Talk:Cannabis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Two articles or one?

From LaurelBush 15:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC):

We can not avoid listing drug material as one of hemp's end products. Therefore two articles (Hemp and Cannabis) are more confusing than helpful.

The articles should be merged under “Hemp (cannabis)”. (This title adopts - to my mind - a nice convention, that of common English name followed by parenthetical botanical Latin.)

Opening sentences could read as follows:

“Hemp is an annual herb and a source of various valuable materials, of which drug material is just one. Others include textile fibre, food and fuel.

“In the modern English-speaking world, under the name hemp, the herb has been long known as a source of textile fibre. Its reputation as a source of drug material, under the names cannabis and marijuana, is a relatively recent development.

“Cannabis, as the herb’s name in botanical Latin, was the name preferred by 19th century medical practitioners who helped to introduce its drug potential to the modern English-speaking world.

“Marijuana is Mexican or Latin American in origin and associated almost exclusively with the herb’s drug potential. That marijuana is now well known in English as a name for drug material is due largely to the efforts of US drug prohibitionists during the 1920s and 30s. (We can surmise that this name was highlighted because it helped to characterise the herbal drug as quite alien to English-speaking culture.)

“Crops grown for different end uses need different management regimes, and selective breeding has produced varieties suited more to some uses than to others. Also, since circa 1930, breeders have focussed quite specifically on producing strains which would perform very poorly as sources of drug material. Drug potential is measured in terms of THC content and strains licensed in the EU for cultivation for ‘industrial purposes’ now have THC levels below 0.3%. Drug strains can have THC levels above 10%.”

"G-13" -- Fact or Fiction?

from the slang section:

G-13 (developed at the University of Washington)

Is there any evidence of this? "G-13" is the name people claim is given to marijuana grown by the federal government for people with medical use accepted by the federal government (which is supposedly a tiny number of people - like 10). It's supposedly a super-potent strain. It's also supposedly an urban legend. I've heard different things and even sampled what was claimed to be G-13. It was certainly expensive enough, but I'm not convinced this is not an urban legend, apparently popularized by the movie American Beauty. I certainly never heard anything specific like the above, and I couldn't verify it by googling for "g-13" and "University of Washington" -- such searches mostly point to this page. Can anyone document that G-13 actually exists and was developed at this university?--csloat 03:21, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anytime you're buying cannabis, especially if it's in an illegal market, there's no way to know that it is what the seller says it is, and it's likely not what they say it is, but that does not mean that it doesn't exist. Maybe it warrants removal, but keep in mind that if the term is used for super-potent strains, it might still be appropriate even if you can't point to a single strain that is certainly it. - Centrx 21:44, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

fair enough, but then the clain that it was developed at a particular university should be removed, no?--csloat 18:01, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Ahem* Excuse me, but I live in Washington, and I've had "chemo-bud", as they call it, from the University of Washington. Very black with sticky resin which turns into white resin when burned. Strange stuff that chemo-bud. And, although I'm not sure if it's really called "G-13", I've encountered a very rare and super-potent strain of chemo-bud that is nearly legendary in quality. It's so black with resin and full of THC crystals that it looks as if it was dipped in tar and rolled in sugar, but when you break it open, it's like that all the way through. A single hit can do what 10 bowls of the highest quality BC hydrochronic cannot. Not even thunderfuck is in the same ballpark as this stuff. I was told when I got it that it was G-13. Maybe the person who had it was lying -- but if you'd sampled it, you'd have believed them. It was without exaggeration the stoner's Holy Grail, the kind of thing you're lucky to experience once in 10 lifetimes. I know that G-13 exists, because I've smoked it, but I don't think it should be included, because including it removes the air of mystery surrounding it and cheapens it somehow for the people who've been lucky enough to try it. When you know that most people out there think that it's just an Urban Legend, it makes it more "special" somehow. I say mention it as an Urban Legend instead and remove it's other inclusions. --Corvun 07:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fiction. No records of G13 can be found. In 2003 some seed banks started selling strains called 'G13', probably because of the movie 'American Beauty' mentioned earlier. Corwyn - note that there is no 'black resin' or 'THC chrystals' on the buds of cannabis. You have probably come across plant matter that has been treated with something. - anon editor

