Jump to content

Talk:Cannabis (drug): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no|quickedit=no}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive index|mask=Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Cannabis (drug)|1=
{{calmtalk}}
{{WikiProject Cannabis|importance=Top|needs-photo=no}}
{{controversial}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Mid|needs-infobox=no|needs-photo=no|toxicology=yes|toxicology-imp=mid|psychiatry=yes|psychiatry-imp=mid}}
{{ArticleHistory|action1=PR
{{WikiProject Neuroscience|importance=High}}
|action1date= 05:10, 29 June 2005
{{WikiProject Pharmacology|importance=High}}
|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Cannabis (drug)/archive1
{{WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs }}
|action1result=reviewed
{{WikiProject Altered States of Consciousness|importance=High}}
|action1oldid=17795025
{{WikiProject Science Policy|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Psychology |importance=Mid |attention=no |needs-infobox=no}}
|action2=PR
|action2date=05:06, 9 March 2006
|action2link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Cannabis (drug)/archive2
|action2result=reviewed
|action2oldid=42926834

|action3=FAC
|action3date=20:21, April 19, 2006
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cannabis (drug)/archive1
|action3result=failed
|action3oldid=49214808

|action4=GAN
|action4date=18:49, 27 May, 2006
|action4result=listed
|action4oldid=55504414


|action5 = GAR
|action5date = 2007-10-03
|action5link = Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 30
|action5result = delisted
|action5oldid = 161808888

|action6 = GAN
|action6date = 2008-04-07
|action6link = Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 4#GA Review
|action6result = failed
|action6oldid = 204022620

|currentstatus=DGA
|topic=Natsci
}}
}}
{{banner holder|text=Page notices|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{Press
{{WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants|class=B}}
| title = Poll: Redmond geek fires up international Wikipedia debate: ‘cannabis’ vs. ‘marijuana’
{{WikiProject Cannabis|class=B|importance=Top}}
| author = Jake Ellison
{{WikiProject Pharmacology|class=B|importance=high}}
| year = 2014
{{WikiProject Neuroscience|class=B|importance=High}}
| monthday = February 27,
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=Socsci}}
| url = http://blog.seattlepi.com/marijuana/2014/02/27/poll-redmond-developer-fires-up-worldwide-wikipedia-debate-cannabis-vs-marijuana/#11822101=0
| org = [[Seattle Post-Intelligencer]]
| accessdate = February 28, 2014
| section = February 2014
}}
}}
{{420 Collaboration talk|years=2018 and 2020}}
{{Archive box|search=yes|'''[[Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive index|Archive index]]'''
----
*[[Talk:Cannabis/Archive 1|Cannabis archive 1]]
*[[Talk:Cannabis/Archive 2|Cannabis archive 2]]
*[[Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 1|Cannabis (drug) archive 1]]
*[[Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 2|Cannabis (drug) archive 2]]
*[[Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 3|Cannabis (drug) Archive 3]]
*[[Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 4|Cannabis (drug) Archive 4]]
*[[Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 5|Cannabis (drug) Archive 5]]
*[[Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 6|Cannabis (drug) Archive 6]]
*[[Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Tobacco discussion]]
----
Taken from [[Talk:cannabis]] to explain the existence of this article. Please see this and [[Talk:Cannabis/Archive 1]] [[Talk:Cannabis/Archive 2]] for the sources and discussions of this article. [[User:Squiquifox|Squiquifox]] 18:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
}}
}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot|age=30|dounreplied=yes|small=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
|archiveheader = {{Tan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 7
|counter = 13
|algo = old(30d)
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}


{{old moves
== Re: Cannabis ("drug"); hot burning photo deletion ==
|from1=Cannabis (drug)
|destination1=Marijuana
|result1=No consensus
|date1=23 September 2006
|link1=Special:Permalink/78118065#Requested_move


|from2=Cannabis (drug)
Because the prevailingly misinformed public believes cannabis is a drug, this present title is instrumental in guiding readers to whatever has merit in the article, which has many more hits per day than any other cannabis-related WP source. However, there ought to be discussion, up to and including refutation, of the false attribution to cannabis use of health and behavior issues that arise from grossly improper hot burning use procedures which have been promoted by cigarette industry advertising for over a century and bolstered by anti-cannabis laws which make an easy-to-hide joint safer to possess than easy-to-detect harm reduction equipment.
|destination2=Marijuana
|result2=Moved and then overturned
|date2=4 January 2014
|link2=Special:Permalink/596552868#Requested_move_to_"Marijuana"


