Jump to content

Talk:Cannabis (drug)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Austinball (talk | contribs) at 06:35, 1 August 2022 (→Outdated info: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

l-Theanine Prevents Long-Term Affective and Cognitive Side Effects of Adolescent Δ-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol Exposure

https://www.jneurosci.org/content/41/4/739

This amino acid is found in green tea and was historically drank in Japan.

Is this article going to talk about safe uses of the drug or not?

RFC: Cannabis overdose

The following WP:MEDRS sourced claim about cannabis overdose (reverted by User:Alexbrn) should:

"There is no evidence of death from cannabis overdose". (See this *Diff* for full references). Finney1234 (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A drug overdose fatality is a short-term response to ingestion of a large quantity of a drug. It is common with opiates, and also can occur with alcohol, amphetamine, cocaine, and other drugs. It is separate from the effects of long-term use of a drug, as well as from a fatality resulting from a preexisting health issue. A short discussion occurs in the immediately preceding Talk page section. Finney1234 (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finney1234, I find your wording a bit confusing. I suspect you mean this:
"A drug overdose fatality is a fatal response to short-term ingestion of a large quantity of a drug."
Valjean (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, User:Valjean, that's a better definition.Finney1234 (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a reference to the preceding talk page section, but the information there is important enough that I should have copied it to this RFC. I hope that adding this as an additional lead paragraph(s) is appropriate; please let me know if it's not.

Drummer et al (2019) is the single (WP:MEDRS) study cited in the "Fatalities" section; it was claimed to supersede the 2010 overdose claim. However:

1. Drummer does not mention the word "overdose" at all.

2. Multiple deaths (5-10) have been reported due to cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome(CHS). But acquiring a potentially fatal (and rare) disease due to long term heavy use of cannabis is not the same thing as an "overdose" (just like liver disease due to long-term alcohol use is not an "overdose").

3. Drummer reports that multiple cardiovascular deaths have occurred in cannabis users. However, the article explicitly states that "the evidence for a link between cannabis use and increased risk of cardiovascular disorder is not clear" (the association appears to be solely correlation, not causation). In addition, the Drummer article states that "most of the cases and series reporting a possible link between cannabis use and a cardiovascular event have not had a blood measurement positive for THC", that is, there is little evidence for immediately preceding cannabis use (required for an "overdose" fatality).

