Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:12, 4 January 2014

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cannabis (drug) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

	Cannabis (drug) was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 29, 2005 Peer review Reviewed March 9, 2006 Peer review Reviewed April 19, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 27, 2006 Good article nominee Listed October 3, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted April 7, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cannabis Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cannabis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cannabis on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CannabisWikipedia:WikiProject CannabisTemplate:WikiProject CannabisCannabis Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pharmacology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Neuroscience High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Archives

Archive index Cannabis archive 1 Cannabis archive 2 Cannabis (drug) archive 1 Cannabis (drug) archive 2 Cannabis (drug) Archive 3 Cannabis (drug) Archive 4 Cannabis (drug) Archive 5 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. Squiquifox 18:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cannabis (drug) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Safety

Re links between cannabis use and lung cancer risk, this article seems to stress studies that indicate "no connection", and light use. But see also http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23846283 regarding long term heavy use. Ptilinopus (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Considering this study was published just some 10 days ago, it's hardly surprising that it's not yet included here. I'll add when I have a moment. JoelWhy?(talk) 21:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

PMID 23846283 is a primary source; see WP:MEDRS. There are numerous secondary sources compliant with MEDRS that can and should be used. For those who don't know how to determine if a study indexed in PubMed is a primary (an orginal study) or secondary source (an independent review of an original study), Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches may help. Medical content should be sourced to recent secondary reviews. For example, PMID 24234874 is a recent secondary review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy, having read through the wiki on reliable sources for medical articles, I have a better idea of what to use. Would it be ok to reference this link from the National Cancer Institute regarding the link between pot and cancer? JoelWhy?(talk) 14:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Jmh649, MastCell Hi again, JoelWhy! On the surface, I'd probably say yes, since it appears to be a secondary review, but I've pinged some folks who would know better because a) I'm not familiar with that source (they may be), and b) I'm wondering why we can't just use the secondary reviews they reference. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

IMO it is better to use the published review article. This would be an okay source if better ones are not found. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, we have Gordon 2013 that does specify cancer risk:

• Gordon AJ, Conley JW, Gordon JM (2013). "Medical consequences of marijuana use: a review of current literature". Curr Psychiatry Rep. 15 (12): 419. doi:10.1007/s11920-013-0419-7. PMID 24234874. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Gordon says: "there does appear to be an increased risk of cancer (particularly head and neck, lung, and bladder cancer) for those who use marijuana over a period of time, although what length of time that this risk increases is uncertain". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Great minds think alike, JoelWhy. I just cited the NCI overview at medical cannabis. I think it's a good source, as is this detailed overview from Health Canada. The bottom line is that cannabis products are carcinogenic in a variety of in vitro assays, but human studies have been limited and inconclusive to date. MastCell  17:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Got to make sure we mention its when burned that there theses problems. As the studies indicate oral consumption as in eating (not smoked) is not a precursor. Also have to be carefull when it comes to sources here...this is not a medical article and the sources dont have to be medical - just reliable in nature about drugs. -- Moxy (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Medical and health statements require WP:MEDRS sourcing no matter where they occur, and some portions of this article are about health (in fact, most). Think of it like WP:BLP; just because a statement about a living person occurs in an article that is not a biography does not mean we can violate BLP. This articles is about a drug; MEDRS will apply to a good portion of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with what your saying....but a comprehensive review by the Drug and Alcohol Review Board would be a fine reference... we need to source the wider views of experts on the topic over just medical reports. Lots out there that has validity that is not just medical in nature. On a side note the section "History" is way to big for here. -- Moxy (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I just created History of medical cannabis via a merge, and we also need to spin a lot of content from here and cannabis into History of cannabis; these articles are a bear to work on! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

David Nutt and the removal of his remarks on British Lung study

Professor David Nutt, who used to chair the UK's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, was fired after releasing the results of his examination of drug scheduling and its relationship to drug dangers. He found that cannabis was less dangerous than both tobacco and alcohol.