|from3=Cannabis (drug)
Opposition to listing, in the photo captions, approximate dosage sizes (in milligrams) that give an indication of the gross disparity between a 25-mg. serving size (as in a miniature pipe) and a 500-mg. serving size (as in a hot-burning joint) appears to be based on the unfortunate fact that to date no studies can be cited addressing this issue or that of burning temperature (which has been found to be up to 700°-C. in a tobacco cigarette; the combustion points of tobacco and cannabis are not far apart). Absence of funding for such a study may suggest that the worldwide tobacco industry has enough power to prevent publication of any findings which would (a) discredit the profitable cigarette dosage size or (b) suggest that a substitution of cannabis for tobacco is in any user's interest.
|destination3=Marijuana

|result3=Not moved
Therefore the question remains, whether any inclusion of a photo of a joint serves any purpose other than that of advertising spam for the tobacco industry which benefits from the role of the joint in helping orient youngsters worldwide to a mythical notion of the normalcy of a 500-mg. joint rather than a 25-mg. low temperature serving device for cannabis use, from which many "graduate" to tobacco addiction (especially in Europe and the middle East where many are taught to mix cannabis with tobacco in the same joint).
|date3=8 March 2024

|link3=Special:Permalink/1213862697#Requested move 8 March 2024
Photos of a joint, including how to make one, are properly included in the article [[Joint]], to which links are presently provided.
}}

== NPOV?? ==


== Requested move, additional comments, 2024 ==
While there is some phrasing issues I don't see how this article presents a non neutral point of view. The only thing wikipedia can do about a subject such as this is describe the drug as it stands is society which this article does. However some will never accept this goal. Presenting a non neutral point of view is not difficult there are just too many opinions on this subject to generate a legitimate article free from tags of bias and assertions of other problems.
A comment on the above Requested move... this is like at least the seventh time people have requested a move to marijuana since I last mentioned this continuous move requesting issue back in 2006 --[[Talk:Cannabis_(drug)/Archive_3#Requested_move,_additional_comments]], when it had been happening over and over again. Can we not put up some sort of sticky notice in the talk page that doesn't get archived, with a list of all the requests to move in the past that failed to pass with a notice to please stop requesting move/rename on this article without reading all the previous request to moves and why the request didn't pass, or maybe we can just keep a few really, really good reasons not to request a move to marijuana sticky in the talk page, without archiving them, or is everyone really happy to have this come up again and again? --[[User:Thoric|Thoric]] ([[User talk:Thoric|talk]]) 05:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Btw, here are a few of them:
* [[Talk:Cannabis_(drug)/Archive_3#Requested_move]]
* [[Talk:Cannabis_(drug)/Archive_5#Naming_of_Article]]
* [[Talk:Cannabis_(drug)/Archive_6#Cannabis_is_not_a_drug]]
* [[Talk:Cannabis_(drug)/Archive_9#Requested_move_to_%22Marijuana%22]]
* [[Talk:Cannabis_(drug)/Archive_10#Common_name?]]
* [[Talk:Cannabis_(drug)/Archive_12#Requested_move_19_December_2017]] --[[User:Thoric|Thoric]] ([[User talk:Thoric|talk]]) 05:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


:I think we need to put this in an FAQ at this point. The discussion/request has happened too many times already. [[User:Turtletennisfogwheat|Turtletennisfogwheat]] ([[User talk:Turtletennisfogwheat|talk]]) 01:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
== Cannabis use damaging DNA ==
::Yes agree.... could also make an edit notice. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 02:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I've added it [[User:Turtletennisfogwheat|Turtletennisfogwheat]] ([[User talk:Turtletennisfogwheat|talk]]) 09:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you! [[User:Thoric|Thoric]] ([[User talk:Thoric|talk]]) 14:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


== Error in facts of legalization ==
I'm fine with not using the previously cited source. Here are some better sources we can use:


Article states "In Australia, it is legalized only in the Australian Capital Territory." This is incorrect as it has only been decriminalised. This is mentioned at https://www.act.gov.au/cannabis/home#:~:text=Q.,put%20through%20the%20justice%20system. in the Q and A section. should be changed to "In Australia, it is illegal, with it only being decriminalised in the Australian Capital Territory." [[User:GoldRequiem64|GoldRequiem64]] ([[User talk:GoldRequiem64|talk]]) 07:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090615095940.htm
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2926/marijuana-smoke-more-damaging-thought [[User:JoelWhy|<font color="red">Joel</font><font color="blue">Why?</font>]] [[User talk:(JoelWhy)|talk]] 13:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


== Etymology ==
:I don't see why there can't be a sentence mentioning that cannabis smoking has some risks that are similar to smoking other vegetable substances (especially since there are sources), but the string of "cannabis vs. tobacco" comparisons removed yesterday was obvious anti-drug propaganda that doesn't have a place in a neutral encyclopedic article. [[User:Belchfire|Belchfire]] ([[User talk:Belchfire|talk]]) 19:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


I suggest someone with the knowhow to utilize the Wiktionary page below to rewrite the etymology section on this. Please do not try to use a new age book on spirituality for the source, use credible sources, such as those cited on the page below.
== History: dope vs rope ==


https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%AC%CE%BD%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B2%CE%B9%CF%82#Ancient_Greek [[User:Tommygunn7886|Tommygunn7886]] ([[User talk:Tommygunn7886|talk]]) 18:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
In the last paragraph of the section "History", does anything after “In 1937 in the United States, the Marihuana Tax Act was passed” actually relate to marijuana? Isn't “and prohibited the production of hemp ... material.” referring to rope? The first sentence of the article has “intended for use as a psychoactive drug and as medicine.” Isn't the Mellon/Hearst/DuPont angle a plausible, but unrelated, urban myth? It is common now to hook unrelated garbage on to the end of a bill, these three were certainly aware of the idea in '37, correct? The law was aimed at getting high, these guys just got greedy? Two birds with one stone? Enough real controversy here? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.36.25.10|99.36.25.10]] ([[User talk:99.36.25.10|talk]]) 15:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Please stop edit warring. You are removing reliable sources citing subject matter experts. Wiktionary, tertiary sources like online dictionaries, and etymonline.com (a SPS), are not reliable sources. [[User:A Rainbow Footing It|A Rainbow Footing It]] ([[User talk:A Rainbow Footing It|talk]]) 21:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
*This section has not been addressed since 31 Jul 2009. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.36.25.10|99.36.25.10]] ([[User talk:99.36.25.10|talk]]) 17:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::You've phrased that as a series of questions, but it seems like you think some action ought to be taken. Can you be clearer about what action you think is called for? [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 17:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
:::I propose that everything after "In 1937 in the United States, the Marihuana Tax Act was passed" be deleted. In addition, reference 101, 102, and 103 only mention the act in passing, focusing on the "conspiracy" instead. Although they do source the act's passage, could a cleaner (less conspiratorial) source be used?
:::The act of '37 may need elaboration, but is corporate greed the way to go? Just an opinion.
:::I hoped to promote a discussion, other parts of this article are active. But that's about my limit, I cannot effectively edit. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.36.25.10|99.36.25.10]] ([[User talk:99.36.25.10|talk]]) 19:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Two topics not covered ==
== Incorrect etymology ==


The sources given are tertiary sources from popular press, they are not scholarly. Please consider my changes to the page below using a credible source.
This rather comprehensive article is missing a couple of topics that may be touched on elsewhere but should perhaps be touched on here as well. First is the topic of passive/second hand exposure. When [[Ross Rebagliati]] was briefly stripped of a gold medal at the Nagano Olympics on the basis of having THC in his system, he claimed that it was due to second-hand exposure which set something of a precedent for such exposure perhaps triggering drug tests. So what, if anything, is the impact of passive marijuana smoke? Can one get a second-hand high from it or is it diluted significantly once it exits someone's lungs? What about someone living in an apartment next door to one where a vaporizer is used? This would be an interesting topic of discussion. The second has to do with the pricing section, where it mentions how much it costs per gram to buy the stuff. But how many grams go into the average joint? Or a vaporizer. Or a brownie? It might provide more context as to how much people pay to smoke a joint, and would also possibly tie into other discussion in the article about how some combine marijuana with tobacco cigarettes. I think both topics can be discussed in an NPOV fashion. [[Special:Contributions/70.72.211.35|70.72.211.35]] ([[User talk:70.72.211.35|talk]]) 01:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