As such, the weak Drummer citation does not address "cannabis overdose" AT ALL. The reversion of the overdose claim appears to have no basis. Finney1234 (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • No. the source is not WP:MEDRS as it's out of date in being superseded by more recent science on this topic, which we cite. Alexbrn (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not super familiar with MEDRS standards, but here is a peer-reviewed study from 2020 [1] that states No scientific evidence was found for Cannabis overdose in the literature nor in our experience in the Forensic Medicine department of Tunis. signed, Rosguill talk 19:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, per arguments given by Alexbrn. Pyrite Pro (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • B For starters, poorly worded RfC. But second, science can learn new things. The source claiming no deaths is from 2010. The source claiming a small number is from 2019. In those nine years, cannabis use and study have skyrocketed, so I would treat the newer source as more reliable. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment WP:MEDDATE which is the section of MEDRS that Alexbrn has used to justify removing this states In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written. To me, this does not mean that old sources are not permitted, but rather that we should use them with care, ensuring that they have not been superseded by more recent sources. That said, Calabria only has this to say about overdose: Because cannabis use is not reported to cause fatal overdoses and "not reported" is subtly different to "no evidence". Looking at the literature, I found a review in Neuropsychopharmacology from 2018: [2] which states There are no known cases of fatal overdose from cannabis use in the epidemiologic literature. This does certainly support including something along these lines in the article. SmartSE (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's correct. 2018 and 2020 (below) are as fresh as they could be. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 22:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No (B) The source admits more study is necessary and the later studies indicate a possible low incidence of death. Tom94022 (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The current wording pf the section seems to overstate the risk of death as described in the visible portion of the reference. "At least 13 deaths" even if under-reported seems like a very low risk given it is "a drug with widespread usage among the community ... ." I suggest someone with more expertise and accesss revise the section on Fatality to better reflect the current science. Tom94022 (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A, Yes, include "There is no evidence of death from cannabis overdose", unless Wikipedia or the foundation are sponsoring a 2022 remake of Reefer Madness. Isn't "overdose" defined as an amount used at one time (note that cannabis is not mentioned on the 'Drug overdose' page)? If so, the statement is correct and should be included for accuracy. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • B, Definitively No as stated. There is enough evidence that it is controversial that it should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Also, there is no need to have only a single opinion included on this question. WP:proportion should be used. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A, yes relative to overdosing. US DEA claims that as of 2020 there were no reports on Marijuana overdose deaths: [3]; so I think it's safe to mention this fact at least for now. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 22:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • B because even if it were true, it is apparently out of date. See this source (a 2021 review article in a good journal[4] published by Springer):
  • which says, in a section labeled "Acute intoxication/overdose", describing people with "acute exposures to cannabis (without co-ingestants)" (that means the problem is due to the amount of cannabis, and you can't blame it on other things, like the beer they didn't drink or the opiates they didn't take), "There was one reported adult requiring intubation and one death."
    So there we have it: a current, MEDRS-ideal source saying that at least one human has actually died specifically and directly from acute intoxication/overdose, in a way that cannot be blamed on anything except excessive cannabis consumption.
    Also, as a second point: The correct and accurate way to describe this is not "no deaths from overdose, so no worries, dude" or "only one reported death from overdose", but to say that some people die as a result of using cannabis, and that the mechanism usually involves cannabis causing a heart attack rather than what's technically considered "an overdose", using the narrowest possible definition of that term. Also, it would be good to place those risks in context with similar subjects (probably opiates, cigarettes, and alcohol). This "only overdoses really count" framing strikes me as being just as inappropriate and manipulative as the US tobacco industry claiming that tobacco's safe, because smokers almost never "technically" overdose. They just get lung cancer or die of heart attacks. We could make the same argument about opiates: opiates don't kill you pharmacologically; they just make you not care whether you breathe. It's not breathing that kills you; ergo, no overdose deaths, right? People dying matters, even if they're dying because cannabis smoke triggered a fatal asthma attack, or because endocannabinoids caused a myocardial infarction, or because the person had a psychotic break and did something dangerous because of the paranoia or panic. Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED, and that means not acting like the only thing that matters is whether any users died through a single, narrowly defined mechanism. You wouldn't accept that for any other potentially dangerous product, and you shouldn't accept it here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In case anyone wants to wikilawyer over the source, please note that the lead author chairs the research committee of the Society of Cannabis Clinicians and owns part of a legal cannabis business. This is not a 'reefer madness' source. Bona fide professionals in the cannabis industry are saying that someone died from acute cannabis overdose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The source [1] doesn't say whether the death was due to overdose or not.There is no citation next to a statement you quoted (i.e. one reported … intubation and one death) either.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct Alexander, the source says the death followed overdose (and so was not necessarily caused by it). So that's what Wikipedia can say too. I do however agree with WAID that there is a subtle POV in insisted on focussing on overdose specifically as a (non-) cause of fatality — the fact that we're only finding dribs and drabs on this consideration in the (extensive) literature should be a warning flag. Alexbrn (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Lack of coverage is open for interpretation. The edit you made recently[08:28, January 9, 2022] is rather spurious. Acute toxicity is not the same as overdose. Stop pushing this nonsense. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That death was originally reported in PMID 30676820, which is titled "Acute Cannabis Toxicity". The original research was summarized in a review article in a title labeled "Acute intoxication/overdose". This is not spurious. It might be a desperate attempt at hair-splitting as part of an effort to whitewash the subject, though. People actually do die from using this stuff. Don't scaremonger about it (more people die each year from just walking down the street, which is overall a health-promoting activity), but don't try to censor that, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    … a desperate attempt… as part of an effort to whitewash the subject… I doubt that. Nobody is trying to pretend that canabis is completely safe. The proposal isn't about that. The #Fatality subsection already addresses this concern. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another source:
    "The likelihood of accidental overdosage is much higher when 'skunk' cannabis is involved.  There are a number of reports of sudden unexpected death is young people associated with cannabis use alone.  Concentrated products such as resins and liquid concentrates, for example butane hash oil (BHO, also known as butane honey oil), made by extracting cannabis plant material with liquid butane), were associated with greater toxicity than other cannabis products.  BHO and similar products typically contain 80% w/w THC.  Distilled concentrates have been reported up to 99.6% w/w THC.  Liquid cannabis preparations have been known to be injected, sometimes with fatal consequences."
    This is from ISBN 978-1119122340, page 550.
    BTW, the preceding paragraph in this book says that CBD tends to reduce the acute toxicity of THC, but doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30074-2 says that's not been proven. (It's still possible and plausible, but there's not been enough research to prove it.) StatPearls recommends, if chest pain is present, to "assess myocardial ischemia or infarction. There is thought to be an elevated risk up to 4.8 times for MI within 1 hour of marijuana use." It also mentions "intensive care admissions due to central nervous system depression".
    Here's another source, this time a primary source:
    "we describe a death following acute myocardial infarction with ventricular tachycardia shortly after inhaling vaporized cannabis in the form of a concentrate. There may be an increased risk of myocardial ischemia while smoking cannabis [6] due to both the induction of tachycardia with supply-demand imbalance as well as the inhalation of particulate matter"
    This is from doi:10.1080/24734306.2020.1852821, which is focused on older people. However, the fatal mechanism described appears to be the same as the one described in doi:10.1146/annurev-devpsych-040320-084904 as "More recently [=since 2009], there have been reports that require further investigation of cardiovascular deaths in healthy young men after smoking large amounts of cannabis".
    Taking a broader view than the narrowest definition of "overdose" that we can find, we can go back to doi:10.1186/s12245-021-00330-3, which also says: "cannabinoids and analogs associated with 0.51% of single substance fatal exposures, 1.4% of total substances reported in fatal exposures and as the 22nd of 25 top fatality substance categories". Being in the top-25 for fatal pharmacological exposures is not an indication of safety. It's great that it's barely in the top 25 for fatalities, but it's not good that it's in the top 25 at all, if you want to keep telling a story about cannabis being a basically non-fatal product that is the only exception to the rule that The dose makes the poison in the history of the universe. We need to tell a neutral story about cannabis, and that includes noting that a small number of people have died from it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the confirmed deaths from cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (which have occurred in a small number of heavy, long-term cannabis consumers) , *none* of the sources cited here provide solid evidence that cannabis has caused a death. Drummer et al (2019) is discussed in the opening paragraphs of this RFC, where he admits there is no evidence connecting cannabis use with cardiovascular death, and no evidence that cannabis use had occurred preceding the cardiovascular deaths. Takakawa and Schears (2021) "narratively" (no critical evaluation) cite Noble et al. (2018), which documents that there *is* a single confirmed death from an ER patient who had been using cannabis. However, there is *no* data for causation (and I believe neither Takakawa nor Noble cites anything about the patient's previous cardiovascular history). In my personal opinion, this is just a continuation of a common approach to cite speculative WP:MEDRS sources as "facts" in cannabis-related articles, in order to promote a negative (not neutral and scientifically valid) perspective (that is, WP:NPOV is interpreted as "Negative Point of View"). Nothing yet has overridden the well-established and factual "no evidence for cannabis overdose fatality" claim (in particular, the Drummer source which was originally cited by User:Alexbrn in the removal of the claim, and which was the motivation for this RFC). This strikes me as exceedingly inappropriate for what is supposed to be a fact-based encyclopedia. Finney1234 (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia relays knowledge, which is subtly different from "facts". What we have now is decent. I think the point is that choosing a weird set of super-strict criteria adrift of what the literature is focusing on (i.e. what an "overdose" is proved to cause or not cause), risks being undue/POV. Trying to use an outdated source is a symptom of that. Invoking "previous cardiovascular history" is a lot like what we hear from the died-with-covid-not-OF-covid folk. i.e. denial. Alexbrn (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Alexbrn Can you provide one or two Wikipedia official guidelines backing up the claim that "knowledge" (which, based on the current Cannabis_(drug)#Fatality section, seems to mean speculation) is the basis of Wikipedia rather than facts, and how it specifically differentiates the two? (In a WP:MEDRS required portion of an article!!). Please provide both a WikiLink to the guideline, and a specific pointer to the sentence backing up the claim. E.g, WP:MEDRS does refer to "reflect(ing) current knowledge", but it doesn't distinguish "knowledge" from "facts". A single review article is not "scientific consensus"; it is the author's personal interpretation of existing sources. Thanks. (Note: this discussion partly duplicates a discussion below; it probably ought to be addressed in one location rather than two). Finney1234 (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • THC lethal dose that can be linked to overdose deaths is impossible to estimate.No known lethal dose There is little research in humans on that. There are, however, tonnes of reports, both old[2] and new [3] noting[4]: 13 [5] that that in animals ratio of LD / Least Psychologically Active Dose is very huge. It's in line with the fact that deaths of overdose alone are extremely rare and the fact that some heart problems in humans may arise at relatively low doses. Nobody is trying to downplay some adverse effects. The number of WP:TERTIARY sources with evidence that there were basically zero cases of overdose deaths is overwhelming.[2][3][6] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is trying to downplay some adverse effects ← in fact, the OP of this RfC has argued that this article should not have an "Adverse effects" section at all, and has attempted to edit it away. As for your ludicrous sources, stuff from 50 years ago and Google search results are not what we're looking for here. We should find the WP:BESTSOURCES are summarize them. And, we're getting there. Maybe try to help with that? Alexbrn (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    …stuff from 50 years ago… Outrageous nitpicking. Stop this gameplaying.
    …summarize them… Couple of tertiary sources arelady did this for you. See above. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    «A lethal dose of THC in humans is unknown.…»[7][8] If the LD is unknown, no way to know whether a person died from overdose or not. That's simple. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 11:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)*[reply]
Actually, User:Alexbrn, my replacement of the "Adverse Effects" section by an "Effects of Cannabis" section was an attempt to go for actual "Neutrality" (WP:NPOV) rather than having a negatively oriented section that allowed no space for non-negative effects. As you can see by the article history, and the Talk page, I did not remove *any* of the actual statements in the "Adverse Effects" section: I believe in facts and science. Note also that "Adverse Effects" is a suggested section title for medical articles (which Cannabis_(drug) does not strictly belong to, IMO, although it has some WP:MEDRS sections), it is not required (see WP:MEDMOS). Since you reverted my "Effects of Cannabis" title change (contrary to the non-objection consensus which had been reached, see this), a "Non-Adverse Effects" section will need to be added, which will be sort of bizarre...but it's the only current option.Finney1234 (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added sentence

