Talk:Cannabis (drug)

Minor edit needed, but locked

"Individual studies also have been conducted indicating Cannabis to a gamut of conditions running from multiple sclerosis to depression." This sentence doesn't make sense, perhaps it was meant to say "indicating benefits of Cannabis for a gamut of conditions". 64.180.126.153 (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Another study showed that consumption of 15 mg of Δ9-THC resulted in no learning whatsoever occurring over a three-trial selective reminding task after two hours." This sentence also isn't clear on what it's trying to say. 64.180.126.153 (talk) 07:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed both. Torvik (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames in the lead

No one calls it "cannabis" in vernacular use. We ought list a few of the most-common nicknames in the lead (though I agree that it had ballooned too much before someone came along and cut them all out). –xeno^talk 20:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Cannabis, also known as marijuana or marihuana which is derived from the Spanish, and ganja (from Template:Lang-sa gañjā, hemp), as well as weed, pot, buddha or bud, grass, herb, green, reefer, and mary jane (M.J.),among many others, refers to any number of preparations of..."

I have removed this interminable list. For the following reasons:

1. WP:UNDUE weight on nicknames. It's a distracting list that shows up well after the topic of the article is clear.
2. No reliable sources have been produced for these names, which makes them Original Research. They are slang, which means anyone can add another name from some dubious word of mouth.
3. WP:TRIVIA

Readers wishing to have every possible nickname for marijuana, testicles, or prostitute can consult urbandictionary, wiktionary, or any site oriented to that subject. There is no place for this on wikipedia.--Loodog (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Merged with above. As stated, I think a few of the most common are necessary for the lead, as neither cannabis nor marijuana is commonly used in the vernacular. I actually think a section on this would be worthwhile and easily sourced. –xeno^talk 20:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't add "balls" to the testicles page, or "whore" to the prostitute article because it's not the most common vernacular. This is slang, not a difference of standardized terminology.

That being said, we could always create an article called List of slang words for cannabis, but to put such a list in this article is undue weight on the concept of naming pot, especially in the LEAD.--Loodog (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see how undue applies here. See, however, WP:BOLDTITLE for an MOS example where a few common names are included in the lead. –xeno^talk 20:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• As it will be impossible to agree on which are the most common I would support only two appearing in the lead: pot and weed. These I think are the most common. –xeno^talk 20:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The lead should contain the words that are of worldwide notability: Marijuana, weed, pot and ganja (The first and last especially due to their history). The remaining endless list of slang terms should be adapted into a prose format instead of a list, and incorporated into a new heading of the article, with explanations as to where/how the term originated. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, my above suggestion included both marijuana and ganja, and spoke only to the section "...as well as". –xeno^talk 20:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If you really want this list of 9 names to stay in the article, I definitely can't see dedicating a section to it. I would grant a footnote to the last 6 and have no problem keeping marijuana, cannabis, and ganja as proper terms. The purpose of listing multiple names is (1) to ensure the reader knows (s)he's in the right place and (2) to recognize a lack of a universal proper name. Given the giant picture of the flower and the words marijuana, cannabis, and ganga, I don't think any pothead who knows the more colloquial vernacular would be confused when (s)he doesn't see the word "weed".--Loodog (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I think we should have 5: cannabis, marjiuana, ganja, pot, weed. (My most recent self-revert to restore more names was because I noticed I had inadvertently broached 3R) –xeno^talk 23:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, I cite adding "balls" to the testicles page, or "hooker" to prostitute. I agree "pot" and "weed" to be absolutely common terms, but they are nonetheless slang. Wikipedia articles are not... "Usage guides or slang and idiom guides."--Loodog (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Does wikipedia have to wait for websters to officially make it a word for it to not be considered slang and thus tossed aside? I think when the word is used by the press and the governments of many countries world-wide, that a term has bridged the gap between regional slang and common usage. Wikipedia is not a dictionary is for short stub articles, and not for full fledged articles such as this where several terms are known world-wide. Cannabis should obviously be included because of the article name. Marijuana should be used because of its role in the first prohibition. Ganja should be used due to its cultural history and connection with the plant throughout the past, and as it is more recognized than Cannabis by most of the world. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly a nonrefutable source that would support a wikipedia article, and indeed ganja is there, as is cannabis, and marijuana. I would support these as standard nonslang terms for inclusion.--Loodog (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Then I guess there's no need to debate further, merriam-webster also list 'weed' and 'pot': [1] [2] –xeno^talk 20:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Pot and Weed are most often listed as slang: [3][4] NJGW (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Merriam Webster > Dictionary.com –xeno^talk 20:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

On related note, all the names I'm calling nonstandard have redirects on their dab pages to here anyway. So I would like your preference.