Borrowed from Latin ''cannabis'', from Greek κάνναβις, of ultimately unknown origin <ref>{{cite book |last1=Beekes |first1=Robert S. P. |last2=van Beek |first2=Lucien |title=Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Volume 1 |date=2010 |publisher=Brill |isbn=9789004174207 |page=680–681 |url=https://books.google.com/books/about/Etymological_Dictionary_of_Greek.html?id=CltlewAACAAJ |language=en}}</ref> [[User:Ari Feldstein|Ari Feldstein]] ([[User talk:Ari Feldstein|talk]]) 17:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
== Effects of Cannibis ==


:Not sure anyone thinks Cambridge University Simon & Schuster and Hamad Bin Khalifa University are popular press or tertiary sources publications. The source presented here is a tertiary source. Basics about types of sources can be seen at {{cite web | title=Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Sources | website=University of Minnesota Crookston | url=https://crk.umn.edu/library/primary-secondary-and-tertiary-sources#:~:text=Sources%20of%20information%20or%20evidence,of%20the%20source%20or%20origin. | access-date=July 31, 2024}} <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 18:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I just figured out how to add a new heading. Please forgive any perceived stubbornness in my reposting of the following disputed text:
::I see you did not attend university. Simon and Schuster is 100% considered popular press.
::https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/evaluating/resource-types/books
::Popular Press
::"As the name suggests, popular presses sell popular books; books meant to entertain. Even when they publish non-fiction books, they generally are not considered scholarly, because their audience is the general public. Like academic presses, they employ people to review and edit books before they are published. But their books are not peer reviewed and generally are not considered scholarly.
::Examples: Penguin, Random House, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, etc."
::Also not seeing where you are getting the source for Hamad Bin Khalifa University? I am not seeing anything published from there being used as a source. [[User:Ari Feldstein|Ari Feldstein]] ([[User talk:Ari Feldstein|talk]]) 18:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::Also, accordingly, the textbook from Cambridge University which was used as a source is considered a tertiary source according to the website you just cited by the way. [[User:Ari Feldstein|Ari Feldstein]] ([[User talk:Ari Feldstein|talk]]) 18:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Actually I am emeritus from Canada (a place with a much better education system). You will have to get others input at this point as I cant find the entry in the source you provided to rebut anything about what the source says..... Can only state it's not widely referenced in anything. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 18:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Emeritus yet you contradicted yourself with the tertiary source website which stated that textbooks(the Cambridge source) are tertiary. Also you did not know Simon and Schuster was popular press. Somehow I just don't believe you. Btw I went to an Ivy League. [[User:Ari Feldstein|Ari Feldstein]] ([[User talk:Ari Feldstein|talk]]) 19:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::I shouldn't have to clarify this, but I learned pilpul as a kid, I went to AND graduated from an Ivy League University, before you try to make a snide remark. [[User:Ari Feldstein|Ari Feldstein]] ([[User talk:Ari Feldstein|talk]]) 19:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)


Let's keep talking in one place that discusses sources not any fake Internet personality '''[[Talk:Cannabis#No_scholarly_consensus_on_etymology]]'''<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 19:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Every year, dozens of deaths linked to marijuana are recorded across the USA in every major metropolitan city by medical examiners and coroners in association with the [[Drug Abuse Warning Network]]. Their lists of [http://www.samhsa.gov/data/DAWN.aspx mortality publications] even includes two instances of death [http://www.drugwatch.org/CEDARS/MarDeaths2002e.pdf directly considered as marijuana overdoses] by the attending coroner.