Crystals of some sort can indeed be found on organically grown cannabis and they do come from the plant; they are not some fertilizer or adulterant. - Centrx 05:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To be accurate, aren't those trichomes that form on the buds and leaves, and not crystalline THC? Or do some crystals for as well? - jedsen 11:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't really know. I always thought they were crystals and that's what lots of websites say, but I was only disputing that they were some adulterant that would not show up if you had an organic plant, as that anonymous editor posted two eminent falsities. - Centrx 03:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They are trichomes, ie, "little hairs", like the fuzz on African violets and lamb's ear herbs. THC is found in greater concentration in the trichomes, but not in a crystalline form in the sense of chemical purity. They just look like crystals. Also, any plant with adequate nutrition (organic or otherwise) will produce these, even if they're microscopic. It's the genes, man. Mashford 22:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The G-13 is a female clone so it can not produce seeds without being hybridized and she has been, with the Hash Plant, to produce seeds. This hybrid is available for Sensi Seeds. There are no less than a dozen so-called G-13 clones being sold at the moment. The G-13 is actually not that good. Haze is the most potent strain of Cannabis available. It is pure Sativa.

Research on Cannabis

I will have to admit that doing the 'research' for my addition to this article was probably the most fun ive had researching any article. I think the average person fails to realize just how much scientific knowledge is out there concerning this plant and its optimum growing environment, physiology, etc. In fact I found far more information on the cultivation of cannabis than I did for corn, soybeans, tomatoes, etc. Maybe we should make corn illegal, then in 30 years we would have figured out how to grow ears the size of watermelons and kernels the size of quarters.

Recent changes

I removed the section stating something like "Chronic is widely known as the strongest form of cannabis". AFAIK "Chronic" refers to a preparation of cannabis involving dipping it in embalming fluid and smoking it after it has dried.

Would an interested or expert party please revise the following paragraph, which was removed from "Plant physiology". It is currently not suitable for general-purpose.

Cannabis matures usually after four to six weeks of vegetative growth. Maturation is indicated by an alternation of the nodes. During its juvenile stage, every node will have 2 branches. When it begins to alternate, only 1 branch will form, but another branch will form slightly higher on the main stem. At this point most growers switch to a 12/12 light cycle to induce flowering, which can take from 6-10 weeks depending on the strain, growing conditions, and the desired type of euphoria. Harvesting begins when the pistils of the flowers begin to change color, usually from white to orange, although red, purple, and even blue variations are known. Under optimal conditions plants may yield between 1-3 oz of dried 'buds' per plant with yields as high as 1 lb occuring on specially grown plants. Although economically feasable, commercial growers do not use hydroponics due to its labor and capital intensive nature. Profitability models for hydroponic production do not exceed legal economic activities, and in some cases can be worse. Hydroponic production is primarily used for personal/medical consumption, where a harvest must be guaranteed.

Also, in plant physiology, it said "cannabis is an acidophile", would someone please explicate this more, without using the world "acidophile". Also, does anyone have anything to say about the "THC Seeds" site in "External Links"->"Growing Cannabis". Is it sufficiently reputable and useful to remain? - Centrx 22:11, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I removed the THC seeds link because it seems commercial IMNSHO. The acidophile reference (I've never used the term) is to the fact that the plant like slightly acidic soil (or hydroponic solution). However the statement that commercial growers don't use Hydroponics is pure conjecture and IMHO wrong. Alex

Much of that paragraph is suspect. Yields are higher than 2-3 oz. Hydroponic growing is (extraordinarly) economically feasable. ... 'acidophile' is a good replacement for 'prefers acidic soil', unless I'm misunderstanding the target audience. jericho4.0 05:52, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Infertility

Removed from article:

Reports since the middle ages have claimed that marijuana "drieth up a man's seed". Modern scientific support of this is some understood in terms of premature activation of the hyperactive swimming mode of spermatazoa. A fair use excerpt from a press release (available from eurekalert.org) explains:

"Men who smoke marijuana frequently have significantly less seminal fluid, a lower total sperm count and their sperm behave abnormally, all of which may affect fertility adversely, a new study in reproductive physiology at the University at Buffalo has shown.