Preference

A - All 9 names in lead as is currently the case

B - 3 (cannabis, marijuana, ganja) mentioned in lead, footnote the other 6.

C - 3 (cannabis, marijuana, ganja) mentioned in lead with or without footnote for other 6 while all 9 mentioned in separate article List of terms used for cannabis

D - Other preference (specify).

I would not be averse to B or C, but believe A is inappropriate.--Loodog (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

E: C,M,G,pot,weed mentioned in lead. Sourcible per above. –xeno^talk 20:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ditto Loodog on prefs... the rest are slang ([5][6]) and don't need to be in the lead. B seems to be a good compromise, though a separate list or link to Wiktionary may be needed instead if people keep adding every word in the book to it (trees, smoke, stuff, blaze, etc, etc, etc). NJGW (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd go with Merriam-Webster over 'dictionary.com' which I don't believe qualifies as an RS. –xeno^talk 20:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Have another look, Dictionary.com compiles several sources which I believe you would be happy to call RS's in one easy to find place. They have no content of their own. NJGW (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

While I would grant to xeno that m-w does establish the latter 6 as being used, m-w is notably silent on type of usage, which dictionary.com also comments on. m-w does not contradict dictionary.com since the latter offers a consistent definition and additional detail.

All that aside, I am unconvinced that "pot", "grass", etc.. are ever used as anything other than slang.--Loodog (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like semantics to me. "Weed" and "Pot" are very common terms for the drug [7] [8]. –xeno^talk 20:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What is slang

Oh shit, now we're in a real can of worms. Even linguists don't really know what slang is. One thing is for sure... slang is just semantics. As for the guideline, wp:LEAD#Alternative names seems to indicate that names in the lead are to help people know they are in the right place. It goes on to say, "Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves." This might not apply to slang though (no clear statement in wp:LEAD.

On a side note to this, wp:Common name seems to suggest that this whole article be renamed "Marijuana", since hardly anyone outside of scholarly literature (including gov, news, smokers, parents....) calls it "cannabis". NJGW (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Support move to Marijuana, and three alternate names (ganja, weed, pot) in the lead with "cannabis" as the medical name and (possibly) a section on Names. –xeno^talk 21:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose At the risk of seeming maniacal about a minor thing, pot and weed are colloquial slang. Ganja, cannabis, and marijuana all have a degree of "officialness" to them.