:Fake internet personality? Says the one claiming to be a professor, yet you think Simon and Schuster books are peer reviewed. Was Arnold's encyclopedia of modern bodybuilding a scholarly peer reviewed source? [[User:Ari Feldstein|Ari Feldstein]] ([[User talk:Ari Feldstein|talk]]) 22:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I was told by ohonoitsjaime and that I needed to do a better job sourcing. What is meant by this?
::If the sniping round of this discussion is complete, can we discuss etymology? I frankly don't see that either position is helpful to the encyclopaedia. How does the fact that the word was {{tq|[b]orrowed from Latin ''cannabis'', from Greek κάνναβις}} conflict with the article's statement that it's of Scythian root? I'll admit that the existing wording leaves something to be desired, since it seems to imply that the term came directly from Scythian whilst simultaneously being filtered through two Semitic languages (Assyrian through Hebrew ''then'', presumably, to Greek).
My citations need to be better written?
::Regardless, it seems to have gotten into Greek via Herodotus as κάνναβις. Can we agree so far? If so, @Ari Feldstein, are you saying that you object to the deeper root and want to leave it as if it had sprung fully formed into Greek like Athena from her's pappy's forehead? @Moxy, are you objecting to adding the Beekes cite that at least reinforces the thread after Herodotus got it from Scythian with a side order of Hebrew? Do either of you, or anyone else reading this, have something definitive (or at least persuasive) on the Scythian/Assyrian/Hebrew/Greek muddle? If the answers to all of the above are negative, how about, "{{font color|purple|''Cannabis'' is a word of Scythian origin. In Assyrian, cannabis was known as ''qunubu'', a word adapted into Hebrew as ''kaneh bosem''. Herodotus rendered it into Greek as κάνναβις, styled ''cannabis'' in Latin, from which the term enters a variety of modern languages, including English.}}"
The sources aren't formatted properly?
:::Before worrying about correcting the etymology on the Cannabis (drug) page, perhaps the [[Etymology of cannabis]] page should be the place to start? --[[User:Thoric|Thoric]] ([[User talk:Thoric|talk]]) 19:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::This article like many others accepts Herodotus’ account of his Scythian experience, though probably actual, as the origin point of the word “cannabis.” However, the Scythians most likely picked up this term from Semitic speaking peoples in their invasion of the Levant in the 7th century bc. The root word kannu is an ancient Semitic term meaning “reed or tube” which has passed into Greek and Latin and has popped up in English as “cane” and “cannon”. I very much doubt it is a word of Scythian origin. Moreover, it is unlikely that the term derives from the Akkadian kanubu, because the suffix -bu has no meaning by itself in Akkadian while the Hebrew term Kaneh Bosem specifically means “reeds of fragrance or spice”. Kanubu seems to be a shortening of the term Kaneh Bosem. Additionally, an older term “azulu” was in use in Akkadian borrowed from Sumerian, when cannabis was used for hemp and used topically for healing, and at some point exchanged for a new, and I suggest, borrowed term, from traders, perhaps when cannabis had been developed to produce high yielding THC bud. Actually, the earliest evidence of marijuana used as a smoke, specifically as incense, comes from 8th century Judea (3 centuries before Herodotus’ report, and at least one hundred years earlier than the Pamir find mentioned in the Wikipedia article) found on a 2700 year old incense altar. This makes it all the more likely that the origin of the name cannabis was from that region. It is very likely that the term Kaneh Bosem found in Exodus 30:23, in a list of ingredients for the altar incense (including “cinnamon” which also made it to Greek, Latin and English) was probably a term borrowed from Judea׳s northern neighbors, the Phoenicians, who, not only used hemp for at least three centuries earlier for rope and sails. And we have confirmation from the Book of Ezekiel that Tyre was involved trading cannabis, The Hebrew text just calls it Kaneh. We have also have a statement of Jeremiah criticizing the long distance procurement of Kaneh haTov, the “good Kaneh” (kind bud?) The scholarly assumption that Kaneh and Kaneh Bosem mean cannabis though challenged by incredulous Bible readers for decades has lost its laugh since the scientific analysis of the horned incense altar found at Tel Arad in 2020 confirmed cannabis was on the altar. [[User:HaggaiZechariah|HaggaiZechariah]] ([[User talk:HaggaiZechariah|talk]]) 02:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}


== Partial and incorrect pharmacology mentioned ==
The text as it stands now is simply factually incorrect: "There are no verified human deaths associated with cannabis overdose."
The DAWN network has coroners and medical examiners participating from 13 states in the USA that all confirm marijuana related deaths every year since they have been keeping track.
What is the best way to format these facts into this page?


