anticipate is that another editor might prefer the link to be located in-line from the "United States" entry of the article's "National and International Regulations" section. I think it's more appropriate in the "external links" section, myself, but I don't feel strongly about that, and would not object if another editor wished to move it there. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Inline links to external sources should not be used, so that option is out. I believe this link violates WP:NOT, but will wait for other opinions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right about inline links, thanks for pointing that out. As to your other statement, it seems pretty clear to me that WP:External links is the governing policy for the external links section, but I'll bite re your suggestion that WP:NOT could be relevant as well. WP:NOT is a pretty broad brush, though; could you be more specific as to what part of that policy page your objection falls under so other editors could weigh your objection more carefully?  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In this edit of 5 January, 2011, without reply to the request for clarification made above re the "WP:NOT" objection she'd raised, SandyGeorgia removed the external link that was the subject of this discussion section, along with two others, giving the edit summary,

• "Please see WP:NOT and WP:MEDMOS, those links can be added to dmoz, which is the first link here."

Our WP:EL policy was already mentioned above as the governing policy for the external links section, and the repetition of "WP:NOT" in an edit summary, without the requested clarification here, is not an adequate basis for removal of a link that appears to meet the conditions of our EL policy and all other relevant policies.

SandyGeorgia's edit-summary mention of WP:MEDMOS, the Manual of Style for articles related to medicine, appears to refer to the external links policy section of the MEDMOS page. That section, which addresses the possible banishment of external links to the dmoz Open Directory Project, refers to the desirability of doing so only with respect to extended lists of charitable organizations, and thus also provides no support for the removal of this link. These same considerations apply to the removal of the external link to the "rxmarihuana.com" website operated by two faculty of the Harvard Medical School. The recently-added third link, however, that SandyGeorgia removed in her single edit, was to "marijuanadoctors.com", a site that appears not to meet WP:EL standards ( see WP:LINKSTOAVOID ) because it "primarily exist(s) to sell products or services". For these reasons, I've reinstated the first two links that were removed, but not the third and last one, to "marijuanadoctors.com".  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Clear violation of WP:EL. We are not a how-to guide. --John (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The foregoing comment is John's response to this edit, in which I reverted his undiscussed removal of the link to the forms site. I'll need to ask him to be more specific, though; I don't understand what part of WP:EL he finds this link to be a "clear violation" of. Contrary to his assertion, I note that WP:EL policy states that appropriate links include: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due ... amount of detail ... or other reasons." ( As I noted in my first post to this thread, above, the relevant passages from WP:EL seem to me to be What should be linked, item 3, and Links to be considered, item 3. ) This external link provides succinct information about accessibility criteria, and that's clearly relevant to this article. I'd agree with John's "not a how to guide" objection if the information from that site were incorporated into the body of this article, but it's not, and WP:EL appears to support its inclusion, rather than otherwise. Again, I'll need to ask him to be more specific if he wants to use WP:EL to argue against its inclusion.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Does not fulfill "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.", point one. --John (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This objection seems to say that the link would be disallowed if this article were to become a featured article. I don't see that at all; I don't see that the link is in any way incompatible with the criteria for a featured article at all, in other words. On the contrary, point (1)b of the featured article criteria says that a featured article must be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". This link certainly helps meet that criteria; to neglect to provide information about the specifics of accessiblility would be contrary to that criterion.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems then that we disagree on our interpretation of WP:EL and WP:NOT. However the onus is on you to present a consensus that the link is useful. It does not seem that you can currently do that, would you agree? --John (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)