Side note: slang is apparently defined as either (1) terminology particular to a group or (2) nonstandard vocabulary typically composed of [things not immediately fitting what we have here]. --Loodog (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Marijuana is almost never used in the UK and I guess in NZ and Aus so changing it to that seems a bit rash. Herbal Hi (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As a slang term (daily use by users/dealers) "Marijuana" is probably not used anywhere. It's the term used/clearly-understood in many places around the world by press, law enforcement, citizens, schools, etc... What term is used semi-formally (ie not just by researchers) in the UK? NJGW (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Simply cannabis. I think the current name is the clearest way of organising this and the main cannabis article. Is cannabis never used in the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbal Hi (talk • contribs) 23:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Cannabis" is used much less often then "Marijuana" [9][10], and the same could probably be said for pot/weed/grass. Users/dealers seem to have a very localized set of term preferences that avoids most of the above (though ironically "cannabis" is beginning to gain acceptance as a much cooler alternative to the classic slang terms). The big question is raised by wp:Common name. "Marijuana" is instantly recognizable by anyone in the world as the drug from the Cannabis plant. NJGW (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Can I just say that I have almost never heard anyone use the term "marijuana" in day to day life in the UK... except when watching American films. As for "pot", it's also almost never used here. "Cannabis" is pretty much the common term used in the UK, and I believe most of Europe. Marijuana is more of an American term. The two main slang words here are "hash" (for cannabis resin) and "weed" (for herbal cannabis). Please be careful not to be too US-centric. 91.84.87.110 (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Follow up: besides the article currently clearly states "The term marijuana refers to the dried leaves of the Cannabis plants and the flowers of female plants". But the article is not just about weed, it's about hash and other cannabis products too. So marijuana is not even a synonym for cannabis. Also your Google News search shows that for "marijuana", all the top articles are American, and for "cannabis", most are British, but a few are American too. Besides almost everyone might smoke marijuana in the States, but hash is traditionally a lot more common in the UK and Europe, although weed is also quite popular and increasingly so. 91.84.87.110 (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, marijuana is a US centric term not really usedd outside North America - unfortunately Americans will keep thinking this is na US encyclopedia and repeat this mistake which we have been arguing about for years. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 13:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm going to have to oppose this on one particular point but also I generally agree with some of the points made. Specifically the title says "the effects of the drug cannabis are mediated by cannabinoids". Cannabidiol is one such cannbinoid and it does not just occur in female plant but occurs in large quantities in hemp. There are parts of wikipedia that state it isn't psychoactive, however it has been found to be as effective as atypical anti-psychotics in treating schizophirenia and is thought to be an anxiolytic drug. A minor point perhaps but we do not need a seperate 'effects of hemp' article. Supposed (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I think that Supposed's point about hemp above is very important, and psychoactive use of cannabis is not necessarily use of the flowers of the female plant, i.e. what the US government calls marijuana. The plant is cannabis, and that's how the article should be named. I also think it is worth noting that Ganja is not Sanskrit but modern Hindu, the original Sanskrit name is Ganjika, which has meaning in that language. —Whig (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Though "marijuana" is more common in official US use, my understanding for the current name is that "marijuana" was a contrived name, created to sound Spanish, while "cannabis" comes straight from Latin, which in turn was descended from Greek.[11] "Ganja" traces back to Sanskrit.[12].--Loodog (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis is not a drug

Am I missing something? Why is cannabis referred to as a drug? THC is a drug. Cannabis is a plant that contains a drug. This is like referring to poppies as a drug.Heqwm2 (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point, we don't refer to poppies as a drug. Opium is a drug. —Whig (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please look at the WHO definition: http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/terminology/who_lexicon/en/

Drug: A term of varied usage. In medicine, it refers to any substance with the potential to prevent or cure disease or enhance physical or mental welfare, and in pharmacology to any chemical agent that alters the biochemical physiological processes of tissues or organisms. Hence, a drug is a substance that is, or could be, listed in a pharmacopoeia. In common usage, the term often refers specifically to psychoactive drugs, and often, even more specifically, to illicit drugs, of which there is non-medical use in addition to any medical use. Professional formulations (e.g. "alcohol and other drugs") often seek to make the point that caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, and other substances in common non- medical use are also drugs in the sense of being taken atleast in part for their psychoactive effects.

Cannabis fulfills the criteria of this definition. Panoramix303 (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis is a plant with many industrial uses. Some specially bred varieties of the plant have psychoactive properties. These varieties are mostly referred to by the press and in scholarly literatureas "marijuana".

• scholar/"marijuana": 310,000 (1.25x more popular among scholars... not accounting for articles only about the plant)
• scholar/"cannabis": 247,000
• news/"marijuana": 864,000 (4.5x more popular among journalists)
• news/"cannabis": 188,000
• web/"marijuana": 25,100,000 (1.8x more popular in popular usage)
• web/"cannabis": 13,800,000

That all is beside the point though, as "drug" is a loaded term. No other main drug article has the "(drug)" distinguisher in the title. It's not descriptive, as Panoramix points out it is "a term of varied usage". wp:TITLE states "Titles should be brief without being ambiguous; Titles should make linking to the article simple." Varied usage means ambiguity (is this article about the physiological effects of cannabis? or its use as a medical drug? a psychoactive drug? an illicit drug and it's legal/societal issues? WTF do we mean by drug here???). As for making "linking to the article simple", 'Marijuana' is 9 universally recognizable characters meaning exactly what this article is about to every single person who speaks English, vs. 15 characters which are not used together in the same sequence outside of Wikipedia. NJGW (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The distiguisher is there to distinguish from the cannabis article and this one. The cannabis article is about the plant. This is about the psychoactive use of the plant (i.e. the drug aspect of it). I suspect there was a page split a long time ago, as result of the whole "cannabis is not a drug" debate.--Loodog (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right of course, but it raises 2 questions:

1. Is Cannabis the proper term for the psychoactive use of Cannabis? (per the evidence above, it looks like Marijuana is much more frequently used and needs no distinguisher, fulfilling the requirements of wp:TITLE)
2. If this page is to stay here, is "{drug}" the best distinguisher when even you have to say "the psychoactive use of the plant" so we'll understand what you mean by "drug"? Afterall, even according to the WHO the term is ambiguous.

