Talk:Effects of cannabis/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

bias

my god, someone anti-weed has done this article over.  Exemplar Sententia. 16:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what has happened here?--Metalhead94 (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

would you still consider this article biased/??? what date can i go back to in its pg history to see a relatively unbiased article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.72.2.70 (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't call something biased if it only brings up verified reports, can you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.249.133 (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Cultural Framing

This page appears to try to be an objective description of cannabis's short-term and long-term effects, but is wrought with regionalized political controversy.

What are your thoughts on the following and why?
-Renaming the page to something less weasel-worded like "Short-term and long-term effects of cannabis"
-Splitting the page into short and long term effects
-Moving descriptions of UK/USA controversy to its own section or page
-Other possiblities to reach an encyclopedic level of objectivity

Jeff Carpenter (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation Regarding Cancer pt. 2

If you scroll down on this page, you can see that this subject has already been debated and concluded. Someone added the the citation back into the wiki (though this time it's even more vague). I am removing it as per the same reasons that HighInBC removed it last time. The study did not pass peer review, was debunked, and found to be innaccuarate, vague, and misleading

Here's the same misleading line: "The results need to be interpreted with some caution in drawing causal inferences because of certain methodological limitations, especially with regard to interactions."

If I had to guess, I would say that the person who continues to add these studies back into the Wiki is from NIDA. 68.180.60.27 (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


edit: Great, they added it back in again. It was a poor study that could not pass a peer review. It has no place in this wiki. Please leave it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.60.27 (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Pregnancy vs. Reproductive Effects

Under the "Physiological Effects" section, I believe that the "Reproduction" and "Pregnancy" sections should be merged because they are related and the material discussed within them is redundant. Alternatively, the "Pregnancy" section could be deleted.

Fungi Citation 94

I attempted to look for the Journal of Industrial Hemp in UBC's library journal search page and came up with nothing. Upon further investigation, it appears to be an electronic journal, edited by a PhD. Namely, Dr. Hayo M. G. van der Werf. Is this Journal an authoritative source? 128.189.176.149 08:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Falsification?

There are two types of molecules. Polar and nonpolar.

Water is polar.

THC is nonpolar.

Polar liquids can dissolve polar solids.

Nonpolar liquids can dissolve nonpolar solids.

This is why oil in salad dressing floats on top of the vinegar. The only way to get them to mix is with a third party molecule, called an emulsifier... An emulsifier has a polar and nonpolar section on it, so it can make polar and nonpolar substances stick togethor.

Again, Water is polar. THC is nonpolar. Filtering nonpolar THC through polar water will only reduce the amount of other molecules you smoke, not the THC.

Now, what needs to be mentioned is that no molecule is 100% insoluble. I dont have my chemistry book anymore, but there is a type of salt out there that if you pour it in water, it just sinks to the bottom. HOWEVER, a miniscule amount of the salt DOES dissolve in the water, but it is so small it is unfathomable.

THEREFORE, the amount of THC that gets dissolved in water is so miniscule, that it is probably incalculable.

I do not know where Norml.org got the notion that 30% of the THC is reduced.

Its probably more like 2%, and even still, the bongwater's high latent heat capacity cools down the smoke so much that you increase the density of the smoke, and increase the volume of smoke your lungs can hold, resulting in an immense high.

Furthermore, I would like to know how one can possible determine the THC content of a solution. I think it's rather impossible. The only thing I can think of is to use extremely precise (.0001 gram) instruments to weigh the mass of weed you're smoking, the distilled pure H2O you're filtering the smoke through, then the mass of the smoke, the mass of the ashes left in the bowl, and most importantly, the mass of the water after smoking through it.

Honestly you can't conduct that experiment without perfect lab conditions and without millions of dollars in equipment. No offense but Norml doesn't have that kind of expenditures and I think they were the ones that did the experiments.

