Talk:Medical cannabis/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

It's a Shitty Mess!!!

This article is all over the place! Does this make sense to anybody for it to go from:

Indications > Recent studies > Medical compounds > History > Criticism > Harm reduction > National Availability (Which I don't even know what the hell that's supposed to mean) > Legal status

Oh my god. Who the fuck wrote this?! Anyways, I propose it go to something like this:

Indications > Medical compounds > Legal status > Criticism > History > Harm reduction > "National availability" (Merge with legal status or change to Synthesized cannabinoids or something that makes sense)

Tdinatale (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As with most Wiki articles, who knows how many have contributed to this article, which is indeed a mess! I like your idea. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 07:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

the article isn't a mess because of the order of the sections. it's a mess because most of the reliable sources are animal studies using synthetic cannabinoids, but these sources are being used to make claims for health benefits from humans smoking natural marijuana. you can reorder sections all day long, but you'll only be making superficial improvements.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 08:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes but if you get the order right so that it flows better, and makes sense as one reads paragraph to paragraph.. then it'll become more clear as opposed to having random sections. Tdinatale (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's first put it in a real order first, then we can work on the nitty gritty bad refs stuff. Tdinatale (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I just spent the last hour moving shit around and cleaning up some stuff. Tdinatale (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Chris brings up the reason we are discussing splitting this article (see section above). 72.213.23.110 (talk) 06:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism

This paragraph in the "Criticism" section has been plagiarized:

"There are no FDA-approved medications that are smoked. For one thing, smoking is generally a poor way to deliver medicine. It is difficult to administer safe, regulated dosages of medicines in smoked form. Secondly, the harmful chemicals and carcinogens that are byproducts of smoking create entirely new health problems. There are four times the level of tar in a marijuana cigarette, for example, than in a tobacco cigarette."

Here is the source (which is cited by the person who put this paragraph in) - http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marinol.html The paragraph in question is the 4th bullet down. Sherlock (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up, it was removed. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That should not have been removed. At most, if the text is large enough to warrant it, a note should be added indicating the source. US government documents (including the DOJ's site) are in the public domain. Adding such text to Wikipedia is a bit lazy, but there's nothing wrong with doing so. To quote the specific site you linked to as a source:

**NOTE** Information, including photos, generated by the Drug Enforcement Administration is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published, or otherwise used without the Drug Enforcement Administration's permission. However, citation of the Drug Enforcement Administration as the source of the information or photos is appreciated, as appropriate.

So, as you can see, there was nothing to fix, and the section should be restored. -65.47.145.206 (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Explain some recent edits please

Wow! Lots of editing was recently done to this talk page. This one needs explaining, the reason this section was removed was "archiving", however this page automatically archives after 45 days, as was agreed by the group of editors. Please before removing material from this page, discuss it here, without personal attacks. 68.13.178.225 (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on that archived discussion, I don't see anything to discuss here. If you have questions about how effective cannabis is for "curing" anything, please take it to the reference desk. This space is for discussing how to improve the article. If this isn't making sense to you, feel free to ask questions, and I'll explain it another way. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The material that User:Viriditas archived was not pertinent to development of the article and was therefore maintaining the integrity of the discussion page. Mjpresson (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we leave a note here or (novel idea) leave notes in the editing history? It seems rude to the people who took time to participate in the discussion to just remove their work without saying anything until confronted. Just my opinion. 72.213.22.76 (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

See [WP:TALKO] "you should not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." So yes, this does require further explanation.72.213.22.76 (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the last explanation you should need. You didn't read the entire article, including this part:

• Editing -- or even removing -- others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:
• Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages). Mjpresson (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article.

Mjpresson (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting) Ohiostandard (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There is one other section that was removed which is concerning. Wikipedia is supposed to be about sharing information, and the discussion page is for discussing it amongst the editors. Why be in such a hurry to delete others comments? I would have appreciated at least having the opportunity to to review this section before having to dig it out of the batch of edits. Here is the section... it looks as if this editor took a great deal of time and his/her comments deserve consideration. I wonder how I could be the only person concerned at the speedy deletion and utter lack of discussion about it. The reason posted was "outing" yet, this user has posted all of this information himself here in these talk pages (archived, but I am sure he would not deny it) - which does not qualify as "outing". It looks more like suppression of information - very disconcerting. Now, I could be misunderstanding the endless Wiki rules, in which case I ask for your patience with me.72.213.22.76 (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge your commendable and good-faith intention, 72.213.22.76, in restoring the section, and I thank you for that most sincerely. I also much appreciate your (correct) observation that I spent a great deal of time researching and composing it; despite any appearance to the contrary, I was trying hard to present an admittedly touchy objection in a way that was both sufficiently concise and appropriately respectful. Further, you're perfectly right that the section can't be fairly described as an example of wp:outing, and I'll admit it's hard not to resent continued characterization of it as instancing various of the many categories of bad faith that Wikipedia policies rightly prohibit.

Nevertheless, as the author of the now twice-deleted section, I'd like to ask your patience (and that of other editors) concerning this for a few days. I regret that I don't have time right now to explain at sufficient length why I'm making this request, but I'd prefer that the section not be restored at this point, and that it not be linked to in any subsequent discussion, as well. In fact, I'd actually prefer it if discussion of the creation-reversion-restoration-reversion cycle of (only) the particular section in question, and any discussion of the section itself, actually, could just be suspended altogether for a few days? I guess I'm asking that you would all just trust that I have a sufficient reason for making this somewhat extraordinary request for a few days, and that I'll disclose that properly when I have the time to do so with the attention it deserves. I'd appreciate your forbearance in that, very much. Cheers, Ohiostandard (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not continue to discuss your opinion of Alfie66 on this talk page. This page is only used to discuss improving the topic of medical cannabis. All concerns about Alfie66 should be taken to the user's talk page and/or the appropriate noticeboards. Since this entire section only serves to distract from continued efforts to improve this article, I will be archiving it asap. Thanks for your understanding in this matter. Viriditas (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

ANTI-CANCEROUS, ANTI-PROLIFERATIVE, ANTI-NEOPLASTIC, ANTI-INVASIVE TARGETING EFFECTS OF CANNABINOIDS USED IN A NON-SMOKED FORM TO FIGHT CANCER NEEDS TO BE ELABORATED

From PUBMED, RAN BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. A simple search of "Cannabinoids Anticancer" turns up THESE RESULTS:

1. Novel hexahydrocannabinol analogs as potential anti-cancer agents inhibit cell proliferation and tumor angiogenesis.

Thapa D, Lee JS, Heo SW, Lee YR, Kang KW, Kwak MK, Choi HG, Kim JA. 
Eur J Pharmacol. 2010 Oct 13. [Epub ahead of print] 
PMID: 20950604 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] 
Related citations  

2. Cannabinoids inhibit cellular respiration of human oral cancer cells.

Whyte DA, Al-Hammadi S, Balhaj G, Brown OM, Penefsky HS, Souid AK. 
Pharmacology. 2010;85(6):328-35. Epub 2010 Jun 2. 
PMID: 20516734 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 
Related citations  

3. The dual effects of delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol on cholangiocarcinoma cells: anti-invasion activity at low concentration and apoptosis induction at high concentration.