I'd say the answer to the first question is that "Marijuana" better fits wp:TITLE better than the current title, and even better than just plain "Cannabis". Others editors have claimed that "marijuana" is slang, but I see no evidence of that assumption in this extensive compilation of sources, so it fails wp:V. Someone could argue (as I have recently) that the article should be moved to Cannabis (recreational use) (which would be much more descriptive of a title and less POV than the current title), but why make the title even longer when we can shorten it to a more standard AND recognizable form? NJGW (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Marijuana is just as ambiguous as cannabis since the definitions given are identical. Renaming this article to "marijuana" would be no more valid than moving the cannabis article to "marijuana". And both should be located at a place which international readers would agree is the most recognized, official name.

As for other suggestions about the distinguisher: "recreational use" is unwieldy, improper (seems to claim that if something is used differently, it ceases to be the same thing), and an awkward politically correct way to say "drug".--Loodog (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless, you want to claim that the cannabis article should be moved to cannabis (plant) or hemp. That's a different argument, which must be taken up there.--Loodog (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Loo, cherry picking a single dictionary ref gets us nowhere. Marijuana is preferred by scholars, journalists, and the public. Many languages use "Marijuana" or some derivative as their term for the recreational drug. It's internationally used and recognizable. I really don't understand the problem. "Drug" is ambiguous. There's no getting around that, and Cannabis will not end up being moved to "(plant)" (and you know this). I totally agree that in life, calling it "cannabis" is much cooler than calling it "marijuana". But wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And as cool as it WP is, it's nowhere near as cool as life... especially with all these policies we have to follow. NJGW (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just looking up the first dictionary I know. I'm not cherry picking and I have no preference for whether the article goes here or to "marijuana". Please stop assuming I have some ulterior purpose or that I have an intention that I don't, and that the intention I have is for the wrong reasons.

It all comes down to three concepts, two are naming issues and the third is a question of WP:PRIMARYUSAGE: (1) how people most commonly refer to the plant this stuff grows on, (2) how people most commonly refer to the psychoactive parts of it, (3) what is commonly meant by the word "cannabis" or "marijuana".

Though I'm not well-versed in international naming, my experience that been that "marijuana" is a more common word for both. Therefore, if I had my way, this article would be located at marijuana (psychoactive) or marijuana (drug), the cannabis page would be located at marijuana (plant) and the search phrase "marijuana", being inherently ambiguous, would go to a dab page. But I don't know how popular "marijuana" is abroad. Addition - I would accept your google searches as representative of common usage.--Loodog (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Arguments ad Google are unreliable. In my experience as a former drug worker and trainer and as a colleague of researchers on the subject, "cannabis" is the generic term for the drug that we used. "Marijuana" was used to refer to herbal cannabis and "hashish" to resin. This may be a case where WP:ENGVAR applies.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Recreational use of cannabis seems to be the most appropriate wording to me (follows article naming such as Recreational use of dextromethorphan). The current title is inappropriate, as it specifically avoids discussion of medical cannabis, which should certainly be included if this is the article for the "drug" side of cannabis.--Remurmur (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The distinction being made here is between the whole plant and its psychoactive pieces, not between different usages of it.--Loodog (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't mean to come off as accusing you of ulterior motives. I just thought your mind was made up already. I think we need to agree on some basic facts of usage etc first, and then open an RFC with a few options. A page as visited (important?) as this needs a well thought out and wide consensus before being renamed or moved. NJGW (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling we need to canvas the cannabis editors to get them in on the discussion. I personally think that since "cannabis" (or "marijuana" for that matter) is a word with no meaning predominanting, it needs to be a dab page. Although we'll probably get objections with the whole "number of clicks it takes to get to an article" argument. Ugh.--Loodog (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