This study is the first to assess marijuana's effects on specific swimming behavior of sperm from marijuana smokers and to compare the results with sperm from men with confirmed fertility. Marijuana contains the cannabinoid drug THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), which is its primary psychoactive chemical, as well as other cannabinoids.

Results of the study were presented today (Oct. 13, 2003) at the annual meeting of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine in San Antonio.

"The bottom line is, the active ingredients in marijuana are doing something to sperm, and the numbers are in the direction toward infertility," said Lani J. Burkman, Ph.D., lead author on the study. Burkman is assistant professor of gynecology/obstetrics and urology and head of the Section on Andrology in the UB School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences. UB's andrology laboratory also carries out sophisticated diagnosis for infertile couples.

"We don't know exactly what is happening to change sperm functioning," said Burkman, "but we think it is one of two things: THC may be causing improper timing of sperm function by direct stimulation, or it may be bypassing natural inhibition mechanisms. Whatever the cause, the sperm are swimming too fast too early." This aberrant pattern has been connected to infertility in other studies, she noted. "

---

This is a single, very recent study which does not constitute scientific consensus or definitiveness worthy of an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia article should not resort to a quote to support its statements, but rather those statements are of such conclusive evidence that no source is necessary directly in the article (of course sources in the discussion page are beneficial useful). It is also misleading, for other studies which found abnormal sperm (which administered extremely high levels of THC) concluded that the abnormality were reversed after cessation of use, and those abnormalities were within normal ranges that would be unlikely to affect fertility. - Centrx 03:51, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Long Term Effects of Smoking

Ok, as you probably guess I disagree with the changes Centrx made. The previous version I thought was fair and balanced and accurate. The new version doesn't like to use the word carcnogen, although its is factually correct the smoke is more carcnogenic (see last time we debated this). The debate over radioactivty vs carcnogen in tabacoo is moot. From the little googling I've done on the subject there does indeed exist some controversy, but it by no means proven. Regardless the debate about the relative risk factors in tabacoo should really be reflected in the tabacoo articles. The previous version warned that infering a direct comparison was "problematic". Mention of nicotene is irrelevant to the debate at hand, yes its nasty but not directly implicated in cancer. To me its looks as though its put in to say "well maybe smoking cannabis is a little bad for you but look, cigerettes are soo much worse!". Which brings me to the crux of the problem I have with the changes, which is a desire to paint cannabis as a risk free (or very low risk) drug which in my mind is not a NPOV. I'm minded to revert the changes but in the interest of wiki debate I'd like some opinions, ideally backed up to links to supporting evidence from others interested in this article. - Alex 16:04, 27 Aug 2004 (BST)

The word toxic is more appropriate because that is, directly, the reason these chemicals are a problem and includes all the effects that are unhealthy physiologically, including cancer. Regarding radioactivity, you can examine this by following steps rather than looking for an overall summary. Phosphates which come with radioactive elements are used to fertilize tobacco plants, those radioactive elements are aerosolized in cigarettes and last for a long time in the lungs, and tobacco smokers experience deleterious effects of radiation, such as cancer, and have a significantly higher presence of radioactivity in their body, for instance in urine samples. Note also that there is a higher rate of cancer in persons who chew tobacco, which cannot be the result of these chemicals that are produced by burning. That point itself brings into question whether a discussion of these chemicals is relevant, for it is not controlled. The reason that the section includes a lot about tobacco is because the section isn't really about the subject of the article, cannabis, per se, and there is not so much research about. A comparison to tobacco provides a reference point where there is a wealth of research and definitive science that tobacco causes various maladies, although in doing so it resorts to reasonable, but debatable and contrastable, statements. This is also the reason why you may think that the article is POV, because it presents both sides of the unconfirmed arguments. Yet, the article cannot simply state blankly that "cannabis smoke contains more carcinogens", when there is not evidence of that smoke causing cancer, and when radioactivity (and even possibly nicotine, which may promote tumor growth as was widely reported in the mainstream press a few months ago; you can find a few studies re:nicotine and a tobacco-specific carcinogen on pubmed: "nicotine cancer") may be a far more significant cause. It is better to present the significant evidence on both sides. The new version that was added did not relieve this problem or eliminate the tobacco comparison. Instead, it removed important, relevant information for a poorly written replacement. - Centrx 02:18, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Yet, the article cannot simply state blankly that "cannabis smoke contains more carcinogens". Wrong, yes it can because it does. Last time we argued about this I pointed to the study in Erowid that list the compounds in the smoke that proves this fact, unless you can point to other studies that dispute this I don't see any reason why carcnogens cannot be mentioned. As for the radioactivity in tabacoo as I said, this is an issue for the tabaco article - unless you can point to actual studies comparing pure cannabis smokers with tabaco smokers & mixed smokers the rest is supposition. I'm not arguing its wrong, but its all currently speculation without any actual studies to back it up. I've edited the article again to remove the speculation and hopefully make it clear its currently an area requiring of more stufy. - Alex 31 Aug 2004