His remarks on the British Lung Study should be in this article. This encyclopedia needs to include the voice of prominent critics, as well as government agencies, etc. Please add this back to the paragraph discussion the BLS. Smoke without fire: Scaremongering by the British Lung Foundation over cannabis vs tobacco. We have good coverage of the study, it is not too much to ask for the one sentence about Nutt to be once again included. petrarchan47tc 00:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Is the BLS study considered a reliable sources? As those are medical claims, we should adhere to WP:MEDRS. Someone mentioned that blogs are not RS, but blog is a technical description of a website's structure and layout, it is not possible to generalize.

From WP:BLOGS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." which David Nutt meets.

But we should make a summary from Effects of cannabis‎‎ and Long-term effects of cannabis‎‎ and add it to the relevant section(s) in this article. Götz (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I take it that you didn't notice, but I already removed the BLF reference before you posted this so the comments by Nutt aren't important now. The BLF publication wasn't peer reviewed as far as I can tell and so we shouldn't be referencing it. If the claims it makes are valid, we'll be able to find them in the literature. SmartSE (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I've read more than a couple dozen secondary journal reviews this week, and it's a) amazing the amount of information that is untapped in these articles, and b) apparent that it is unnecessary to be resorting to lesser quality sources when there is such an abundance of information from high quality sources that often say the same things. It will take some time and effort to upgrade the sourcing in this suite of articles, but very good sources are available and there is no need to resort to advocacy sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

In my reading, came across this from the most recent (2013) Cochrane review:(PMID 23633327)

The use of cannabis (marijuana) or of its psychoactive ingredient delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) as a medicine is a hotly contested issue. Those in support of its medicinal use assert that marijuana is effective in the treatment of wasting syndrome in patients with AIDS and cancer; neurological disorders such as multiple sclerosis; and glaucoma (Aggarwal 2009). A counter argument might point to the existence of effective treatments for many, if not all, of these conditions. Not unlinked to this debate is the question of the legalisation or decriminalisation of marijuana as a recreational drug. A recent re-appraisal of the harms to individuals and others in the United Kingdom associated with various substances rated cannabis as less harmful than both alcohol and tobacco (Nutt 2010). Nonetheless, the current legal status of marijuana constitutes an important philosophical obstacle to the legitimacy of its use as a medicine (Cohen 2009). (From PMID 23633327 )

This reinforces my belief that most of the problematic text in these articles can be better sourced to recent high quality reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

THC fatalities?

We say "Recorded fatalities resulting from cannabis overdose are generally only after intravenous injection of hashish oil." sourced to PMID 16225128, but according to this old edit this is a misrepresentation of the source, as this material relates to animal studies. Has somebody got access to the full text and so can check? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 03:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That was my - possibly mistaken - reading of the cited abstract. (It seemed from the language of the abstract they were discussing humans - "hair" not "fur", "autopsy".) However, reliably attributing death to an acute effect of cannabis ingestion seems to be problematical in the rare instances it's suspected, and this BJP review from 4 years earlier says, "no deaths directly due to acute cannabis use have ever been reported." So, I'd be comfortable citing that and dropping the Przegl Lek. abstract - unless we can find a more recent authoritative statement on death as an acute effect. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully someone at the Resource Exchange can get hold of the full text. This is an important thing to get right. SmartSE (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Considering it's an obscure and dated source, and that Petrarchan47 is apoplectic about what may just be a mistake by another editor (hey, mistakes happen, but never by Petra apparently), I'm going to remove it for now. We have secondary reviews of mortality and fatalities; we don't need this text anyway. And Petra, people make mistakes; be glad no one is as hard on you as you've been on Anthonyhcole for what may or may not be a mistake. Oh, and thank you Alexbrn (gee, a MED editor) for spotting the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Alex didn't spot the problem, I did, and pointed it out to him at Gandy's talk on 10 December. So what you call "drama" is actually what it took to get this *oopsie* out of the encyclopedia. petrarchan47tc 21:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This 2011 paper in Forensic Science International states:

"As THC overdoses are exceedingly rare and almost never a direct cause of drug-overdose deaths, no “lethal” THC concentration in humans is described. Except in the setting of trauma resulting from drug-induced impairment, THC measurement in post-mortem specimens has little impact on the ultimate determination of cause and manner of death by medical examiners, and this fact is likely responsible for this relative scarcity of information."