Leelawat S, Leelawat K, Narong S, Matangkasombut O. 
Cancer Invest. 2010 May;28(4):357-63. 
PMID: 19916793 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 
Related citations  

4. Cannabinoid receptor ligands as potential anticancer agents--high hopes for new therapies?

Oesch S, Gertsch J. 
J Pharm Pharmacol. 2009 Jul;61(7):839-53. Review. 
PMID: 19589225 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 
Related citations  

5. The endocannabinoid anandamide neither impairs in vitro T-cell function nor induces regulatory T-cell generation.

Lissoni P, Tintori A, Fumagalli L, Brivio F, Messina G, Parolini D, Biondi A, Balestra A, D'Amico G. 
Anticancer Res. 2008 Nov-Dec;28(6A):3743-8. 
PMID: 19189659 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 
Related citations  

6. [Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced vomiting and nausea]

Tóth J, Szántó J. 
Magy Onkol. 2008 Dec;52(4):391-4. Review. Hungarian.  
PMID: 19068468 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free Article  
Related citations  

7. Expression and function of the endocannabinoid system in glial cells.

Massi P, Valenti M, Bolognini D, Parolaro D. 
Curr Pharm Des. 2008;14(23):2289-98. Review. 
PMID: 18781979 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 
Related citations  

8. Interaction of plant cannabinoids with the multidrug transporter ABCC1 (MRP1).

Holland ML, Allen JD, Arnold JC. 
Eur J Pharmacol. 2008 Sep 4;591(1-3):128-31. Epub 2008 Jun 27. 
PMID: 18619955 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 
Related citations  

9. Antineoplastic and apoptotic effects of cannabinoids. N-acylethanolamines: protectors or killers?

Pushkarev VM, Kovzun OI, Tronko MD. 
Exp Oncol. 2008 Mar;30(1):6-21. Review. 
PMID: 18438336 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 
Related citations  

10. Cannabinoids as potential new therapy for the treatment of gliomas.

Parolaro D, Massi P. 
Expert Rev Neurother. 2008 Jan;8(1):37-49. Review. 
PMID: 18088200 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 
Related citations  

11. The cannabinoid delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits RAS-MAPK and PI3K-AKT survival signalling and induces BAD-mediated apoptosis in colorectal cancer cells.

Greenhough A, Patsos HA, Williams AC, Paraskeva C. 
Int J Cancer. 2007 Nov 15;121(10):2172-80. 
PMID: 17583570 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 
Related citations  

12. A cannabinoid anticancer quinone, HU-331, is more potent and less cardiotoxic than doxorubicin: a comparative in vivo study.

Kogan NM, Schlesinger M, Peters M, Marincheva G, Beeri R, Mechoulam R. 
J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2007 Aug;322(2):646-53. Epub 2007 May 3. 
PMID: 17478614 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free Article  
Related citations  

13. Medicinal cannabis does not influence the clinical pharmacokinetics of irinotecan and docetaxel.

Engels FK, de Jong FA, Sparreboom A, Mathot RA, Loos WJ, Kitzen JJ, de Bruijn P, Verweij J, Mathijssen RH. 
Oncologist. 2007 Mar;12(3):291-300. 
PMID: 17405893 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free Article  
Related citations  

14. HU-331, a novel cannabinoid-based anticancer topoisomerase II inhibitor.

Kogan NM, Schlesinger M, Priel E, Rabinowitz R, Berenshtein E, Chevion M, Mechoulam R. 
Mol Cancer Ther. 2007 Jan;6(1):173-83. 
PMID: 17237277 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free Article  
Related citations  

15. A cannabinoid quinone inhibits angiogenesis by targeting vascular endothelial cells.

Kogan NM, Blázquez C, Alvarez L, Gallily R, Schlesinger M, Guzmán M, Mechoulam R. 
Mol Pharmacol. 2006 Jul;70(1):51-9. Epub 2006 Mar 29. 
PMID: 16571653 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free Article  
Related citations  

16. Cannabinoids and cancer: causation, remediation, and palliation.

Hall W, Christie M, Currow D. 
Lancet Oncol. 2005 Jan;6(1):35-42. Review. 
PMID: 15629274 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 
Related citations  

17. Arachidonyl ethanolamide induces apoptosis of uterine cervix cancer cells via aberrantly expressed vanilloid receptor-1.

Contassot E, Tenan M, Schnüriger V, Pelte MF, Dietrich PY. 
Gynecol Oncol. 2004 Apr;93(1):182-8. 
PMID: 15047233 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 
Related citations  

18. Cannabinoids: potential anticancer agents.

Guzmán M. 
Nat Rev Cancer. 2003 Oct;3(10):745-55. Review. 
PMID: 14570037 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 
Related citations  

19. Possible endocannabinoid control of colorectal cancer growth.

Ligresti A, Bisogno T, Matias I, De Petrocellis L, Cascio MG, Cosenza V, D'argenio G, Scaglione G, Bifulco M, Sorrentini I, Di Marzo V. 
Gastroenterology. 2003 Sep;125(3):677-87. 
PMID: 12949714 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 
Related citations  

20. Targeting CB2 cannabinoid receptors as a novel therapy to treat malignant lymphoblastic disease.

McKallip RJ, Lombard C, Fisher M, Martin BR, Ryu S, Grant S, Nagarkatti PS, Nagarkatti M. 
Blood. 2002 Jul 15;100(2):627-34. 
PMID: 12091357 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free Article 

And the list goes ON AND ON:

Cannabinoids Induce Apoptosis of Pancreatic Tumor Cells via Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress–Related Genes Arkaitz Carracedo1, Meritxell Gironella2, Mar Lorente1, Stephane Garcia2, Manuel Guzmán1, Guillermo Velasco1, and Juan L. Iovanna2 + Author Affiliations

1Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I, School of Biology, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain and 2U624 Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale, Marseille, France Requests for reprints: Guillermo Velasco, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I, School of Biology, Complutense University, c/ José Antonio Novais s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain. Phone: 34-91-394-4668; Fax: 34-91-394-4672; E-mail: gvd@bbm1.ucm.es. Abstract Pancreatic adenocarcinomas are among the most malignant forms of cancer and, therefore, it is of especial interest to set new strategies aimed at improving the prognostic of this deadly disease. The present study was undertaken to investigate the action of cannabinoids, a new family of potential antitumoral agents, in pancreatic cancer. We show that cannabinoid receptors are expressed in human pancreatic tumor cell lines and tumor biopsies at much higher levels than in normal pancreatic tissue. Studies conducted with MiaPaCa2 and Panc1 cell lines showed that cannabinoid administration (a) induced apoptosis, (b) increased ceramide levels, and (c) up-regulated mRNA levels of the stress protein p8. These effects were prevented by blockade of the CB2 cannabinoid receptor or by pharmacologic inhibition of ceramide synthesis de novo. Knockdown experiments using selective small interfering RNAs showed the involvement of p8 via its downstream endoplasmic reticulum stress–related targets activating transcription factor 4 (ATF-4) and TRB3 in Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol–induced apoptosis. Cannabinoids also reduced the growth of tumor cells in two animal models of pancreatic cancer. In addition, cannabinoid treatment inhibited the spreading of pancreatic tumor cells. Moreover, cannabinoid administration selectively increased apoptosis and TRB3 expression in pancreatic tumor cells but not in normal tissue. In conclusion, results presented here show that cannabinoids lead to apoptosis of pancreatic tumor cells via a CB2 receptor and de novo synthesized ceramide-dependent up-regulation of p8 and the endoplasmic reticulum stress–related genes ATF-4 and TRB3. These findings may contribute to set the basis for a new therapeutic approach for the treatment of pancreatic cancer. (Cancer Res 2006; 66(13): 6748-55)

So, please, stop with the tip-toe bullshit of the subject. Stop acting like its only for "pain relief" for people undergoing chemotherapy. Hexahydrocannabinol, HU-331, Quinone, and several other chemicals present in cannabis are PROVEN to be POTENT ANTI-CARCINOGENS. IT GOES BEYOND PAIN RELIEF, and is PROVEN BY SCIENCE TO SHRINK TUMORS and trigger APOPTOSIS IN CANCER CELLS.

There is a REASON why cannabis is ILLEGAL, and THIS IS WHY. The only slant in my argument is a hunger for TRUTH and anger against people who hide this truth for the purpose of PROFIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.165.73 (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a huge leap between these theoretical, invitro or animal-based scientific studies of particular cannabinoids and the use of cannabis as medicine. It is very damaging to the cause to make extravagant claims that stretch credulity. Obviously there is truth in what you say but you do more harm than good if overstate your case.

Clearly there is huge potential for therapeutic benefit but the powerful effects observed are also a reasion for caution.

No one wants to see properly regulated availability of cannabis more than me. Howver,we have to be very careful about exaggeration and hyperbole.

PeterReynolds-UK (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Indisputable Resource?

Perhaps Science Daily can be argued is not a reliable source (though I see no reason it shouldn't be), but I doubt the American Association for Cancer Research is very disputable. If I weren't on my phone right now I'd change it myself, but can someone change the ref under Recent Research that is disputed from Science Daily to this one and delete the tag? Thanks! 174.253.186.213 (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi IP! See Wikipedia:MEDRS. Are you talking about Abstract 4749? Results from neither in vivo studies nor a mouse model can be extrapolated to humans. Positive results in such studies may lead to human studies. Unless controlled studies in humans have shown superiority to the standard treatment (either better effect or equivalent effect combined with less adverse effects) any claim remains speculative. BTW, orange juice effectively kills cancer cells in a petri dish as well. Suggested reader: Ben Goldacre's Bad Science. ;-) Not the tag should be removed, but the entire claim in the article relying on that source. Alfie↑↓© 15:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Tardive Dyskenesia studies?

Have there been any study about Tardive Dyskenesia and medical marijauna? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot53 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi! No controlled study I'm aware of – only a few anecdotal reports. Alfie↑↓© 17:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Patriot! Alfie's our resident expert on all things to do with cannabinoids, but I'll shove my oar in here, too. We can't provide any kind of medical advice, of course, but if you haven't used it before to search for research studies you might like to check out PubMed. ( We also have our own article on it, here. ) It looks intimidating, at first, but just dive right in and you'll soon get the hang of it. Just to get you started, I suggest you go to the PubMed site and paste the following into the search field:

((Cannabis[MeSH Major Topic]) OR Cannabinoids[MeSH Major Topic]) AND Tardive Dyskinesia[MeSH Major Topic]

When I did that I came up with 55 articles that were indexed under those search terms. Only a few of them will be directly relevant to your question, many of them involve animal studies, or other diseases that include involuntary movement ( e.g. Tourette's or Parkinson's ) and you should keep in mind that even the studies or papers that deal speciifcally with humans don't provide any adequate scientific proof one way or the other re effectiveness; they only point out promising avenues for further research.

One of the results I found after poking around a little that might be of interest is this 2010 case study report, also indexed on PubMed as PMID 20213561. It reports a very dramatic benefit that couldn't be achieved by other, more traditional drug therapies, and that's interesting, of course. But it'll probably be more valuable to you for the seven references it includes at the bottom of the page. The authors state that those refs are the result of a "comprehensive literature review", so it looks like they've done some or most of your homework for you.

You can look up abstracts, at least, for those seven papers via PubMed, and perhaps you'll find links there for free-full text access for one or two of them, as well. The third one listed is a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled human trial of the effectiveness of the synthetic cannabinoid Nabilone, for example, available as an abstract (only) at PMID 11835452. ( You'd have to go to your local University's medical library to access the full text, or (possibly) you could order photocopies, for a fee, from library staff at such a medical library. )

The affect of marijuana ( or "cannabis" as the research community usually refers to it ) in movement disorders is probably best documented for Tourette's Syndrome, however, and for Parkinson's to a lesser extent, as you'll see if you look through the 55 results from the search string I posted above. ( See PMID 12716250 re Tourette's, for example. ) Please observe that many or most involve the taking of just one of the multitude of cannabinoids orally, that smoking cannabis provides a different and much broader exposure to the 80 or so different cannabinoids that are actually present in marijuana, and that a host of other factors also come into play in trying to determine effectiveness. With those caveats, you might like to look at PMID 15300675, PMID 15372606, PMID 15477546, and PMID 21104394.