The reason that the article cannot blankly state that "cannabis smoke contains more carcinogens" is because the impression someone gets from that is not NPOV, which is that smoking is simply more dangerous than tobacco, which people have an impression to be extremely dangerous, disregarding tobacco-specific carcinogens and other aforementioned things. It leads a reader to think that smoking a little cannabis or even an amount "usual" for a typical smoker is as dangerous as they have heard for cases of 1-2 packs a day of tobacco use. The comparison to tobacco is still there, with the same problems as in comparing radioactivity, use habits, etc. I do not see how you can justify a comparison of the levels of the chemicals in the smoke yet not a comparison of other factors in causing cancers and other diseases. Also, note that tobacco does have (much) more of certain carcinogenic chemicals, like isoprene, so if you could point me to a good dissection of this that would be nice and also something that establishes the significance of the levels of these chemicals.

As for radioactivity, here are some discussions or studies on the subject from reputable sources: [1] [2]. Those sources are more useful to confirm what is in the following page, which is thorough: [3]. These are done by medical doctors and scientists and were published in reputable journals. The apparent most famous of these studies was in the New England Journal of Medicine and others in Science and Nature among many others. Essentially, long-lasting radioactive elements concentrated in the lungs. Experiments have shown that tobacco smokers have 6 times as much radioactivity (emissions level) in their urine than non-smokers, and recieve a dose in the lungs that is "the equivalent of the dose to the skin from 300 x-ray films". You can find more sources from a simple Google search. As for the other side of the coin, tobacco is, by law, fertilized with these commercial phosphate fertilizers and almost all the tobacco you can get has them. The same is not true of cannabis. This again signifies how the smoke is not essential to the plant or the drug.

The fact is that presenting "cannabis has more carcinogenic chemicals than tobacco" as any sort of useful statement, that is one that has any meaning for the long-term health effects of smoking it, is just as much speculation as any of the other points. One of the most thorough reviews I found was this ([4]) and it's conclusion was that there was insufficient scientific study, although with many studies finding no statistically significant increase in risk. It ends, though, without a firm conclusion of the question:

"Based on existing evidence, it is very unlikely that cannabis smoking will be associated with excess cancer risk similar to that of tobacco. It is possible that no significant association will ever be found. It is also possible, however, that heavy cannabis smoking will be associated with an increase of cancer risk that, while smaller than that associated with tobacco smoking, is still significant."

Although, this conclusion does state that the existing evidence points to the cancer risk of cannabis being dissimiliar and not excessive, which furthermore would mean that talking about a higher level of these "carcinogenic chemicals" in comparison to tobacco is irrelevant and is misleading. Again, because the smoke is not essential to the subject of cannabis the statements must always be tempered by statements about use habits and about the fertilization of the plant. - Centrx 05:14, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy with the current phrasing. One question why remove the health studies links? Or did you think they where just mistitiled. They do contain useful reference links to other medical studies. I found the British Lung foundation report quite useful, for example when talking about specific carcnogens mentions:

"Benzpyrene, a known constituent of the tar of cannabis cigarettes has been shown to promote alterations in one of the most common tumour suppressor genes, p53, hence facilitating the development of respiratory cancer. Gene p53 is thought to play a role in 75% of all lung cancers."