Cannabidiol is 5HT1A agonist. It’s not mentioned anywhere in the page. Also, CBD is CB1 receptor “negative allosteric modulator” and not “antagonist”. Please correct it.
Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:GUIB Corrector|GUIB Corrector]] ([[User talk:GUIB Corrector|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/GUIB Corrector|contribs]]) 05:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
------------------------------------------------------------
:Doesn't seem like a very reliable source. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 05:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't seem like a reliable source?
Coroners and medical examiners from 13 states, a total of 450 counties participated in 2010 alone to collect this mortality data.
http://www.samhsa.gov/data/2k12/DAWNMEAnnualReport2010/DAWN-ME-AnnualReport2010.htm#Part
Who is more reliable than a coroner or a medical examiner to determine what the cause of death is?


Nowhere NMDA antagonist effect of cannabis is mentioned here. THC is a weak indirect NMDA antagonist. Can somebody add this thing here under pharmacology section ? [[User:Prasunkatiyar|Prasunkatiyar]] ([[User talk:Prasunkatiyar|talk]]) 12:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Again, from the previous link, it was prepared by the following:
''This report was prepared by the Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and by RTI International (a trade name of Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC). Work by RTI was performed under contract number HHSS283200700002I with SAMHSA.''
I am sorry, but to say that data from thirteen US states over the past decade is not a reliable source seems disingenuous.
What would you consider a reliable source if this isn't?
[[User:GUIB Corrector|GUIB Corrector]] ([[User talk:GUIB Corrector|talk]]) 12:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
------------------------------------------------------------
::The source seems to be OK. It certainly negates the present statement that "There are no verified human deaths associated with cannabis overdose." The claimed safety of the drug is not supported. [[User:Rlsheehan|Rlsheehan]] ([[User talk:Rlsheehan|talk]]) 13:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
------------------------------------------------------------
:::No, [http://www.drugwatch.org/ Drugwatch] is an advocacy website which states that it "promotes the creation of healthy drug-free cultures in the world and opposes the legalization of drugs". If this is real data it should be possible to source it from a non-advocacy source. Can we? --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 17:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
------------------------------------------------------------
::Yes, The Drugwatch data can be backed up by other reliable sources that document deaths attributed to cannabis usage. Here are two: Forensic Science International [http://www.fsijournal.org/article/S0379-0738(01)00609-0/abstract] and Pediatrics [http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/4/e365.full.pdf+html].
::This is a case where there are good sources that say different things. Some say there are documented deaths while others are not aware of deaths. Wikipedia readers should be aware of both sides of this issue. Based on this I have revised the text of the article and included citations. I have included your DEA source that does not document overdose deaths.
::[[User:Rlsheehan|Rlsheehan]] ([[User talk:Rlsheehan|talk]]) 11:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for allowing me to contribute.
I would like to add that although "Drugwatch" posted the 2002 PDF, they did not compile and collect the data. The data was compiled by the Drug Abuse Warning Network who simply tallied the deaths that coroners and medical examiners deemed to have been related to or caused by marijuana. The fact that the facts happen to support their aims should not be used to discount the facts.


== Outlawed on a lie ==
PS - I added dashes between comments to make it easier to read. I hope that isn't bad form.


1911 people were tricked into outlawing the plant based on its Mexican name [[Special:Contributions/2600:1006:B111:ECB8:C8F4:A7EF:6CED:8CA|2600:1006:B111:ECB8:C8F4:A7EF:6CED:8CA]] ([[User talk:2600:1006:B111:ECB8:C8F4:A7EF:6CED:8CA|talk]]) 12:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
PS PS - Would it be to much to ask to add the data page of [http://www.samhsa.gov/data/DAWN.aspx SAMHSA] or is it better to link to individual publications? There are so many publications on this page that it would probably be easier to just add the one page for people to sift though.
[[User:GUIB Corrector|GUIB Corrector]] ([[User talk:GUIB Corrector|talk]]) 16:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:19, 7 December 2024