I'll also just mention that although I think it can be a godsend in some cases of serious illness, it's also my opinion that it has or can have some pretty serious potential drawbacks, too. There's much debate about that, but one possible drawback is the potential for at least a psychological dependence. A short-term withdrawal effect of depression is also very often reported on cessation, and the affect of inhibition of engagement with the external world ("couch potato syndrome", in the vernacular) has also been widely reported, although that affect apparently varies considerably by the particular strain used. ( I have no personal experience to report about any of this, but it's my understanding that the physiological benefits and drawbacks vary considerably among the multitude of different strains that are available. ) It's also been reported that marijuana use among tobacco smokers very dramatically increases cancer risk (although not among non-tobacco smokers) and can worsen the symptoms of various mental illnesses. This may be of schizoid-spectrum disorders, and perhaps especially true re Bipolar spectrum disorders due to its frequently reported tendency to cause either extended sleeplessness or extended somnolence. Anyway, this should get you started in your investigation. Feel free to post a note to my talk page if I can help further. ( Ps: Hi Alfie! ) Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi to both of you! THX to Ohiostandard for digging out the references. These studies (with the exception of PMID 15477546) were observational and/or case reports. I wasn't aware of PMID 15477546 (randomized double-blind cross-over of oral cannabis extract vs. placebo). A sample size of 17 patients is rather small and insufficient to detect a clinically relevant effect. Not surprisingly the study's primary endpoint (items 32–34 of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, UPDRS), as well as the secondary endpoints (Rush scale, Bain scale, tablet arm drawing task, and total UPDRS score following a levodopa challenge, as well as patient-completed measures of a dyskinesia activities of daily living (ADL) scale, the PDQ-39,…) showed no effect (Quote: “Cannabis was well tolerated, and had no pro- or antiparkinsonian action. There was no evidence for a treatment effect on levodopa-induced dyskinesia as assessed by the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), or any of the secondary outcome measures.”). It shoud be noted, that in such a small sample size only a tremendous effect would lead to a statistically significant result. It might also be that a true (= clinical relevant) effect is not significant due to within-subject variability. Therefore the question remains an open one. To quote Carl Sagan:
[The] impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Ch. 12 »The Fine Art of Baloney Detection.«, 1995) Alfie↑↓© 14:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Alfie! I don't know why I'm just seeing this now. My watchlist doesn't seem to always notice changes that it should. But I just wanted to say that if you're going to start being all scientific just because you happen to have read a few books ;-) then I'm going to have to point you to WP:RANDY, which I also just noticed, and thought of you when I did.

If it helps to understand that "policy" link, "Boise" is Boise, Idaho, a small U.S. city in a mostly rural state that residents of New York or Los Angeles might possibly think of as less sophisticated, and "Randy" is short for the first name "Randall"; some prejudiced persons might infer that people who go by "Randy" would be more typically rural than urban in their outlook and cultural background. Cheers!  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Ohiostandard! Great! "Experts are scum." :-) WP is fascinating: Dunning–Kruger effect... THX for giving the background of "Randy in Boise". When I hear Randy, immediately James Randi comes into my mind. Alfie↑↓© 01:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

[unreliable medical source?] tags

What's with all the [unreliable medical source?] tags? I've never seen a single tag like that used on any other article let alone over 10 times in this one. A little heavy on the tag, ya think? I'm pretty sure a study cited by The Washington Post doesn't need such tags, as well as studies by Harvard researchers that appear in ScienceDaily, which is also moderately reputable. Or do we have special tags for this article because the topic is marijuana? -- 75.68.146.111 (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering why a study that had anywhere between 1500-2000 people run by UCLA is considered "unreliable" and yet some "study" done by the NIH where a total of TEN people with existing respiratory problems who admitted smoking cannabis somehow gets by without question. Is the NIH more reliable because it's a government agency? Then let's not even get into the DEA... 2CrudeDudes (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi IP! See WP:MEDRS. THX. Alfie↑↓© 21:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi 2CrudeDudes! Which studies in particular are you referring to? The size of or the site where a study was performed doesn't tell anything about its quality. A small controlled randomized double-blind study may outweigh another study of much larger size, if the second one is only open, observational, and without a control group. If in doubt, you may ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Alfie↑↓© 21:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Effect of Medical Cannabis on Prescription Drugs

Many patients who suffer from illnesses such as kidney failure have multiple medications for blood pressure, heart rate, cholesterol, depression, etc., and they have trouble sleeping and eating. Using medical cannabis could help them in many ways; how does it affect the potency of the prescription drugs they are already on. 72.130.212.35 (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A good resource to check drug interactions is http://www.drugs.com/drug-interactions/cannabis.html 76.167.65.109 (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate quotation

"Citing the dangers of marijuana and the lack of clinical research supporting its medicinal value" the American Society of Addiction Medicine in March 2011 issued a white paper recommending a halt to using marijuana as a medicine in U.S. states where it has been declared legal.[108][109]

The ASAM do not say that there is no medical value to Cannabis but the opposite. The citations here are actually talking about the need to hand over marijuana and its active compounds to scientific research since they are opposed to the smoking and other forms of injesting the plant and its extracts. Also it claims Cannabis to be the most abused illicit drug and a major source of addiction.

I feel this should be removed unless the author is willing to accurately quote the source and not spread more reefer madness.

--TriXteR Phillips (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

From what I see that reference supports the statement whether we agree or not. You're welcome to find conflicting resources and add them but they must meet verifiability. Mjpresson (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Misconceptions of marijuana?