Burning Temperature Experiment Needed

A cheap experiment MAPS/NORML might be able to fund is that concerning the burning temperature in (a) a commercial fat nicotine cigaret, widely given as 1500 degrees F (860 C), compared with (b) a somewhat narrower "joint" (probably somewhat less), (c) various typical pipes and bongs with excessively wide bowl, which burn too hot with health consequences widely blamed on the cannabis, and (d) a one-hitter or single-toke utensil, inner diameter one-quarter inch/ 6 mm, lowest of all (LSMFT = life-saving minimum firing temperature, as long as user sucks slow enough on a long extension tube).

The home-made one-hitter may turn out to burn hundreds of degrees less hot than the hot-burning overdose devices prevalent today, even if hotter than a vaporizer (under 410 F). Until 1.2 Billion smokers of both cannabis and tobacco can afford a vaporizer, conclusive research vindicating the anti-overdose smoking utensil could make all health-related smoking controversies moot.Tokerdesigner 17:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation regarding cancer

Referring to this Marijuana use and increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

The study[1] states The results need to be interpreted with some caution in drawing causal inferences because of certain methodological limitations, especially with regard to interactions.

I don't think this is a reliable source because of this statement and the lack of information on the methods used in the study. HighInBC 13:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you add your evidence to the article instead of removing a relevant, sourced statement? The study states the results need be interpreted with some caution in drawing causal inferences. The statement 'One of the view studies to show a positive link between smoking cannabis and cancer was Zhang et al., (1999), who showed that cannabis users were 2.6 times more likely to suffer from head and neck cancer' does not suggest causality. 68.40.167.60 15:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly what it does. You need to understand that a lot of bad science surrounds the subject of cannabis and this needs to be taken into account. The reference to interactions refers to the fact that the people in the study were on a variety of drugs including tobacco. So far as I have seen only studies that include tobacco smokers seem to show any increase in cancer rates. HighInBC 15:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Again: Why don't you add your evidence to the article instead of removing a relevant, sourced statement? The study states the results need be interpreted with some caution in drawing causal inferences. The statement 'One of the view studies to show a positive link between smoking cannabis and cancer was Zhang et al., (1999), who showed that cannabis users were 2.6 times more likely to suffer from head and neck cancer' does not suggest causality. 68.40.167.60 15:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
My point is I don't think it is relevant. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? HighInBC 15:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out WP:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence, which says if a source contradicts other sources it should require exceptional evidence. The studies disclaimer at the end tends to indicate a low confidence, not exceptional evidence. HighInBC 15:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, go ahead and closely and skeptically examine the source, but like I said the disclaimer you posted is about inferring causality.
Your study seems to have trouble passing peer review:
[2] directly disputes the study and [3] contradicts it.
As I said, bad methodology, non-reproducable results. HighInBC 15:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Why not include the study, and those reviews, in the article? I am going to add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.167.60 (talk • contribs)
Why not? Because it has been debunked, that is how science works, one person makes a claim and others review it. It is called peer review, and the citation is merely misinformative. Also re-adding the citation at this point would be a violation of WP:3RR. HighInBC 16:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The article should mention that it has been debunked. This is important and relevant information, which is why you felt the need to post it here. Please add it to the article. I guess you are right about the 3rr rule, I will have to wait until my 24 hrs are up. 68.40.167.60 16:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Even after 240 hours it is not acceptable to use a citation that has failed peer review. I have given you the link to WP:Reliable sources many times now. Also, what goes on the talk page is discussion, the need to post something here does not give it the need to be included inthe article. This is junk science that has failed peer review. If we allowed that then there are studies that show men grow boobs and one joint will kill you, all of which has failed peer review. HighInBC 16:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you can create an article called Debunked myths about cannabis for such things, they would be relevent there, but not here. HighInBC 16:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I checked out your cites here, and I found one study that contradicted Zhang's study, and another study citing that study, does this mean Zhang has been debunked? The 'myth' in question has to do with health issues and the effects of cannabis; I think it is relevant. The statement 'one study reports a correlation between marijuana use and cancer' has not failed peer review, it is agreed upon by those reviewing it and should be in the article. 68.40.167.60 17:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The findings of the study were considered to be invalid due to the methodology used. There are plenty of studies out there that have passed peer review. That statement is misleading. As I said before, there is alot of bad science regarding cannabis and one must take into account the strength of a study. Please look through the talk page archives and you will find a few studies that have been tossed out of this article for similiar reasons. It is standard procedure to remove studies that have been found faulty. HighInBC 17:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[4] simply says 'Zhang and colleagues reported that marijuana use may increase risk of head and neck cancers in a hospital-based case-control study in the United States, with dose-response relations for both frequency and duration of use. However, Rosenblatt and co-workers reported no association between oral cancer and marijuana use in a population-based case-control study.' It says that one study is hospital-based and the other is population-based, but it does not say that the methodology is bad.