Requested move, additional comments, 2024

[edit]

A comment on the above Requested move... this is like at least the seventh time people have requested a move to marijuana since I last mentioned this continuous move requesting issue back in 2006 --Talk:Cannabis_(drug)/Archive_3#Requested_move,_additional_comments, when it had been happening over and over again. Can we not put up some sort of sticky notice in the talk page that doesn't get archived, with a list of all the requests to move in the past that failed to pass with a notice to please stop requesting move/rename on this article without reading all the previous request to moves and why the request didn't pass, or maybe we can just keep a few really, really good reasons not to request a move to marijuana sticky in the talk page, without archiving them, or is everyone really happy to have this come up again and again? --Thoric (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Btw, here are a few of them:[reply]

I think we need to put this in an FAQ at this point. The discussion/request has happened too many times already. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes agree.... could also make an edit notice. Moxy🍁 02:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Thoric (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Error in facts of legalization

[edit]

Article states "In Australia, it is legalized only in the Australian Capital Territory." This is incorrect as it has only been decriminalised. This is mentioned at https://www.act.gov.au/cannabis/home#:~:text=Q.,put%20through%20the%20justice%20system. in the Q and A section. should be changed to "In Australia, it is illegal, with it only being decriminalised in the Australian Capital Territory." GoldRequiem64 (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

[edit]

I suggest someone with the knowhow to utilize the Wiktionary page below to rewrite the etymology section on this. Please do not try to use a new age book on spirituality for the source, use credible sources, such as those cited on the page below.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%AC%CE%BD%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B2%CE%B9%CF%82#Ancient_Greek Tommygunn7886 (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring. You are removing reliable sources citing subject matter experts. Wiktionary, tertiary sources like online dictionaries, and etymonline.com (a SPS), are not reliable sources. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect etymology

[edit]

The sources given are tertiary sources from popular press, they are not scholarly. Please consider my changes to the page below using a credible source.