We have had extensive discussion about this in the past and there has been consensus that marijuana is not the correct encyclopedic term. It is a term that was applied to cannabis by the US government and used to confuse the public so that people did not realize that it was cannabis. —Whig (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussions in the past are past consensuses. A new consensus can be formed at any time. As far as what the US government did in the early 1900s, that should be in the article, but wp:common name doesn't take the etymology of the term into account. The fact remains that "marijuana" is more common in scientific lit, news, and the general web. NJGW (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not think there is a present consensus to change to "marijuana." I would oppose such a change. —Whig (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

We haven't posed the question yet to gauge consensus. I think this would be a big question for the whole wikiproject, as there are discussions at Cannabis and Cannabis sativa that are also related. We would need a centralized discussion addressing the names of these three articles together. NJGW (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Consensus can change. My personal vote would be for marijuana actually, though I'm not too strongly attached to this. My reasoning: if "marijuana" is the most commonly used term in print and speech, then it is the most commonly used name, regardless of the history of the term.--Loodog (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It is, however, not the most commonly used term. "Cannabis" is used in major print far more often than "marijuana," I don't even know where you'd get hinted otherwise. Besides, the origins of the term "marijuana" are largely negative. There is a reason why the "Prostitute" article is not called "Whore." It is for the same reason that this article is called "Cannabis." That's the name of the subject. The name of the subject is not "marijuana," in the same way that it is not "weed," "pot," or "sticky icky." American news media wrongly refers to cannabis as "marijuana" surprisingly frequently. However, the British media unfailingly calls it "cannabis" almost every time, whether in a positive or negative light. News and media are not a determining factor for naming an article. I strongly oppose renaming this article to "Marijuana." Wikipedia is about science and truth, not popular terminology. "Marijuana" may be popular in some communities, but that doesn't make it true. Torvik (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Google searches, news articles, and most of my personal experience. As I've said, I'm not positing my experience as the absolute for most frequent usage worldwide so I'm open to argument. I don't mean to be confrontational, but I'm a bit confused by your argument: the basis for your objection seems to be that cannabis is the "real" or "true" name and that marijuana is this substitute name that's inaccurately dispensed.

1. If you're talking about "true" as closest to reality, than either word, really any word, is "true". Shakespeare once remarked, There's no semantic value in a name. Different people in different circles and countries give things different names; none of them is inherently superior or more "true". Science can't prove one word is more um.... real.

2. If you're talking about "true" as in "what the word means", language is defined by usage. If 75% of the US tomorrow starts calling pot "kerfoozle" over all other names, that becomes its name. In English, we have no Académie française, so the language becomes defined to mean whatever people use it for. Wikipedia's stated policy is Use the most easily recognized name because of this.

3. Verifiability, not truth. There's no point in pursuing what is true on wikipedia, because we only work based on what is verifiable, even if the sources aren't true.

--Loodog (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about truth in that it is the scientific name (which also happens to be common speech). Consider the scientific name for human, homo sapiens, which is not really used in common speech. (It is, of course, in some situations, but news reporters never say "homo sapiens impact on the earth" or whatever.) That's why the article is called Human rather than Homo sapiens. It's different with cannabis; Cannabis is the scientific name, but it is also used in common speech (i.e. in print, news etc), therefore it is superior as an article title to any other term which is used in common speech but is NOT scientific, such as marijuana, weed, pot, etc. Torvik (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see section below (Naming of Article) where this matter was already resolved, I thought. —Whig (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, good call. Nevermind then. Torvik (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Illegalization in the US

The article states that the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 made cannabis use illegal, but the article on the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 states that the act didn't criminalize cannabis use or possession but created procedures for cannabis handling that if violated would be subject to fine.

The article also contains a reference to the fact that improper use of cannabis was already illegal in all US states by the time of the passage of the act: "Anslinger also referred to the International Opium Convention that from 1928 included cannabis as a drug, and that all states had some kind of laws against improper use of cannabis". Recreational use of cannabis it seems was already illegal at the state levels, and the intent behind the act seemed to have to do with alarm with a threat of mass importation of cannabis (from illegal Mexicans) to be sold specifically for those purposes that were already illegal. The procedures mandated by the act were a guarantee that cannabis sale or import wasn't intended for those illegal uses.

It references the International Opium Convention of 1928, an international drug control treaty, which listed cannabis as a drug and restricted the sale of Indian hemp to countries that prohibited it, and required shipments to state "exclusively for medical or scientific purposes." The US, among other countries, had attempted a broader ban on Indian hemp.

