Talk:Cannabis (drug)

Re: Cannabis ("drug"); hot burning photo deletion

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.

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.

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).

Photos of a joint, including how to make one, are properly included in the article Joint, to which links are presently provided.

NPOV??

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.

Cannabis use damaging DNA

I'm fine with not using the previously cited source. Here are some better sources we can use:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090615095940.htm http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2926/marijuana-smoke-more-damaging-thought JoelWhy? talk 13:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

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. Belchfire (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

History: dope vs rope

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.25.10 (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• This section has not been addressed since 31 Jul 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.25.10 (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

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? 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.25.10 (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Two topics not covered

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. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Effects of Cannibis

Hello, I just figured out how to add a new heading. Please forgive any perceived stubbornness in my reposting of the following disputed text:

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 mortality publications even includes two instances of death directly considered as marijuana overdoses by the attending coroner.

I was told by ohonoitsjaime and that I needed to do a better job sourcing. What is meant by this? My citations need to be better written? The sources aren't formatted properly?

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?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUIB Corrector (talk • contribs) 05:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Doesn't seem like a very reliable source. --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?

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? 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. Rlsheehan (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

---

No, 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? --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 [1] and Pediatrics [2].

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.

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.

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

PS PS - Would it be to much to ask to add the data page of 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. GUIB Corrector (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)