Anyway the links for reference are:

• BMJ Editorial containing links to studies
• BMJ Editorial response to above with more links
• British Lung Foundation report

Are you going to add the radioactivity study links to the tabacco article?

While I agree they are appropriate as a reference for editors here on the discussion page (and I should have added them here), I don't think these sort of sources are appropriate for the main article. These encyclopedia articles cannot be allowed to turn into a link farm. Primary sources of scientific studies--which will balloon into the dozens even on this single issue that is minor and tangential to the subject of the article--are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Some of the other links (external and some related) should be removed too, but I and others have not gotten around to sussing them out yet. - Centrx 17:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unrelated question

If this page is a redirect from "Marijuana," should an origin of the word be included somewhere? Does anyone know where the word comes from? - Anonymous

An encyclopedia article does not necessarily include word histories. Cannabis was the name for the hemp plant in Latin and Greek, and marijuana is a word of uncertain origin from Mexican Spanish that was introduced into the English language in the early twentieth century. - Centrx 22:56, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Taxation

The federal law may have been abolished, but several states tax banned substances incl marijuana as a way to diversify the punishments. (You buy a stamp indicating you paid the tax - it is not necessary to present the goods. If you're caught with stuff lacking the stamp, back taxes and tax evasion gets added to the fines and charges.)

And according to FlyingBuffalo, in Arizona you needed an illegal-drug-dealer license ($100) to purchase the stamps. (The stamps were recently abolished - my read indicates the licensing still holds. Also note the ancient "marihuana" spelling on the Texas stamp.) 142.177.127.140 19:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposed split.

I would like to split this page into three articles. Cannabis will contain a description of the plant, classification, etc. Hemp will cover the plant as grown for fiber, seeds, or other uses other than as a drug. Marijuana will cover psycoactive, legal, medical, slang, etc, some of which are seperate articles already. Comments? - Anonymous

Marijuana is a term only used in the United States. It is not true to fact to divide the article just based on the popular usage of terms. You can't have an article on any one of these subjects without referring to other areas and different articles should not be repeating each other. While the present article isn't organized very well, it should be organized so that the subjects are clearly differentiated. - Centrx 21:47, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I prefer not to refer to my cannabis as marijuana. I believe this term is popularized politically, and I'd rather keep some country's politics out of my personal recreation. I'm sure this is irrevelant, however. - Inebriation station 2005-01-04 23:37 (UTC)

It is quite relevant, insofar as it has nothing to do with you and your cannabis and your personal recreation. Marijuana is a term that comes from Mexican Spanish and that was used propagandically in the U.S. to dissociate this "evil drug" that led men to murder and "black men to look white women in the eye", from the normal and common hemp that many people grew and used for many purposes. It is also, as I said above, a term very uncommon in regions other than the U.S. - Centrx 22:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Centrx. I think the inclusive redirect is sufficient. One article for one plant, no matter how versatile it is. Mashford 22:25, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that the part about smoking (and maybe also effects) should be moved to the different article. It's largely unrelated to the plant, and from the educational POV, there shouldn't be instructions on how to make a joint for children who just want to know what is cannabis (yes, I know the funny response, but it's not that funny). Samohyl Jan 20:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i dont see how smoking information is unrelated to the plant, if thats one of its uses, then that use relates smoking to the plant and i dont see how moving it to another page would keep children from being exposed to it and i think that believing that keeping such information from children would stop them from ever using it is pretty naive, you cant assume that if a child is exposed to this information for the first time on this site, it wouldnt have happened if this site hadnt have had that information, because if theyre trying to learn about cannabis theyre going to run into information on the smoking of it, trying to keep that information from them is:censorship(yay\o/) if you dont think people should smoke it this isnt the place to curb information on that subject and from the educational point of view there should be instructions on how to make a joint for all the children who just want to know how to roll a joint (please excuse my lack of gramar, youll survive without it) - Inebriation station 2005-01-04 23:37 (UTC)

Long-term effects

Because this is an encyclopedia that presents facts about the subject, rather than a review of research in an incipient field that comes to no conclusion, I have removed the following information from the article in the reworked section:

• However, recent studies have in fact shown a causal relationship to schizophrenia and depression for young starters (BMJ 23 Nov 2003).
• Some studies indicate that THC kills brain cells in rats, but only after administration for a tenth of the life of a rat. Such results have not been replicated in larger animals and in humans would indicate toxicity after many years of nearly daily use. Other studies indicate that THC may be a neuroprotective antioxidant. The relevance of these studies to the human nervous system is unknown.
• The WHO has, after a review of the available literature, made a statement ([3] (http://hyperreal.info/~emes/WHO/who-probable.html)) on the "Probable Health Effects of Cannabis". It concludes that even heavy use is not associated with "severe or grossly debilitating impairment of cognitive function", nor is there evidence of cannabis causing structural changes to the human brain. However, it also concludes that there is clinical and experimental evidence that long-term cannabis use may cause long-term impairments in higher cognitive functions that, while subtle, may be significant to people with occupations requring high levels of cognitive capacity. It remains to be seen if extended periods of abstinence can reverse the observed impairment.

In addition to the above statement of encyclopedic quality, these ought to be removed for other reasons. First item: Some evidence must be presented that this is actually the case. I cannot find any mention of mental illnesses related in any way to cannabis in the BMJ for that date (which is actually 22 Nov) on the BMJ website (which has free journal archives). Also, unless there is some novel methodology (which, I suppose would in itself be questionable), it seems they would have had to administer cannabis to children in a prospective study, which would, I suppose, be unethical and unlikely. Second item: These studies are less relevant than the other studies and, as is stated in the paragraph, the first study is particularly invalid for all but the most extreme of use and all are not necessarily applicable to the human nervous system and have one or two experiments backing them up. All in all, this paragraph presents some information that is not applicable to humans and comes to no conclusion. Third item: In addition to the inappropriate direct link (as the information there should be synthesized in the article here or the link should be at the very end of the article), this paragraph simply repeats what is stated above it in the same section. - Centrx 01:17, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since no-one replied to the discussion, I decided to be bold and I have now reworked the 'Effects on cognition' (previously called Long term effects of smoking, which as incorrect, since it also dealt with medium-term effects). It is a combination of the last rework I did, plus the changes Centrx made, in the hope we can agree on this version. See my comment below for the motivations. And if you change something, please discuss it here on the discussion page. As I noted earlier, if we can't agree on something, maybe it would be an idea to have another Wikipedia-user review it.

Reponse to Centrx reworked version (see his commments below): I don't intend to start an edit war over this, but I think the section on long-term effects is ignoring scientific fact. For instance, it says that it is not known if cannabis plays a causative role in psychosis, even though this has in fact been established. And you didn't even read the study. In your response below you dismiss it by essentially saying that it is impossible to prove such a thing?! If this, in some ultra regioristic sense, is true then it is also true that it hasn't been shown that cigarette smoking causes cancer - do you think we should correct the articles on this subject to reflect this?

The same thing goes for the long-term effects. I believe the WHO-quote (regarding long-term cognitive impairment) is appropriate - it is not only more explicit, but it also goes further than what the article currently says, because it explicitly says that there may be long term effects that are significant to ability of some to carry out their jobs. The current articles says that such remaining effects may be 'subtle'. Also, I think it is appropriate for Wikipedia articles to reference recent studies even if this may not be common in printed encyclopedias. A study is a study, and if it hasn't been discredited, it deserves mentioning - as long as the over-all article remains fair and balanced. This is the style you will find in many other Wikipedia articles. Right now I think the balance has tilted in favor of those who believe cannabis has little or none long-term effects. What one must understand is that the first studies on Cannabis that showed serious, permanent cognitive impairment were blatantly wrong. However, when this was disclosed, bias has shifted in the other direction. And when later studies find little long-term impairment, 'little' should be interpreted in the contents of the gross impairment found in the flawed studies. In this case, 'little' means that the cognitive impairment cannabis may cause does not affect basic, everyday activities, like shopping, maintaining your house, doing your taxes etc. However it may still significantly affect your ability to carry out higher levels of reasoning. That is the next thing to be examined and it hasn't been the focus of current studies. All we can say is that the indications we get from current studies is that cannabis does cause some kind of long-term impairment in higher level cognition and I think the article should reflect this fact. I really hope we can find something we can agree on. Ideally, I would like the section to summarize the WHO statement on long-term effects. I believe this is the least biased and most comprehensive meta-study presently available. If we can't agree on something I will dispute the contents of the article and call for someone else to review it and give their opinion. - Anonymous