As it would appear, recreational use of cannabis was already illegal and attempts to enact bans were part of broader drug bans (such as at the International Opium Convention) which occurred in the Prohibition period (1919 - 1933). So, while there are a lot of interesting theories suggesting ulterior motives behind cannabis bans, it seems cannabis was targeted for bans at the same time alcohol and opium were targeted, which would suggest: there was a concern about all recreational drugs, under the idea they were social vices. Not only western societies were interested in bans, but also countries like China and Egypt, according to the article on the drug control treaty. The country mainly opposed to bans was India which was the main exporter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.167.151 (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, in the explanation of the rationale for it's illegalization, the line "The illegalization was rather a result of racism directed to associate American immigrants of Mexican and African descent with cannabis abuse," seems pretty conclusory, but I think the prior language in the article makes it clear that there were probably many reasons for weed's illegalization, not all of which are clear. Also, this language seems a bit "conspiracy theory." Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Republicofjosh01 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Cannabis (drug)

Right now (8/4/09 at 6:51 EST) the article says "[cannabis] ... refer[s] to any sort of preparation of the plants of the Cannabis genus intended for human ingestion for the purpose of inducing psychoactive effects. The most common form of Cannabis is the natural herbal form." Um... last time I checked ONLY the female plants are used for marijuana or as a drug. And furthermore they're always always always dried out and then smoked, sifted whatever. I wanted to change it to "[cannabis] ... refer[s] to any sort of preparation of the plants of the dried female flowers of the Cannabis genus intended for human ingestion for the purpose of inducing psychoactive effects. The most common form of Cannabis is the natural herbal form." User NJGW seems to disagree and I'd love to know why. Tdinatale (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that no one ever smokes the male leaves, the female leaves, the male flowers, etc? I'm sure there are places in the world that feel that anything less then organic, chronic, seedless female flowers is compost, but some people have even been known to smoke seeds and stems (on multiple occasions). Of course, if you have some source that says that marijuana is only the flowers of the female cannabis plant, I guess we have to go with it. NJGW (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Im saying I know what I'm talking about that's what I'm saying!!! And no, the male plants are only valued for breeding or hemp. Tdinatale (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but there are plenty of places on the world where cannabis is harvested and consumed, regardless of the plant sex. That the female plant is more potent is one thing but it does not mean that the male part is discarded. In some countries where it grows wild it is simply more convenient to harvest everything. Panoramix303 (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There's loads of cannabidiol in male buds as far as I'm aware which should have some psychoactive effect. Supposed (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There are no buds in the male plants; they only produce leaves and pollen sacs. Only the females have the buds that are smoked. Superjj (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but if we're going to be a legitamate encyclopedia, it should be noted that generally speaking, the female plants are used for marijuana. Tdinatale (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

...yes? Maybe? Tdinatale (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

One would need to source that both sexes are used as a drug; common sense dictates that its the female plant that is used, this is easily referenceable and should be in the opening. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Is anyone else wondering why the Cannabis article is protected indefinitely but not the Cannabis (drug) article? Is anyone else sick of reverting the endless vandalism? Or is that just me Tdinatale (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

I realize that the genus name in the Linnaeus taxonomic system should be capitalized, I understand that. When talking about the plant in proper scientific language, it should read Cannabis sativa or Cannabis indica with the genus capitalized and the species not. But do we really need to capitalize cannabis throughout the entire article just to stick to the biological taxonomic system? The article really isn't talking about the plant genus. The Cannabis article talks about that. This is basically the pot article, and when it says "cannabis" it's talking more generally about the plant, the drug, and the idea, concept or culture of cannabis as a whole, rather than specifically a genus name. I don't think we should capitalize cannabis throughout the entire article when just talking about pot. It looks sloppy and makes it clunky to read. Also, it probably doesn't need to be italicized either. Torvik (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice point, I agree. --John (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just did it. I hope you all agree that it looks better. Please don't immediately revert it back without discussing here first, as it was a pretty big job, and I don't want to see it go to waste. Torvik (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the name of a plant genus, used as a drug. It should be capitalized.. i think. Tdinatale (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

How many is "many, many"?