The following sentence should not have been added in the article given that it is controversial in view of the current RfC.

As of 2018 there were no reported cased of cannabis overdose being a cause of death.[9]

In particular, if you read the reference, you notice that it itself refers to the 2010 study and to the 2016 book The health and social effects of nonmedical cannabis use from the World Health Organization, which also refers to the 2010 study. So, essentially the primary source is the 2010 study and the other sources confirms the credibility of that source and its notability, but it still remains a 2010 study, not a 2018 study.

References

  1. ^ Takakuwa, Kevin M.; Schears, Raquel M. (2021-02-10). "The emergency department care of the cannabis and synthetic cannabinoid patient: a narrative review". International Journal of Emergency Medicine. 14: 10. doi:10.1186/s12245-021-00330-3. ISSN 1865-1372. PMC 7874647. PMID 33568074.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  2. ^ a b Death from cannabis overdose, Googl Books Search
  3. ^ a b Death from marijuana overdose, Googl Books Search
  4. ^ "Marihuana and Health: Second Annual Report to Congress From the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare". 1972. …Death from an overdose of cannabis is apparcntly extremely rare and difficult to confirm. This is consistent ,vith animal data, 'which indicates the margin of safety "'ith cannabis 0[' its synthetic equi valents is quite high. …
  5. ^ Marihuana and Health Annual Report to Congress, from the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 1974
  6. ^ Smith, Glen (2020). Disagreeing agreeably : issue debates with a primer on political disagreement. New York, NY. ISBN 978-0-429-27705-4. OCLC 1098220987. Has never been a reported death from marijuana overdose.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  7. ^ Grotenhermen, F. (1999). "[The effects of cannabis and THC]". Forschende Komplementarmedizin. 6 Suppl 3: 7–11. doi:10.1159/000057149. ISSN 1021-7096. PMID 10575282.
  8. ^ Grotenhermen, F. (1999). "Die Wirkungen von Cannabis und THC". Complementary Medicine Research. 6 (3): 7–11. doi:10.1159/000057149. ISSN 2504-2092.
  9. ^ Hasin DS (January 2018). "US Epidemiology of Cannabis Use and Associated Problems". Neuropsychopharmacology (Review). 43 (1): 195–212. doi:10.1038/npp.2017.198. PMC 5719106. PMID 28853439.

Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source's sources are earlier, but the review is 2018 (or 2017). It says "There are no known cases of fatal overdose from cannabis use in the epidemiologic literature". We can't second guess the source. Alexbrn (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We need to understand the source and the source's sources are important to have the correct understanding. The role of Wikipedia's editors is not to blindly repeat what a source says. Verifiability is not a syntactical criterion. We must consider the meaning, not just repeat the words. When the interpretation is controversial, we must help us with other sources. Besides, the source did not say "As of 2018". So, only on that basis, the sentence was incorrect. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the assumption is that a review will have performed an up-to-date review, but this could be solved put putting "A review of 2018 said ... " yes? Alexbrn (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Alex and don't understand Dominic's reasoning. The fact that Alex objected to the previous source, but agrees that this one is suitable, means that it should not be a controversial addition. Just in case, more is needed, that review also cites this 2016/2017 review which says cannabis is not known to cause fatal overdoses. Citing the two of them provides pretty rock-solid justification for including the statement. SmartSE (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can not just write "A review said..." and conclude that it is necessarily fine, because it's verifiable and attributed. You need to make sure that the content that you include takes into account all relevant information from the source. Would it make a difference for the readers if they knew that the source was referring to the 2010 study? (By the way, the other sources also referred to the 2010 study.) If the answer is yes, then you know that you must take it into account in some meaningful way, because you want the readers to have the best information possible available in the source. Verifiability is not just a game in which if you can show that the source said so, then it's fine. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you disagree with the review, and think the authors should have said something different. Sorry, but we don't do that. Alexbrn (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am hurt by your assumption that I am pushing my opinion. I came here because I was randomly summoned by a bot. I have no opinion about cannabis, it's influence on death, etc. I am only here to help, certainly not to push an opinion against the sources. On the contrary, if you read me carefully, I am saying that we must report the sources in the best way possible and consider all relevant information. So, I do the opposite of what you suggest that I do. If I was as rude as you have been, I would say that, on the contrary, it's you that seems to use the sources in a suboptimal way that allows you to push your personal opinion. Let's not attack each other in this kind of manner. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed no such thing, merely putting that you disagree with what the authors wrote and apparently think they should have written something different (not sure what). The authors are reviewing the subject area, and give the state of knowledge in their view. This is the kind of knowledge Wikipedia is bound to reflect. All I want to do is reflect the sources. Alexbrn (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you seem to truly believe that my arguments were pushing a personal view that is opposed to the source's view. This is called POV pushing. Perhaps you were simply honest about what you feel or believe, but it's still rude. I am not going to argue further, but it's easy to make the mistake that an isolated sentence taken from a review is what the review wanted to convey. You accuse me of wanting to say something different than what is in the source, but it's only that, as an author, if I say something with some reference, I usually wish to be interpreted in view of the reference that I have provided. It's part of what I wrote. I consider that doing otherwise, would be misrepresenting what I wrote. I assume it's the same for the authors of the review. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the following fictive experiment, which could actually be done, but I don't suggest it. Let's write to the authors and ask them on which basis they suggest that as of 2018, there is no evidence of death by overdose of cannabis. I would not be surprise that they would respond that we should look at the references that they provided to understand more precisely what they were referring to. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Their meaning is plain, sorry. Alexbrn (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that you so much blinded by your interpretation, which you say is plain, that if neglecting information supports it, then we must do that, because otherwise it's disagreeing with the source. It's weird. In contrast, I am only saying that it's better to take into account more information and I avoid claiming that anything is plain or obvious. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue could be that you focuses on what you think they intended to say. You feel perhaps that they based their point on a 2010 reference (and a book, which they must have known, also refer to the 2010 reference), but nevertheless they meant that it is still now the case. I tend to believe that this might actually be the case. So, I know how you can feel, but what I believe and feel or what you believe and feel is irrelevant. What is actually conveyed in the source is more important for accuracy. The authors actually referred (directly or indirectly) to the 2010 study and we know that as a fact. I really suggest that for maximum accuracy and to allow the readers to have the best information, we should not ignore that. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better than a guidelines, there is hard policy. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Encyclopedic content. This is fundamental. Knowledge is a layer of interpretation, analysis and synthesis (among other things) at a higher level than "facts". Alexbrn (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, a specific policy! Specifically, in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Encyclopedic content, "A Wikipedia article should ..(be).. a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". What defines accepted knowledge? Some review articles are close to consensus; other are speculative opinions of the authors. As WP:MEDRS makes clear, it's necessary to evaluate the quality of a given source. Finney1234 (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shrug - you asked ... Accepted knowledge does not have to be "consensus", that is a special case requiring the high bar of WP:RS/AC. A truly "speculative opinion", not based on underlying literature, is not secondary. If you want to know what policy says, read policy. For what we base articles on, I suggest WP:PSTS and WP:SECONDARY as WP:PAGs of interest. Maybe see some featured medical articles to get a feel for what good encyclopedic medical writing is. But this is getting off topic for this Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff from the last century? Let's stick to WP:MEDRS to ensure we have good content. Alexbrn (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:STONEWALLING. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need to have a Cannabis by country article