"...no fatalities from cannabis (or THC) overdose have been reported..."

It doesn't make any mention of intravenous injections though (but I did find Intravenous Marijuana Syndrome). I've searched for other IV info in other papers but couldn't find anything else even mentioning it other than this which was an experiment where the LD50 of cannabinoids was found for monkeys. Perhaps it is best to remove the obscure source and use the FSI paper? Let me know if you want a copy. SmartSE (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Smartse; I just added a 2010 review of mortality that says the same thing (no reported fatalities from overdose). Possible mistake made, error spotted, error fixed, would have been fixed even faster without the drama. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

removed

Recorded fatalities resulting from cannabis overdose are generally only after intravenous injection of hashish oil.

And also removed

We have a 2010 review citing no fatalities in the article; a 15-yo review saying the same thing is not needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Photo with caption as follows: 'A joint prior to rolling, with a paper "roach" at left.' is incorrect, and disagrees with the caption on the full-size version. The item at left is not a "roach," but a "filter."

Mrnews (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have revised the caption.--Soulparadox (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposing page move to "Marijuana"

Our guidelines ask that the title of an article should be the most commonly used name for the topic, even if it perhaps seems less "official". From WP:COMMMONNAME, "Misplaced Pages does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." An example is given that this is why we have an article on Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton.

Further, our guidelines suggest how to determine the most common name using a search engine. "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data; when using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Misplaced Pages"."

I have done those searches using Google and listed the results below. "Marijuana" beats out "cannabis" in every search, across the board. The only categories where cannabis comes close are Google Scholar and here on Misplaced Pages, where the usage is about evenly split. (Before doing the searches, I expected cannabis to at least win on Scholar.) Most noteworthy is the ratio in news articles, nearly 300 to 1, representing the most topical sources.

I propose to do a page move to Marijuana, overwriting the present redirect, unless there is objection. Requesting discussion. Msnicki (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose this. Its essentially an American term for cannabis but we are an international encyclopedia and the international term is cannabis. There is no evidence of this term being widely used outside the Americas except in some instances as a slang term for herbal cannabis. Using statistics from an American search engine to justify your wish doesnt seem like other a weak argument. For instance if you want to catch news stories from google alerts in English marijuana will give North America stories and cannabis stories from everywhere else. Given this isnt an American theme article we dont want to use a term just cos its American. Please dont even think about moving without going through the proper RM process first so a wide debate can be generated. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The ratio of 298 to 1 re news items makes me extremely suspicious of your results objectivity. I notice you have used google.com in web as well as news to justify your results but that is a US centred google search engine (as all google nation based domains slant towards a particular language and or nation) so its no surprise your statistics support your proposition. Would you get identical results using google.co.uk? Because if that domain produced different results then these results are meaningless, ie we would expect a US slanted search engine (google.com) to produce results that slant towards the USA where unquestionably marijuana is the preferred term. I would also add that changing the name to the American name for this popular article would sent out entirely the wrong message to our international readers♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Kochanowski, M.; Kała, M. (2005). "Tetrahydrocannabinols in clinical and forensic toxicology". Przegl Lek. 62 (6): 576–80. PMID 16225128. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Cannabis articles
• Top-importance Cannabis articles
• WikiProject Cannabis articles
• B-Class pharmacology articles
• High-importance pharmacology articles
• WikiProject Pharmacology articles
• B-Class neuroscience articles
• High-importance neuroscience articles