What's the deal with that? How many kinds of THC are there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.83.78 (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Those aren't kinds of THC, those are kinds of cannabinoids. THC is just one cannabinoid. There are, probably, hundreds of cannabinoids in cannabis, but we don't know them all. That's why it says "many, many". Among them: THC, CBD, CBN, etc etc. Most of them aren't psychoactive. THC is the primary psychoactive one. CBD, for example, isn't psychoactive but it does produce mild relaxing effects. There isn't very much research done into cannabinoids, but it is suggested that THC, CBD, and perhaps other cannabinoids are tumor-suppressive and cancer-fighting. And it's illegal. For some reason. Torvik (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cannabinoids

Why are CBL, CBC, CBG etc etc; all the minor, non-psychoactive cannabinoids listed in the Cannabis (drug) article? Doesn't it make sense to move these to Cannabis **But keeping THC and CBD in the marijuana article? Tdinatale (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The same issue is showing up in Medical cannabis with not only all the various cannabinoids but also pharmaceutical cannabinoids. We need to figure out article namings across multiple articles. —Whig (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I always believed in KISS -- keep it simple s*****. lol.. yeah.. it just makes sense to put more of that stuff in another "cannabinoid" section in the cannabis article. Tdinatale (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Different strains

Should "dro" be on this list?

I have never heard of a strain called "dro", and imagine that this was added to the list by someone who wasn't aware that "dro" is a slang term / abbreviation for hydroponic, which of course is a growing method not a strain at all. I could not find reference to "dro" on sites that sell seeds of various strains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superjj (talk • contribs) 07:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is no source provided for such a strain existing, it can be safely removed. I suspect you are correct about the slang meaning. —Whig (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Biochemistry in intro

I'd like to see the 3rd paragraph, containing the biochemical information, moved down to its own section somewhere. It doesn't belong in the intro and is off-putting. -Jordgette (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the CBL, CBC, CBG etc cannabinoids listed? I agree, especially since they are not psychoactive, they shouldn't even really bare mentioning, unless you want to create a new section such as "Other cannabinoids" or so, go for it. Tdinatale (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Although keep THC and CBD in the introduction as these 2 are the most abundant cannabinoids by far. Tdinatale (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done Tdinatale (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A flower cluster, not a flower

Thanks, Tdinatale, for cleaning up the intro as I suggested. But I'm not sure why you reverted my tweak of the caption. The photo shows a cluster of cannabis flowers. Each flower is very small and produces two pistils. I edited the caption because it was wrong...the caption should be accurate. I think it should be changed to "flower cluster." I don't care if it says "bud" or not. Thanks. -Jordgette (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's safe to assume we're talking about a cluster. And unless that's a botany term it doesn't look professional. Similarly the word "bud" has a colloquial connotation. We're an encyclopedia, not urban dictionary. Tdinatale (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree about "bud" but not "flower." It wouldn't be accurate to show a bouquet of flowers and caption it as "a flower." That's exactly the same case here. "A flower" is patently inaccurate.

The botanical term for a flower cluster is inflorescence, so you could say "a dried inflorescence (flower cluster)," although that may sound unnecessarily jargon-ish.

Alternatively, you can do something about the singular word "flower" -- perhaps "a dried flowering structure" or "the dried flowering portion."

But the criterion that trumps all others here is accuracy, which is why I strongly object to "a flower" in the caption of that photograph. Thanks for your attention to this issue. -Jordgette (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a valid point. Plural flowers look better? I mean I get your point and I like it but it just looks better as simply "flowers" or if it looks better, "flowers from a/the female Cannabis plant." Cluster just doesn't look right as it just looks obviously like a cluster. It's like saying "Oh he has a Chihuahua dog." Well, obviously it's a dog. Just like well obviously its a cluster, as it looks like a ball. You see what I'm saying? If you want flowerS to suggest that its plural (more than 1) flower (therefore it is a cluster) I can agree with that. 23:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that's a fine solution. It's accurate now, and that's all that matters. Thanks for listening. -Jordgette (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad you like it.. but if you have any suggestions/problems, please share! :) Tdinatale (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think it originally was "Dried flowerS" ... but of course someone changed it. Why this article isn't semi-protected and Cannabis is.. is beyond me. Tdinatale (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hash is not per definition stronger than weed

Come on people, that's just nonesense. There's plenty of incredibly strong weed varieties and there's plenty of very mellow hash varieties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.1.123 (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, find a reliable source and we'll put it in here, without the slang. And hash is just the trichomes, so yes it is more potent, unless you have a source saying otherwise. Tdinatale (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Claims by 69.127.18.249