I am wondering what others think about possibly adding a section to the article that outlines at least some of the misconceptions of marijuana, such as marijuana causing brain damage, or the gateway drug theory, etc.Mike.gambol (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Mike, you are welcome to add content to any article, as long as it's referenced to a reliable and accepted third-party source (WP:V). This is especially important with this and other cannabis articles as there tend to be a lot of non-sourced additions that must be reverted by others. You can also talk with Wikipedia:WikiProject Cannabis. Mjpresson (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the main article on marijuana deals with those issues sufficiently. I think it would be outside the scope of this article to address those things here since the focus of this article is medical cannabis. --Tea with toast (話) 00:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Good spot, Tea. I would concur with that. These articles get a little out of control and this one is already massive. Mjpresson (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Mental Disorders

First, I think the subsection needs citation of all the illnesses and disorders listed for consistency, maybe I am nitpicking that and it is not as important as the following. The last line “A study of 50,000 Swedish soldiers who had smoked at least once were twice as likely to develop schizophrenia as those who had not smoked. [52]" seems to be incorrect. I tried to find this document online but could not locate Medical marijuana and the mind. Harvard Mental Health Letter 26 (10): 1-3. 2010 so I then used Google to track down the study. The study looked at heavy users, persons who had used 50 times or more, and mentions nothing about “twice the likelihood. It does however state “The relative risk for schizophrenia among high consumers of cannabis (use on more than fifty occasions) was 6•0 (95% confidence interval 4•0—8•9) compared with non-users”, I personally disagree with this studies validity and accuracy but if it is going to be cited then it needs to be cited correctly. In addition, the last line that is my point of contention is in stark contrast to the opening sentence that goes as follows, “There has been evidence that smoking marijuana can have a positive effect on disorders such as Schizophrenia” and without the afore mentioned missing citations the reader has no way to check into these statements further. I am new to Wiki and am finding it to be very informative but it seems as though someone clicked “edit” and added a bogus line with a junk citation to the section.

--TriXteR Phillips (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The association between marijuana and schizophrenia is well-established. The issue is whether marijuana smoking causes schizophrenia or vice versa. There was an article in JAMA by an Australian researcher (with a long Polish name I can't remember) which used some analytical methods to conclude that marijuana did cause schizophrenia, and an accompanying editorial by an American researcher named Pope who said the case wasn't proven.

Since nobody can perform a randomized controlled study in which one group of young teenagers is given marijuana, a control group is given a placebo, and they're followed for 20 years, we'll never have what doctors call "high-quality evidence".

WP:MEDMOS urges us to use reliable secondary sources, although secondary sources on this subject are notoriously unreliable. The best discussion I've seen on marijuana and schizophrenia was by Maia Szalavitz in Time magazine http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2005559,00.html It's basically a review article in layman's language. You can look up her sources for confirmation. --Nbauman (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Research on deaths caused by marijuana

Since I noticed there has previously been some argument concerning one of the sources I cited (ProCon.org), I wanted to summarize the addition and give some context as a courtesy. Apparently ProCon had a suspiciously high number of links on this page at one point (they've since been removed), and an earlier conversation determined that since ProCon usually functions as a compilation website, somewhat like Wiki, it doesn't serve as the best possible original source. I agree with that overall, but in this case, ProCon used the Freedom of Information Act to contact the FDA and conduct their own survey on the topic, meaning it's original material. For background, ProCon has been used as a source of bud info by institutions like the Congressional Research Service and the Office of National Drug Control Policy and such, so I'd most definitely argue they're a legitimate source (CBS News maybe less so, but they just summarize the study).

Anyways, I'm only so familiar with this entry, so do the veteran contributors perhaps have some recommendations on where the paragraph best belongs, or a more appropriate subheading? (currently it's here under "Safety of cannabis"). I strongly feel it should be included, as I've noticed the zero death thing is cited in the media and groups like NORML all the time. I was kind of surprised the page didn't cover it. Also, should it just be on this entry, or are there any opinions on whether it should also be included on the normal cannabis entry as well? Thoughts welcome! Sloggerbum (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

About the subheading, I avoided "Cannabis-related deaths", figuring that would inaccurately insinuate to the skimmers that it kills people. However, I also don't want the current title to seemingly contradict later sections that point out that smoking cannabis may increase such deadly diseases as lung cancer. But I suppose that's a circular argument; the THC doesn't seem to cause cancer, just the presence of smoke, as non-smoke marijuana is argued to reduce cancer. Basically if someone can rationalize a better subheading, please go for it. Sloggerbum (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. Unfortunately, I've had to pull the section per previous concerns regarding Procon. They are not considered to be a reliable source for reference purposes, and the material also constitutes their own analysis of the FDA material. If some other, more reliable source analyzes the material, it could be resourced and restored. Alternatively, you could rewrite the material based on what the CBS article covers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, well...I guess that makes sense? They seem reliable to me. Is your problem the fact that some moron PRish goons trying spamming site about a year ago, and also personally attacked you? I noticed that in some of the discussions, other editors also didn't have a problem with ProCon, and that it was mainly your personal opinion. Because it's my belief that if we banned a source every time an SPA wreaks havoc, we'd have to lose a lot of excellent material on Wiki; they do it all the time. Just curious. Sloggerbum (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"collagen-induced arthritis" should not be referenced as a treatable dissorder

This form of arthritis is lab-induced. It is used as a proxy in small mammals for rheumatic arthritis. So, while it might make sense to say that the supporting study offers some evidence for effectiveness in RA, it doesn't make sense to suggest that it treats this non-existent disease. 206.53.21.90 (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Josh

Lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

This section does not seem to fit with the topic of the article since it discusses adverse effects of smoking cannabis, and this article is supposed to be about medical uses of cannabis. It could go under Long-term effects of cannabis or the main Cannabis article.

24.191.198.17 (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC) D (12/5/2011)

Sativex (Nabiximols): is it cannabis in UK law?

( Note: Section refactored for ease of reading to remove excessive number of line breaks, per wp:rtp and wp:indent by user Ohiostandard at 12:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC). )

A general impression has been created that Sativex is somehow not cannabis, but if it is cannabis then it is class B in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and schedule 1 in the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. Schedule 1 drugs are usually said, however, to be drugs which are not used medicinally. The latest edition of the British National Formulary, published September 2011, says this about schedule 1 drugs - and includes a monograph about Sativex as a medicinal product.

G W Pharma appear to have set new standards in production and packaging of tincture of cannabis, but tincture of cannabis is not legally distinct from cannabis. If it were legally distinct, then earlier forms of tincture, available until circa 1971 (date of the Misuse of Drugs Act), would still be on the market as licensed medicinal products.