[5] also says nothing about methodolody in Zhang's study other than it is hospital-based.

Does the fact that it is hospital-based invalidate its findings? Why? Do you have access to the full text of these articles?

I still don't see why wikipedia can't mention a that a flawed study exists and that it has been refuted. 68.40.167.60 17:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to your last question we do mention flawed studies exist, it says at the top of the article:
There is today still a substantial amount of propaganda, junk science, and misinformation about cannabis; both from advocates of cannabis and from its opponents. There are also severe legal and political constraints on cannabis research.
Although there are many conflicting studies involving cannabis, certain physical and mental health effects have been concluded.
This clearly states that not only do bad studies exist, but that they are not mentioned here. HighInBC 18:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Your reading of the first citation is very limited, I will quote the short citation then:
However, there was no assessment of the dose response, and marijuana may have been mixed with tobacco. Parental marijuana use during gestation was associated with increased risks of childhood leukemia, astrocytoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma, but dose-response relations were not assessed. In summary, sufficient studies are not available to adequately evaluate marijuana impact on cancer risk. Several limitations of previous studies include possible underreporting where marijuana use is illegal, small sample sizes, and too few heavy marijuana users in the study sample.
This as a statement that the methodology was flawed. As for mentioning a flawed study, please note the Health issues and the effects of cannabis is a technically oriented article and not as accepting to opinion as a philisophical article such as Arguments for and against drug prohibition. Another point is that you can triple the length of this article if you included studies that failed peer review. It is off topic.
As for the second citation, it points out that statistical findings to not support the experimental findings of the study. HighInBC 17:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, moved down)

The first cite you've (anon) listed here doesn't say the methodology is bad directly, it says that the results were not reproducable. The second one isn't about methodology, it's a contrary study that found different results. The first study linked to by HighInBC, however, also attacks Zhang's methodology and determines that it's inconclusive: "In summary, sufficient studies are not available to adequately evaluate marijuana impact on cancer risk." HighInBC has pretty clearly established here that Zhang's study has not stood up to peer review. siafu 17:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"In summary, sufficient studies are not available..." This does not address Zhang's methodology. What exactly about it was bad? HighInBC, that stuff about dose-response and tobacco is talking about a different study, not Zhang's. It specifically says that Zhang's does take dose-response into effect. 68.40.167.60 20:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It says the findings of the study do not reflect the available information. This makes alot of sense to me, I don't see your point of contention. HighInBC 21:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Zhang's study was bad other than the one other study that contradicts it. Thus we have one study that says yes, one that says no. What makes one more right than the other? It is obvious to me that both studies should be included in the article. 68.40.167.60 21:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The study was done partially in response to Zhang's, so I bet there is some reason why it is better. Maybe we should look into this. 68.40.167.60 21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC) edit: toned down language 68.40.167.60 04:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Zhang's sample size is small: 173 with 176 controls. 68.40.167.60 04:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that when we have a small study that says 'yes,' and large studies that say 'no,' we should probably agree with the 'no.' The article should reflect this. However, we can't call Zhang's study 'junk science'; its methodology (other than sample size) has not been disputed. 68.40.167.60 16:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here[6](originally from here[7]) is another doctor debunking the findings of the study in question. HighInBC 16:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Since "only two had not also smoked cigarettes", all Zhang really found was that cigarettes cause cancer. Note also that "one would conclude from looking at the data that 8.2% of non-cigarette smoking, non-pot smoking controls got cancer while only 7.1% of pot smokers that did not smoke tobacco got cancer". I have read many studies about cancer and cannabis, and the pattern is clear that cannabis supresses cancer. Anarchist42 17:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
68, I really hope we can put this baby to bed now. The study is faulty. HighInBC 18:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[8] also says, "A valid conclusion that may be drawn from the data in the study is that cigarette smoking promotes squamous cell neck cancer and that the chance of getting the disease increases if marijuana is also smoked."