1)The source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16191670 state "Samples of cannabis preparations from randomly selected coffee shops were analyzed using gas chromatography (GC-FID) for THC, CBD and CBN. In 2004, the average THC level of Dutch home-grown marijuana (Nederwiet) (20.4% THC) was significantly higher than that of imported marijuana (7.0% THC)." As I read the text was the average level of THC 20.4 % in the samples from Dutch home-grown marijuana, so I can not understand your claim. Dala11a (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry you don't understand. Let me help you: Who cares what some samples of some Dutch hydro in 2004 were? Are you going to put the strength of every single strain in the world under the potency section? Good luck with that! 69.127.18.249 (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

2) You claim that "a press release in 2006 isn't authoritative". My answer: A fact is that FDA has it on www.fda.gov today, see [13] with the text "Page last updated 06/18/2009. You can not complain about that source. Dala11a (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No, a press release is not an official policy, nor is a Bush era announcement official US doctrine, nor is there call for what the Bush administration ordered the FDA to proclaim in 2006 in the second sentence of that section. You are obviously trying to poison the well by cherry picking public policy in a section set aside for scientific research. 69.127.18.249 (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

3)You wrote: how can THC be medicinal but herbal not? My answer: See FDA's text on [14]. Dala11a (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you please site scientific evidence for THC being medicinal while Marijuana is not? How about scientific consensus that says Marijuana is not medicinal? Or are you just going to sit there and say that public policy dictates science? 69.127.18.249 (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Listen, you are confusing legality with what is scientific and trying to make a case for the legality to not be in there because you don't like hearing it. Guess what?- There is no reason to not have a BRIEF medical legality paragraph in the medical use section. Yes? PS I moved it to the bottom of the section. Tdinatale (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Further comment from Tdinatale's talk page for context:

First, to have a separate paragraph that briefly describes the MEDICAL legality in the MEDICAL use section does not constitute a POV. You, my friend, are pushing the POV by doing your own WP:OR (original research) into why someone else is pushing for something. It's not appropriate. Second of all, I don't care about your opinion on the FDA -- there is no reason to not have its stance in that paragraph. Stop making conclusions. Tdinatale (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see you think the section is called "Medical". Well, it's actually called "Effects". Saying "One effect is that the FDA thinks there's no medical benefit" is a little weird, don't you think? A little strange that you think I'm the one "confusing legality with what is scientific". As for having multiple paragraphs in multiple sections of the article restating the legality all the time... why? Isn't that just clutter? When a reader looks at the effects section, they want to know the scientificlly proven effects of the substance... not what a political organization believes should be the correct usage of the substance. And if you're not familiar with the FDA as a political organization I can point you in a few directions that will help school you. 69.127.18.249 (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and pointing out another editor's COI is not OR... otherwise we'd have to get rid or this page and all the other noticeboards. (Oh shit... no more reporting vandalism!!!?) 69.127.18.249 (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, something medical is going to have an effect on the person... what planet are you living on? Again, I really dont care what the FDA thinks, YES i know they have their head up their asses, but that's not what wikipedia is for. I dont care what political ideology they have, what they think, regardless, should be in here somehow. Let history judge how bad they act, not you or me here, now. Tdinatale (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm a little shocked you'd think about reporting vandalism on me for wanting to discuss my POV. I'm glad you're so sure of yourselfTdinatale (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What statement did I make that made you think I was reporting vandalism on you? Was it the part where I said 'If users can't point out COI because it's OR, then users can't point out Vandalism for the same reason'? Cause your interpretation is really weird. I was just calling you out for not knowing what OR really means.

Also, it is the policy of wikipedia that editors should decide on the acceptability of sources. I agree that the FDA source can be used to state that the FDA doesn't condone use as medicine, but as you point out "they have their head up their asses" and thus "what political ideology they have" must be considered when deciding how to use them as a source. So I'm not sure what relevance they have outside of the legality section. Right now where you finally placed the statements as a blurb at the end is much better, but I still think the public policy debate doesn't belong in the science section. Also, soon there will be people trying to take that blurb out because this is a global encyclopedia, not one about American policy... and probably Dala will be coming in to add the medical legality of every single country in the world there instead of the legality section below. That section should be on the consensus of medical journals. 69.127.18.249 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)