Please provide some evidence of a causative role in psychosis, as it is not "established fact" that there is such a role. With regard to this, I was saying that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary--which could not be found in the British Medical Journal referenced--the status quo should remain. In light of the methodological difficulties in determining such causation, it is not appropriate to state such a thing without it being supported by scientific evidence. Don't discount the value of scientific rigor; without it, one does not have medical statements that are worthy of an encyclopedia. With regard to cancer due to cigarettes, note that in addition to the correlation of cigarette use and cancers, there is a wealth of scientific, causal evidence of the physiological effects of the chemicals in cigarettes.

As the WHO article is apparently gone now, I can't verify this, but as I recall the article was stating that there may be lasting effects that are detrimental to real-world performance, without evidencing the statement.

Regarding scientific studies: A single study does not constitute the scientific consensus that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. It is not enough that a study has not, or has not yet, been discredited; there must also be other studies that confirm the findings of the one study. Regarding your other assertions about difficulties with higher level reasoning, you must provide some scientific evidence of this. There are numerous experiments and studies which find that after several weeks there were not discernible cognitive effects in the areas they tested. It is not enough to simply balance opposite biases, when there is insufficient scientific evidence to support a statement. It may be that the article ought to say that there is insufficient scientific study and leave it at that, but it is not appropriate to assume that there are long-term effects on reasoning, or conclude that based on one or two experiments. - Centrx 21:39, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello, Centrx - the BMJ article mentioned is in BMJ 325, 23th November 2002.

Oral Ingestion

"Cannabis may also be orally ingested by blending it with alcohol or fats. The effects are significantly reduced if it is so blended."

This is a bit unclear. Does cannabis have to be combined with alcohol/fats or not? I'm also not sure if there's evidence for "significantly reduced." I've read elsewhere that oral ingestion is more efficient than smoking.

THC is lipid soluble and hyrophobic. Without fats, no psychoactive effects appear to happen. THC is somewhat soluble in achohol, but not much. This seems like it would just result in the THC disolving into the stomach juices and being attacked by enzymes, but might have some effect on uptake. - Anonymous

Well, you can get at least as high from eating brownies as you can from smoking. At least. "Significantly reduced" is not my experience, although the effect is somewhat qualitatively different. GTBacchus 15:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

by amount, thats the key. If you eat a kilo, you'll feel more than if you smoke a gram ;) Sam Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 22:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article has read for some time ([5]): "The immediate effects are significantly reduced if it is so blended, but the intoxication may last for a longer duration and be heightened....The 'high' is also different from smoking, being more of a physical or 'body high'."

As Sam points out, one of the advantages to eating is that you can eat much more than you can smoke. Hyacinth 18:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The facts (or my beliefs about what I believe I have experienced, if you want to be picky) are as follows: you can eat a lump of hashish or even herbal cannabis on their own. It tastes disgusting, but is very effective. I consider this to be much less wasteful (i.e. more effective) than smoking it. THC is soluble in fats and/or alcohol. So cooking some kind of food or confectionery is a good way to make the stuff palatable. Useful book - "Cooking with Ganga" by Eric. Fudge or chocolate truffles are recommended. - Anonymous Walrus.

Laws in Europe

I removed the most recent addition from the article: THC was considered as a soft-drug for a long term of European history. The first legalizing country were the Netherlands in 1987, 1995 the Swiss and on 05th of November 2004 Italy and Germany followed by setting up legal selling shops, owned by the provisional government. Though several demonstrations were made to "Legalize Cannabis" the government of Italy and Germany does not look forward to publish the unoficial change, yet. This is more wrong than it is right: It is illegal (although sometimes tolerated) to sell cannabis containing significant amounts of THC in most of the countries listed. I'm not aware of any provisional government in European countries, let alone one that runs such shops.