Zhang's study simply says that there is a correlation between marijuana smoking and cancer, and claims to control for tobacco use. From Zhang: "Controlling for age, sex, race, education, alcohol consumption, pack-years of cigarette smoking, and passive smoking, the risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck was increased with marijuana use [odds ratio (OR) comparing ever with never users, 2.6; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1-6.6]."

Note that [9] says, "Of the 173 squamous cell neck patients, only two had not also smoked cigarettes." There were also 176 control subjects. 68.40.167.60 00:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, [10] is quite POV and seems more likely to be biased "junk science," or simply rhetoric, than Zhang. 68.40.167.60 00:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Control subects are of no value unless there is something to compare it to. The fact that only 2 of the cannabis smokers did not also smoke tobacco is enough to discredit the study. I made it very clear that while the whole article is on [11], that is originated from [12]. You seem determined to defend anything that makes drugs look bad and question anything that makes drugs look good. Your bias has become more and more evident over time. This may be the result of more than one person sharing your IP, I cannot tell as you don't have a username. But if all of the edits by your IP are from the same person the a very strong POV agenda seems to be evident. HighInBC 00:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure if the fact that there were also 176 controls really proves anything in this case and I wish I hadn't said it.68.40.167.60 00:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Zhang does claim to control for tobacco use though...

How about if we add something like:

A valid conclusion that may be drawn from the data in the study is that cigarette smoking promotes squamous cell neck cancer and that the chance of getting the disease increases if marijuana is also smoked.

However, if anything, marijuana smoking alone seems to reduce the odds of getting it.

to the article?

68.40.167.60 00:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of the citation has been clearly opposed by the consensus of the editors here. The reasons for opposing range from critism from the scientific communtity, bad methodology including the vast majority of test subjects smoking tobacco, and a small sample group. You are the only person still supporting it. Per WP:Consensus this citation should not be included. . HighInBC 01:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't comprehend this sentence...

From the end of the section on reproductive effects...

The absence of any differences between the exposed on nonexposed groups in the early neonatal period suggest that the better scores of exposed neonates at 1 month are traceable to the cultural positioning and social and economic characteristics of mothers using marijuana that select for the use of marijuana but also promote neonatal development.

This sentence is incomprehensible to me, but I don't know how to correct its wording.204.126.229.2 18:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It is talking about a flaw in the methodology where the results are skewed based on the social positions of the subjects. Makes sense to me. HighInBC 19:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Correlation studies: It says in the paragraph that schizophrenia is a mood disorder, but I thought that it was considered a thought disorder. In fact, if there is a mood disorder along with schizophrenia like symproms, the disorder is called schizoaffective.

Trichome image

The article currently includes Image:Trichome-close-up.jpg.

The image was deleted for WP:PUI.

I had nothing to do with the deletion but do know that the source of the image is http://www.hempreport.com/issues/17/malbody17.html and use here may be WP:COPYVIO

It is not clear how the image is related to the subject of this article, because:

The image would be useful to illustrate a comprehensive discussion of cannabinoid biosynthesis, but none of the Category:Cannabis articles currently include such a discussion. The image might also be useful at Trichome, as well as at Hashish, Bubble hash, Kief, or other cannabis articles that link to Trichome.