Borrowed from Latin cannabis, from Greek κάνναβις, of ultimately unknown origin [1] Ari Feldstein (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure anyone thinks Cambridge University Simon & Schuster and Hamad Bin Khalifa University are popular press or tertiary sources publications. The source presented here is a tertiary source. Basics about types of sources can be seen at "Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Sources". University of Minnesota Crookston. Retrieved July 31, 2024. Moxy🍁 18:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you did not attend university. Simon and Schuster is 100% considered popular press.
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/evaluating/resource-types/books
Popular Press
"As the name suggests, popular presses sell popular books; books meant to entertain. Even when they publish non-fiction books, they generally are not considered scholarly, because their audience is the general public. Like academic presses, they employ people to review and edit books before they are published. But their books are not peer reviewed and generally are not considered scholarly.
Examples: Penguin, Random House, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, etc."
Also not seeing where you are getting the source for Hamad Bin Khalifa University? I am not seeing anything published from there being used as a source. Ari Feldstein (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, accordingly, the textbook from Cambridge University which was used as a source is considered a tertiary source according to the website you just cited by the way. Ari Feldstein (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am emeritus from Canada (a place with a much better education system). You will have to get others input at this point as I cant find the entry in the source you provided to rebut anything about what the source says..... Can only state it's not widely referenced in anything. Moxy🍁 18:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Emeritus yet you contradicted yourself with the tertiary source website which stated that textbooks(the Cambridge source) are tertiary. Also you did not know Simon and Schuster was popular press. Somehow I just don't believe you. Btw I went to an Ivy League. Ari Feldstein (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't have to clarify this, but I learned pilpul as a kid, I went to AND graduated from an Ivy League University, before you try to make a snide remark. Ari Feldstein (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep talking in one place that discusses sources not any fake Internet personality Talk:Cannabis#No_scholarly_consensus_on_etymologyMoxy🍁 19:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fake internet personality? Says the one claiming to be a professor, yet you think Simon and Schuster books are peer reviewed. Was Arnold's encyclopedia of modern bodybuilding a scholarly peer reviewed source? Ari Feldstein (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the sniping round of this discussion is complete, can we discuss etymology? I frankly don't see that either position is helpful to the encyclopaedia. How does the fact that the word was [b]orrowed from Latin cannabis, from Greek κάνναβις conflict with the article's statement that it's of Scythian root? I'll admit that the existing wording leaves something to be desired, since it seems to imply that the term came directly from Scythian whilst simultaneously being filtered through two Semitic languages (Assyrian through Hebrew then, presumably, to Greek).
Regardless, it seems to have gotten into Greek via Herodotus as κάνναβις. Can we agree so far? If so, @Ari Feldstein, are you saying that you object to the deeper root and want to leave it as if it had sprung fully formed into Greek like Athena from her's pappy's forehead? @Moxy, are you objecting to adding the Beekes cite that at least reinforces the thread after Herodotus got it from Scythian with a side order of Hebrew? Do either of you, or anyone else reading this, have something definitive (or at least persuasive) on the Scythian/Assyrian/Hebrew/Greek muddle? If the answers to all of the above are negative, how about, "Cannabis is a word of Scythian origin. In Assyrian, cannabis was known as qunubu, a word adapted into Hebrew as kaneh bosem. Herodotus rendered it into Greek as κάνναβις, styled cannabis in Latin, from which the term enters a variety of modern languages, including English."
Before worrying about correcting the etymology on the Cannabis (drug) page, perhaps the Etymology of cannabis page should be the place to start? --Thoric (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article like many others accepts Herodotus’ account of his Scythian experience, though probably actual, as the origin point of the word “cannabis.” However, the Scythians most likely picked up this term from Semitic speaking peoples in their invasion of the Levant in the 7th century bc. The root word kannu is an ancient Semitic term meaning “reed or tube” which has passed into Greek and Latin and has popped up in English as “cane” and “cannon”. I very much doubt it is a word of Scythian origin. Moreover, it is unlikely that the term derives from the Akkadian kanubu, because the suffix -bu has no meaning by itself in Akkadian while the Hebrew term Kaneh Bosem specifically means “reeds of fragrance or spice”. Kanubu seems to be a shortening of the term Kaneh Bosem. Additionally, an older term “azulu” was in use in Akkadian borrowed from Sumerian, when cannabis was used for hemp and used topically for healing, and at some point exchanged for a new, and I suggest, borrowed term, from traders, perhaps when cannabis had been developed to produce high yielding THC bud. Actually, the earliest evidence of marijuana used as a smoke, specifically as incense, comes from 8th century Judea (3 centuries before Herodotus’ report, and at least one hundred years earlier than the Pamir find mentioned in the Wikipedia article) found on a 2700 year old incense altar. This makes it all the more likely that the origin of the name cannabis was from that region. It is very likely that the term Kaneh Bosem found in Exodus 30:23, in a list of ingredients for the altar incense (including “cinnamon” which also made it to Greek, Latin and English) was probably a term borrowed from Judea׳s northern neighbors, the Phoenicians, who, not only used hemp for at least three centuries earlier for rope and sails. And we have confirmation from the Book of Ezekiel that Tyre was involved trading cannabis, The Hebrew text just calls it Kaneh. We have also have a statement of Jeremiah criticizing the long distance procurement of Kaneh haTov, the “good Kaneh” (kind bud?) The scholarly assumption that Kaneh and Kaneh Bosem mean cannabis though challenged by incredulous Bible readers for decades has lost its laugh since the scientific analysis of the horned incense altar found at Tel Arad in 2020 confirmed cannabis was on the altar. HaggaiZechariah (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Beekes, Robert S. P.; van Beek, Lucien (2010). Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Volume 1. Brill. p. 680–681. ISBN 9789004174207.

Partial and incorrect pharmacology mentioned

[edit]

Cannabidiol is 5HT1A agonist. It’s not mentioned anywhere in the page. Also, CBD is CB1 receptor “negative allosteric modulator” and not “antagonist”. Please correct it.

Nowhere NMDA antagonist effect of cannabis is mentioned here. THC is a weak indirect NMDA antagonist. Can somebody add this thing here under pharmacology section ? Prasunkatiyar (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outlawed on a lie

[edit]

1911 people were tricked into outlawing the plant based on its Mexican name 2600:1006:B111:ECB8:C8F4:A7EF:6CED:8CA (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]