See also Which ‘Controlled Drug’ is Sativex? freedom of information request to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and Is Sativex cannabis? freedom of information request to the Home Office. Laurel Bush (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Laurel! I’m not sure whether I do understand you correctly. Cannabis is a genus of plants (three species: Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, Cannabis ruderalis). Some parts of the plants may be used as a drug. Sativex is a formulation containing a standardised extract of Cannabis indica (leaves, flowers). APIs: 27 mg Δ⁹-THC and 25 mg cannabidiol (per ml spray). Excipients are ethanol, propylene glycol, and peppermint oil. Propellant is compressed carbon dioxide.
In other words: cannabis ≠ cannabis (drug) ≠ Sativex. Alfie↑↓© 12:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sativex appears to be a tincture of cannabis - cannabis constituents dissolved in ethanol - and in UK drugs law tincture of cannabis has never been distinct from cannabis. The Home Office and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs seem to be struggling at present to find some way of making it distinct, and are keeping quiet with respect to my freedom of information requests on the subject. 'Species' is not relevant. Exactly how non-drug fibre (hemp) becomes lawful is perhaps something I should research, but seems unlikely to help re the dilemma the Home Office seems now to be facing Laurel Bush (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

See also my article at http://www.spanglefish.com/laurelbush/index.asp?pageid=375588 Laurel Bush (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Again: Sativex is a pharmaceutical formulation containing an alcoholic extract; it is not a tincture.
Hint: Tyres are parts of cars – it does not make sense to say that tyres are cars.
P.S.: Please comply with the rules of indentation at talk pages; your numerous soft-breaks are not helpful. Alfie↑↓© 14:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If it contains the 'alcoholic extract' (whether or not in addition to actual alcohol, which seems also to be present in Sativex) then it looks like cannabis in UK law. Also, seems to me you can take the extract out of the alcohol and put it back in again as often as you like, but the result is still tincture of cannabis. Laurel Bush (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You “can take the extract out” with some precautions (it’s in a pressurized aerosol can!). You “can put it back” if you own a pharmaceutical factory run under GMP regulations. I don’t see how this conversation will ever improve the article. EOD from my side. Alfie↑↓© 12:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

See Tincture and think about processes GW must be using prior to packaging for market. The difference between simple cannabis and tincture is perhaps a bit like that between a hand-pulled carriage and a carriage with an ox or horse (or engine). It is still a carriage, and whether Sativex is cannabis seems very relevant to whether the article contains accurate information. Laurel Bush (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed copypasted section

see diff. If the information in question is deemed useful, someone with more scientific background should reword it so as to maintain accuracy but not violate copyright. sonia♫ 08:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Sonia. I looked at the paper. The say they've "determined the precise localization of CB1 and CB2 in sections of human skin and in one case of mastocytosis". Their conclusion is that the "abundant distribution of cannabinoid receptors on skin nerve fibers and mast cells provides implications for an anti-inflammatory, anti-nociceptive action of cannabinoid receptor agonists and suggests their putatively broad therapeutic potential". That's an appealing suggestion, that cannabinoids could provide the basis for e.g. an effective topical ointment for the itching associated with mastocytosis and the pain assoicated with other skin conditions. But it's also a wholly speculative one, so probably not appropriate here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Post-traumatic neuropathic pain

Here's a good, relevant clinical study in a peer-reviewed free access journal. I don't see anything in our entry about post-traumatic neuropathic pain, so I'm not sure where it would go.

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/182/14/E694.long
CMAJ October 5, 2010 vol. 182 no. 14
doi: 10.1503/cmaj.091414

Smoked cannabis for chronic neuropathic pain: a randomized controlled trial

Smoked cannabis for chronic neuropathic pain: a randomized controlled trial Mark A. Ware, et al. Methods: Adults with post-traumatic or postsurgical neuropathic pain were randomly assigned to receive cannabis at four potencies (0%, 2.5%, 6% and 9.4% tetrahydrocannabinol) over four 14-day periods in a crossover trial. Participants inhaled a single 25-mg dose through a pipe three times daily for the first five days in each cycle, followed by a nine-day washout period. Daily average pain intensity was measured using an 11-point numeric rating scale. We recorded effects on mood, sleep and quality of life, as well as adverse events. Results: We recruited 23 participants (mean age 45.4 [standard deviation 12.3] years, 12 women [52%]), of whom 21 completed the trial. The average daily pain intensity, measured on the 11-point numeric rating scale, was lower on the prespecified primary contrast of 9.4% v. 0% tetrahydrocannabinol (5.4 v. 6.1, respectively; difference = 0.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02–1.4). Conclusion: A single inhalation of 25 mg of 9.4% tetrahydrocannabinol herbal cannabis three times daily for five days reduced the intensity of pain, improved sleep and was well tolerated. Further long-term safety and efficacy studies are indicated. (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register no. ISRCTN68314063)

--Nbauman (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Bogus History

The article includes a nonsensical claim that marijuana has been used by the Chinese in Taiwan for 12,000 years. In fact, the island has only been inhabited for 3 millennia, by an aboriginal population of polynesians; it was only settled by the Chinese in the 1600's. This section of the article is a piece of fraudulent orientalism, and does not belong in the WIkipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.234.194 (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is right, you are wrong. Where did you get that data? Take a look at the history of Taiwan. --KDesk (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The anon is correct, the Han Chinese didn't really settle there until the 16th century (fascinating story BTW). Prior to that it was a Taiwanese aborigine population with connections to Polynesians (or vice versa). Anyway it looks like the article has been corrected. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Highless marijuana

An Israeli company has developed a strain that has no THC so you get the medical benefit without the high. It's called "highless marijuana" (or that may be a press neologism). Do a Google search on "highless marijuana", tons of sources, but no mention yet on Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yikes! Hope that doesn't kick off too much... I'd rather not be low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.225.131 (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

THC is an important medicine just like the other substances in the Cannabis plant.

This is well researched and documented by many pier reviewed studies. The nonsense and demonisation of this FREE medicine ends as objective truth always prevails.

Cancer rates are trending towards one in two. This is no surprise after 2052 nuclear bombs, many meltdowns and “depleted” uranium we need solutions. Fortunately there are many but the cannabis plant is OUR best hope.

Cannabis is: Medicine, phytoremediation (environmental radiation removal), cellulose based geopolymers (shelter and other construction), food, clothes, paper, bio-fuel and more.

It is a cure-all plant and it is FREE – that is why the “system” abhors it.

Anyone trying to suppress the truth about the cannabis plant will be nailed where they stand. It is up to them to change or terminate.