I have reverted the article to the previous version without the image until the copyright status can be cleared up.

Chondrite 19:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

New info

Can anyone find the study this article is refering to[13]? HighInBC 15:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The findings appear in the Aug. 9 online edition of the journal Molecular Pharmaceutics, a publication of the American Chemical Society: Abstract & Full text. (I'm at work right now so I can read the full-text because of my job's institutional subscription. If you can't read it, let me know and I can download a copy and host it somewhere else.) --Howrealisreal 15:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will read through that later and add what I can to the article. HighInBC 15:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added my interpretation of the study to the article[14] please let me know what you think and polish it up as needed. HighInBC 15:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I have gone through several citations and modified the article to more accuratly represent them. Please give constructive critisism if needed. HighInBC 16:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"Cannabis has different and fewer effects on the lung": Does it really?

First of all I have to admit that this article is quite detailed and well referenced. It shows there has been a lot of effort put into it. I do, however, have an issue with one section of it. In regards to Health_issues_and_the_effects_of_cannabis#Different_and_fewer_risks_than_tobacco, I am unsure of some of the assertions. First, there is no reference for the positions or variation of the "concentration" of tobacco/cannabis (I assume it means smoke) in the lung, but I shall treat this as being correct. Secondly, the reference used for the emphysema/COPD claim only discusses FEV1, while I would have liked to see other measures of COPD disease such as FEV1/FVC, FEF25-75, and PEF. Unfortunately I cannot get the article online, so this particular issue may be left unanswered. Third, if we do presume that cannabis smoke does deposit significantly in the upper airway (and there is inflammation; this appears to be correct), the FEV1 (and therefore the reference for COPD incidence) becomes less useful. Central airway damage would give you a disease profile more similar (but not identical) to bronchiectasis, which can easily hide the lung function indications of COPD. If you really want to claim that cannabis does not cause various types of lung disease, the only way to do it would be via the clinical diagnosis: high-resolution CT scans. Until a comprehensive paper has carried this out (along with a full range of lung function tests), I dispute that this single reference justifies the claim can be made (especially if inflammation does occur in the central airways). Of course, since it's peer reviewed, it could be put into the article, but perhaps the mention of HR-CT scans would help clarify whether this is actually true. And finally, I wrote on a parent talk page, I believe that using the word "fewer" is potentially misleading. Is fewer a reference to total incidence of lung disease? Or the sum of the types of disease? Or the severity of disease? My interpretation of the article is that because COPD *may* not occur (and a few papers also suggest cancer rates are different), that the number of lung diseases, or its incidence is lower? More concerning for me is that the general public can easily mistake "fewer" as meaning "safer"; something that I believe must either be clarified as not necessarily being correct, or the word "fewer" should be changed/removed. When we are basing these claims off a missing reference (I have no immediate reason to assume it to be false) and one paper (especially with the issues discussed above), I'm unsure how strongly Wikipedia can assert that COPD does not appear to exist. Perhaps pointing out that the way to truly determine this is via high-resolution CT scans? On a different note: the link to radioactive tobacco does not work without access to the library password, you'll have to find another source for the reference.Volantares 05:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