I bet he was trying to write Provincial Government. - Anonymous Walrus

Laws in Europe

Pointer: Agreed, possession of cannabis illegal but tolerated in Netherlands. Switzerland I believe it can be bought as an aromatic herb in small number of shops legally but in no way can it be prepared for consumption. No current knowledge re. Germany and Italy. If you're looking to study legalisation then take a look at Portugal where govt. policy towards 'hard' and 'soft' drugs was changed couple of years back - possibly legislation in that country has followed suit.

Comment: Yes, cannabis is indeed illegal globally, as far as I know any country legalizing it would be embargoed by the UN members, since cannabis is on UN's 'evil drugs' list. So the practice is 'tolerance' or 'turning a blind eye', afaik cannabis possession, use and minimal cultivation for personal use is 'tolerated' in UK, Germany, the netherlands and Spain, to name a few. -- anon

In Columbia, for one, personal use possession of cannabis legal. In light of this single instance and considering the fact that there are numerous countries in the world, cannabis is not "illegal globally". - Centrx 05:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What the heck? Cannabis is legal lots of places, and used by millions in these places. jericho4.0 21:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Supposedly any country is free to refuse to accept the UN drug provisions if they choose to do so, and the UN drug treaties are subject to the member country's constitution. UN member countries are certainly able to control their own penal systems -- Canada is preparing to decriminalize small quantities of cannabis, and I believe the UK has already reduced possession of small quantities cannabis to a non-criminal status. --Thoric 22:17, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Effects of human consumption

Smoking may pose the greatest risk to physical health, but is reduced by using water pipes.

This is disputed. While water pipes reduce the level of toxins/carcinogens, they also reduce the level of cannabinoids. At least one study has suggested that water pipes may actualy increase the health risk.

Warning of preparation

Should there not be some sort of warning before the section "Preparations for human consumption". True some countries have de-criminalized small quantities of cannabis, but the majority of countries still have rather harsh laws against any use of cannabis, even as so far as death in east Asia. And even in the countries that have de-criminalized the possession of small personal quantities; buying(usually, if other than for medicinal use), selling and the growing of cannabis is still illegal. While it's up to people if they want to decide if they want to use cannabis, as an encyclopedia, is there not a moral obligation to warn that it could be legally dangerous to use? -JCBP

JCBP, I think you have a good point. The legal status of cannabis is mentioned only tangentially, mostly in the History section. The subject is complex enough that it warrants its own section, IMHO. I will create a stub section called "Legality" with some starter information.--Pontifex 00:01, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Put stub-like information in a section and point it to the "Main article: Legal issues of cannabis" under the section heading. - Centrx 11:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

THC causes short-memory loss

"...marijuana causes loss of short-term memory (Diana et al 1998). In fact evidence has been found that 9-THC destroys short-term memory (Heyser, 1993)" http://www.onlinepot.org/medical/potmemory.htm --techtonik 20:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you're arguing, you're going to have to be a little more specific what is meant by 'destroying' short-term memory. This vague, non-medical terminology could mean anything from the novel and unsupported notion that THC forever destroys one's capacity to hold thoughts in memory to the well-known fact that THC inhibits the formation of short-term memories while one is under the influence. - Centrx 20:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikiwhores wrong again. News at 9.

THC does not break down into CBD as buds mature. That's chemically impossible, and nobody who knows anything about the chemistry of cannabis would make such a ridiculous faux pas statement.

Not as buds mature, dear reader, but THC does degrade sequentially from photoreaction first to cannabidiol (CBD) and then to cannabinol (CBN). Michael Starks addresses this in "Marijuana Chemistry". Feel free to clarify the "impossible" nature of this reaction. --While on the subject of chemistry, I notice there's no mention of the elusive compound THCV. Am I the only one who has heard of this? Not all plants produce it, it's really rare. Mashford 22:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:No personal attacks, please do not personally addressing headings to people on talk pages. Article talk pages should be used for discussing the articles, not their contributors. Headings on article talk pages should be used to facilitate discussion by indicating and limiting topics related to the article. For instance, you could make a header whose title describes in a few words one problem you have with the article. This will make it easy for people to address that issue, work towards consensus, and eventually resolve the issue or dispute and improve the article. If you need to reach another user please go to their user talk page. Thanks. Hyacinth 01:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)