80.15.184.246 (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)GBCIR

Please weigh in at hyperemesis gravidarum regarding medical marijuana

Please go to the hyperemesis gravidarum talk page if you have an opinion about whether medical marijuana can or should be mentioned in that article's subsection for alternative medicines for nausea and vomiting. (Hyperemesis gravidarum is a severe form of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy.) Medical marijuana was first mentioned in the article in 2007 but a small set of new editors since January 22 have decided to utterly remove all references to it. JonathanFreed (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

DEA Judge not a reliable source

This subject has been discussed for Cannabis (drug) on the talk page. There was no consensus to keep this non-medical opinion. I have deleted it here. Rlsheehan (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a legal opinion about the law based on medical evidence about its safety. In other words, every word can be verified in the medical literature. So, your claim that this is a "non-medical" opinion is wrong. Viriditas (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed at great length on the Cannabis (drug) talk page. There was no consensus to use the opinion of a judge. Medical sources are acceptable. Rlsheehan (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The judge is summarizing the medical sources. Further, this legal opinion ("one of the safest therapeutically active substances") is directly relevant in the context of safety because it supports the removal of cannabis from Schedule I, a listing that requires a drug to be unsafe and non-therapeutic. Viriditas (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do two things:

1, Always use a name on your edits; one editor is not now doing this.

2, Please read WP:MEDRS. The criteria for a reliable medical source are spelled out; the judge does not meet these.

Rlsheehan (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Rlsheehan, this legal opinion is considered notable in regards to this topic and is cited by every relevant (and reliable) source on the subject of medical cannabis. The opinion cited by the judge is a summary of the medical evidence. It is really nitpicking to say that this opinion is somehow at odds with the medical community when the facts show otherwise. While I agree that the context and sourcing can be tightened up, calling this a "non-medical opinion" is just wrong. It's a judge summarizing the medical evidence, evidence that is widely accepted by the medical community. Now, the reason this source is controversial has nothing to do with the safety of cannabis which is a mainstream opinion held by medical authorities. This statement is controversial because it contradicts the opinion of the DEA itself and the FDA—both of whom claim that a) cannabis is unsafe, and b) cannabis has no therapeutic value. Both of these claims have been proven false, yet the DEA and FDA still maintain them. The DEA continues to make these claims because it enables them to keep cannabis listed as a Schedule I controlled substance (no accepted medical use, unsafe), a listing that virtually every reliable legal and medical authority disputes. Viriditas (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Viriditas. The DEA's statement is relevant to the topic. His isn't asserting that "cannabis makes you grow extra arms" or any specific and testable medical phenomenon. He is simply stating what he has come to understand based on his professional review of the subject matter. That is definitely relevant.COice6 (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it's "reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that cannabis is much safer than most other drugs but there are still risks that need to be mentioned. "Current medial knowledge" is not fixed but is evolving. For example the risk of stroke or heart attack (even a few deaths) has been reported in several medical journals:[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. the current question is whether cannabis 'caused" these or "triggered" then in people with underlying medical problems. Rlsheehan (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have tagged the quote for not complying with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Rlsheehan (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

NIDA blocking research

Here's a good article from Popular Science explaining how NIDA and the DEA, the 2 agencies that must approve marijuana research, have refused to approve any studies that might demonstrate benefits of marijuana. This is their legislative mandate. They also interviewed Don Abrams, who probably tried more persistently to get approval than anyone else.

Shaunacy Ferro (04.18.2013). "Why It's So Hard For Scientists To Study Medical Marijuana: The nation's research-grade cannabis is controlled by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, whose mission to curb use is at odds with that of researchers looking to study pot's therapeutic properties". Popular Science. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); line feed character in |title= at position 60 (help)

On a related tangent, here's an article that cites RCTs. Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Amanda Reiman (04/15/2013). "Adequate and Well-Controlled Studies Proving Medical Efficacy of Cannabis Exist but Are Ignored by Marijuana Schedulers". Huffington Post. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

--Nbauman (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

inl

"How and why medical marijuana patients differentiate themselves from rec users"

Here is a section I've just removed - it seems to be based on a singular primary source, against WP:RS. petrarchan47tc 04:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This section refers to one study in Norway, whereas this article is global in scale. WP:UNDUE as well as WP:OR come into play. Also take a look at WP:RS regarding the use of primary sources. petrarchan47tc 21:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, other primary and secondary sources should be included to give these simply reported patient claims weight. Would be good to mention the level of evidence. However, failing to see OR right now. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Unless we can see the content of sources used, how can we judge? petrarchan47tc 21:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There is an assumption of good faith made for the contributor and then Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) guidance. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought my comment regarding WP:OR in the edit summary was softer, with "possible" added (that's how I meant it) - but now I see it looks as if I am claiming OR. I didn't mean to. BTW, I'm not against the writing or content. But it doesn't meet RS requirements, as you noted, and it isn't balanced in terms of weight. I don't think its own section is justified unless sources extending beyond Norway can be cited as well. petrarchan47tc 20:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Safety

Some safety material was removed from the Safety section to a Criticism section. This has been corrected. Readers of the article interested in safety will look to the Safety section. The material was not really critical; just stating some facts about usage. Please discuss. Rlsheehan (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Medical raw cannabis ?

Medical raw cannabis is medical raw cannabis. In fact the medicine do not care about the consumers but just want to earn money. It is like wine. You do not drink just alcohol, you drink wine. Cannabis are cultivated mostly under electric lamps. It means that the plant grows with THC but also with all the toxins. How do you separate the toxins from the THC ? Another problem is the chlorophyll, etc. I have read in the 80s an article about growers in the Netherland. If you consume the plant before it gets to it's full maturity, you can die from the plant. Because the plant contains neurotoxins that does not disappear before it gets to the maturity. Also all the chemicals used in the soil to help the plant to grow fast with the exact amount of THC. If you can grow cannabis, I suggest you make it grow the most naturally possible under the sun and also that you make some hashish so you have no problem with the chlorophyll. Smoking raw cannabis sometimes is alright but if you smoke everyday in your life raw cannabis, I am certain that you will become ill. Do you have some instruments to measure all the toxins and the chemicals contained into the cannabis? It is very important. I did some cannabis growing in my balcony some years ago but I use only natural products and the sun is my only lamp. Also I have tried some different techniques to get rid of the chlorophyll. It means also to choose very carefully what seeds you use because you can grow cannabis in 3 months or in 10 months. Some seeds are not natural seeds but are genetically produced.

I think it is great to legalise cannabis but if your medical cannabis is in fact making the consumer some kind of future neuropath, I rather prefer to not smoke medical cannabis. The US government forbid the possibility to grow at home. But what kind of chemicals are contained in this medical cannabis? Will there be the common cannabis for the population and a bio cannabis more expensive but natural?

I can tell you this because I started to grow my first cannabis plant when I was 14 years old with seeds for BIRDS. I never stopped to read books about this subject and to discuss with professional farmers. I would better trust the farmer instead the industrial producer.