These are good comments and I encourage you to edit the article appropriately. Regarding the radioactivity link, I've removed the URL to a subscription site, but left the reference because there's no requirement that sources be available online. I'm aware that some researchers have claimed that radioactivity is a major cause of cancer in tobacco smokers, and that this is related to contamination of fertilizers commonly used in tobacco cultivation. Additional info is given in Tobacco smoking#Health risks of smoking, although that article cites the same source as this one, with one additional (poor) source. If I recall correctly, this subject has been debated in the letters section of NEJM, although I am not personally aware of any peer-reviewed papers on the subject. I will try to dig up some additional information. Chondrite 06:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Does it really? Good question. However, the threshold for inclusion here is verifiabality, not truth. So, the difficulties in finding a test group of people that smoke cannabis and not tobbacco(yo!) result in a lack of data to build the article from.
A sentance could be added stating something along the lines of These studies have all been limited by a lack of test subjects that smoke cannabis but not tobbacco. But only once a citation is found to support this. Of course, my example sentance could misrepresent the reality of the situation, which is why a citation is needed.
Thanks for helping us, you seem very intellegent and we need good researchers for this article as contentious subjects need extra research. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
If our criteria for inclusion is that a fact must be verified, you will have to exclude any information that does not have the same result from two different research groups. This is arguably too stringent; I think it CAN be justifiable to include unusual results, but a lot of care must be taken not to put too much weight on it, and particular attention must be paid to the methods used to get such data.
All that said, I'd recommend you read my comment below this one in regards to "cannabis but not tobacco smokers". You are correct in saying that such a group is very rare. I will leave you to read that post for comments. Our ability to conclude facts is weakened, but not destroyed, provided the results are different between groups.
Hi. I concur these are great comments, and a fresh perspective/contributer to this article is definitely valuable. I agree that maybe a better section heading, one that avoids using words like "fewer risks" for the smoking section is a good point. It may be true in regard to tobacco radioactivity, a major proponent of that viewpoint was former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop who first popularized the Polonium-210 connection, but perhaps not proven yet across the board. On a side note, I happen to work for a medical college that has online subscriptions to almost every scientific journal. If there's any papers that you'd like me to provide, just drop me a note and I'd be more than happy to try and dig them up. --Howrealisreal 15:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the bit about radioactivity because it appears to be undue weight. "Levels of polonium-210 in tobacco smoke are not believed to be great enough to significantly impact lung cancer in smokers" [15], and "It has been estimated that about 1% of the lung cancer risk associated with cigarette smoking could be ascribed to polonium-210. "[16] -- Chondrite 07:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The source that was in the article before [17], that was commented out, states: "Lung cancer has been induced in test animals using less than one-fifth the Po exposure experienced by a two-pack-a-day smoker during 25 years of smoking. It has been suggested that Po accounts for many, if not all, cigarette smoke-induced lung cancers." But the point is not specifically with Po, it's the fact that there are many more additives in tobacco that have been connected with cancer than in cannabis. There's also lead 210, nitrosamines, benzopyrene, and even nicotine is thought to exacerbate cancer by "reacting unfavorably with microsomal enzymes in the liver." --Howrealisreal 15:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Tobacco

I don't know how much this is discussed, but I thought I'd clarify people's understanding of smoker research. It has been my experience that often a little bit of lee-way is granted when it comes to the issue of tobacco smoke, because it would be practically impossible to do the studies otherwise. The usual control system would involve recruiting people who have had very low tobacco exposure (i.e. less than a defined (and low) number of pack years, 1 pack year = 1 pack/day/year or an equivalent factor thereof), and to then presume that any tobacco related damage would be very limited or zero. Certainly that damage could be easily quantified by HR-CT scans and/or other measurements. While cannabis alone would be a better population to compare against tobacco (along with both), that population almost DO NOT EXIST. The implication is that we must presume that the two drugs added together have an additive or multiplative effect. In fact, this design decreases the sensitivity of proving cannabis is damaging, i.e. if the effects are not cummulative, false negatives could potentially occur. Oh, and you can be assured that the whole thing about people who use "tobacco/cannabis" combinations are much more easily removed or controlled for, so that complication is not a major issue in comprehensive scientific articles.Volantares 05:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I volunteer for this study(as long as I do not have to smoke tobacco). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I would actually be surprised to find that most smokers of marijuana frequently use cigarettes as well. Of all my friends that i know who smoke (this is anecdotal evidence only) only 1 smokes cigarettes as well. Like with HighInBc, i would volunteer for this study. (since i don't smoke tobacco)Jediborg

Recent discovery that it may not be all bad

I found an article on a website that describes the 10 top bad things that are good for you, one of them is on marijuana:

It's medicinal, we swear! Marijuana, often associated with memory loss, is ironically now being hyped as a way to stave off the ultimate form of memory loss—Alzheimer's. Recent studies on mice suggest that anti-inflammatories found in the drug prevent the clumping of brain proteins, one major cause of the disease. So when should you start preventative therapy? We suggest waiting for the human studies to wrap up.