Need to have a Cannabis by country article. There is lots of country specific stuff.101.98.39.246 (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Legality of cannabis and the many articles linked from there. Alexbrn (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not enough. 101.98.39.246 (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then you might like Annual cannabis use by country and Adult lifetime cannabis use by country. Alexbrn (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still not enough. There needs to be an overveiw page. Don't yo get it? 17:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.39.246 (talk)
That would be this template then:

18:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

A template is not an article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.39.246 (talk) 08:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I give up. YUou obviously don't kn ow how to srite articles! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.39.246 (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that explains a lot. Shame on you, Alexbrn, for bringing logic into this when you should be sriting. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You a a fool. "sriting" is obviously a typo and there is no logic here. Alexbrn put forward an opinion which is a poor one. See LGBT rights by country or territory as one of probably many "by country" articles. 101.98.39.246 (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's apt because LGBT rights vary by country, but the biomedical effects/chemistry etc. of cannabis do not. The legality varies by country which is why we have an over-arching Legality of cannabis article. Anyway, IP, nobody is going to make an article for you so if you want it you'll have to make the sense yourself. Alexbrn (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a little more objectivity would be nice

“cannabis is a drug and bad >:(“ is the entire vibe of this article. For people interested in a medical sense it’d be nice to include positive research applications of cannabis (PTSD, chronic pain, autism, panic attacks etc) instead of just negative stuff. That’d be like talking about amphetamines without mentioning that they do actually still provide benefit to people with ADHD or narcolepsy. 75.134.225.137 (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, reliable sources are needed. Alexbrn (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For example, this source Juan.h.gonzalez.1 (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fatality section is poor

"Cannabis is suspected of being a potential, and under-reported, contributory factor or direct cause in cases of sudden death, due to the strain it can place on the cardiovascular system." - No adequate reference or explanation of what that "strain on the cv system" is or how it could be the direct cause of death - No discussion of the LD50 or overdose potential of cannabis relative to other drugs - No contextualisation of the rarity of death by cannabis 2400:2650:8DC0:1800:6C83:9F84:B505:6F08 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated info

On the page under “legal status” it says “Medical marijuana was legalized in Mexico in mid-2017; legislators plan to legalize its recreational use by late 2019.” It’s just that this is outdated and someone should get on it. Thank you Austinball (talk) 06:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cannabis_(drug)&oldid=1101668492"