Last question: Is there really some THC in the cannabis that is sold in USA? Cannabis has been a very common plant since the beginning of the civilisation. The only difference today is that now we have lost the cultural aspect of using cannabis and also that most consumers mix tobacco with cannabis. Tobacco has changed the deal of consuming cannabis. It is like driving with a car. The car kill many people in the world but it has become a common instrument for the world society. Please, don't let this kind of raw cannabis create new neurological illness that scientifics have not yet study. Don't kill and ask questions. Ask yourself the good questions before your laws start already to kill americans. Myself and in Europe, there are some people who knows very well how to grow very good cannabis but they have huge problems with the justice since the 80s and it is not finished today. Why? Medical cannabis. You gave me the answer. I precise that I am not against industry or doctors but they are not professional farmers. It is like wine. Who produce the best wine in the world? It is unfortunately not the industry neither the doctors. I like very much sometimes to drink Bordeaux or Bourgogne wine.

Have you tried to grow tomatoes? Growing cannabis has the same problem as growing tomatoes. The difference is that you have no right to produce yourself at home. Again, I have nothing against industrial producers but the problem is that they need to produce in an industrial way, so it means that they will use chemicals, etc. If people can grow themselves at home and if they have a book explaining how to grow naturally (you can find these books in the library or in the cannabis shop, best cannabis books are american or from the Netherland) they will have the possibility to grow real and healthy natural cannabis. Thank you for free speech discussion and tolerance!

Best regards (As-salâm 'aleïkoum)!

archeofructus

Wow. You're wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

First off, there are no neurotoxins in the cannabis plant, regardless of its stage of maturity. It has the same cannabinoid compounds from the moment it sprouts to the moment it dies, only the relative levels of these compounds changes as the plant ages. None of these cannabinoids are neurotoxic, and if you want to insist they are, please show us the medical evidence demonstrating so. We aren't relying on information from farmers or industrialists -- this information comes from medical doctors, biochemists, and botanists -- three sources I trust far more than any non-scientifically trained commercial or personal growers.

Second, it doesn't matter whether you're using white lights from a lamp or the sun to produce the plant in regards to potency or supposed "neurotoxicity." Light source doesn't affect what chemicals the plant makes -- light is light. It's all a frequency of energy. There's nothing magical about sunlight other than it contains more intense frequencies and amounts of visible (and UV) light. This is basic physics and botany, dude.

Third, chlorophyll is not dangerous. Again, please provide some evidence supporting this claim. Simply stating you're some grower from the Netherlands means absolutely nothing. We eat chlorophyll any time we eat salads or greens, and I don't see anyone randomly dying from "chlorophyll poisoning" at the local salad bar.

In fact, there's never been a single documented case of anyone anywhere in the world at any time in history ever dying from cannabinoid toxicity. If there is, please, share this mind-blowing information, because none of us have ever seen it. It must exist in the medical literature somewhere if it's happened before, especially considering how widespread cannabis use is.

Fourth, cannabis consumption with tobacco is not common in the United States. It is, however, common in Europe, but again you've fallen into a fallacy: you're assuming everyone in the world practices cannabis consumption the way it's done where you live. And quite frankly, I'd say we do have a global cannabis culture that encourages responsible use of the plant, so I don't know where you're getting this idea that we lost some "cultural aspect" of cannabis use in the modern age. If you're referring to a religious aspect, well, then -- that's inconsequential. Religion's lost a lot of flare over the past few centuries, especially in Europe, and that includes all religious practices, not just those associated with hemp.

karmakaze — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.43.68 (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Really?

short version

Poor sources or not source at all.

long version

It is funny how it show the medical use of cannabis and uses pro-cannabis website (aka biased websites) as a source. If we are talking about medical use then IT SHOULD HAVE A MEDICAL SOURCE. Sheesh!.

Also, it also depend how it is implemented (as a medical use), i don't think that smoking is part of the medical use, unless it is used as a tranquilize, that in this case, Cannabis is more likely acting as a neurotic than an neuroprotection. --190.21.100.24 (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)--190.21.100.24 (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Article in bad need of cleanup

I just tagged this for cleanup. First off, the flow is abysmal. There is no transition between the introduction and the section "Difference between sativa and indica", which sounds unprofessional and poorly-written. There is no mention anywhere that there are two respected species in the genus sativa, or that there are different applications for the two. There is no use of the full names of the cannibinoids present, nor is there any mention of the fact that there are psychoactive components of cannabis. This occurs throughout the article.

There are also several lengthy sections discussing the historical cultivation of cannabis for non-medical uses, such as hemp cultivation for paper and textiles, as well as other sections which belong in an article regarding historical uses of cannabis, rather than a discussion of modern medical uses of cannabis.

I am a medical patient in Colorado, and an occasional editor for years, so I'll help out where I can. Thanks for the help, everyone! Mfrisk (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! This article has been largely ignored for years. petrarchan47tc 00:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know enough about this to edit, but shouldn't this recent change of mind be included[6] ? Quote: "In an op-ed entitled "Why I changed my mind on weed," Gupta writes that he is "here to apologize" because he failed to do adequate research on medical marijuana, and did not review scientific literature from abroad on "remarkable research" on it. He writes: I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana as a schedule 1 substance because of sound scientific proof. Surely, they must have quality reasoning as to why marijuana is in the category of the most dangerous drugs that have "no accepted medicinal use and a high potential for abuse." They didn't have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true."

His remarks have rec'd a huge amt of air time in the US and I am certain that we will see some broad legislative changes because of it. Gandydancer (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do add about Gupta's change of heart. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Bedrocan information

H there, in this edit I removed some text and images for lack of sourcing, and questionable encyclopedic value. On the latter point, I admit I know nothing about this, so I could be totally wrong. Hopefully someone can provide WP:RS to support the material, it looks interesting. petrarchan47tc 02:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional source for Glaucoma information

Is here. petrarchan47tc 18:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Vaporizers

This would need to be sourced before being added to the article, but it might be worth noting that use of vaporizers for consumption also eliminates the odor that many (both users and non-users) find objectionable with regards to pot. An important consideration for those who are concerned about "second-hand" aspects, or who live in places like apartments or in homes with children where avoiding odor is desired (not to mention workplaces, out in public, etc). Although the reference to it being "non-combustion" would seem at first glance to cover this, not everyone will make that connection. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

We have an article on vaporizers. I would have thought concerns about smell would be appropriate to the Legality of cannabis article rather than to this specific article♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

PTSD anybody?

Why is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder not listed as a use? There are studies showing the effect of CBD on anxiety and depression, which are two major symptoms of PTSD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktownnative (talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)