[Top Tend Things that are Bad for you : Marijuana]

I don't have the time or resources to check this, but if this is correct the page needs editing. --GBobly 07:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So does this mean that you are able to keep the potential to create memories, but impair your ability to actually develop them? A little more seriously, it will be important to point out whether the study investigated marijuana smoke, or THC. That difference is important in terms of cost/benefits, and medical merit. Volantares 14:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
We already mention that it is a potential treatment of Alzheimer’s at the bottom of Health_issues_and_the_effects_of_cannabis#Physiological_effects. I added that part when the study came out. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Gateway hypothesis

The following statement was added to the article: "A 12-year study performed by the University of Pittsburgh and published on December 4, 2006 appears disprove this hypothesis, however.", citing [18]. The abstract for the actual paper is here. I haven't read the full text but the abstract states that "The authors investigated whether the transition from licit drug use to marijuana use is determined by particular risk factors...", and describes the "'gateway sequence' (illicit drug use following licit drugs)". This is not the same as the gateway hypothesis described in the article: "The gateway drug hypothesis asserts that the use of cannabis may ultimately lead to the use of harder drugs." The abstract says that a significant minority of subjects who used cannabis did not follow the gateway sequence (licit drug use followed by illicit drugs), strongly implying that the majority did in fact follow the gateway sequence. So regardless of what the cited news source stated, the abstract of the actual paper: (a) is not relevant to the hypothesis described in the article, and (b) does not support the conclusion advanced in the article. Accordingly, I have removed the statement from the article. The paper is definitely useful as a source if someone wants to write a section on "risk factors for cannabis use". Chondrite 08:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just reading the news article flags it as being poor reporting. The title of the article has nothing to do with the results actually discussed in the article (this would suggest that those editors probably shouldn't have a job), and the research itself sounds like they were looking for something and found a result for something else. Given the title of the article however, that inconsistency may stem from the news article, not the research. Volantares 13:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me to be a fairly rational conclusion that if marijuana is a "gateway drug," then it is so because it is illegal and classified Schedule 1...I mean, look at it this way-Alcohol is a legal drug in the US that is for the most part recognized to cause more health problems and physical impairment than marijuana. That being said, one would think that alcohol usage would cause a person to crave a better "high" however, I don't think many people subscribe to the belief that alcohol is a gateway drug. Therefore, a logical conclusion is that since marijuana is sold and distributed illegally, more often than not it is sold and distributed by people who are selling and distributing harder drugs (which are easier to conceal and generally much more expensive in smaller amounts). So your local stoner kid goes to the liquor store and also has the opportunity to buy, well, potato chips, lighters and commemorative Nascar shotglasses, whereas when he goes to buy his weed he is also likely to be exposed to a number of other, more dangerous illegal drugs. If he were to go to the liquor store to buy his marijuana, he would be exposed to......well....potato chips, lighters, and commemorative Nascar shotglasses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.111.87 (talk) 01:55, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


I just wanted to back up the above comment. I've spent a long time out there, involved in drugs and what have
you and on more than one occasion I've gone to meet with a dealer to buy some Weed and had him offer me something
"a little stronger." In fact, my inception into the world of hard drugs was thanks to going to buy weed along with
someone who wanted to buy ecstasy,
we shared our "purchases" with each other and since then I spent well over a year crashing and burning beyond belief. I still smoke weed but I quit hard drugs a long time ago, I keep my distance by buying through "middle men"
people who I know personally who bring it to my door.

At the end of the day, people will always smoke weed, people have done it for centuries and people have
done it at least once. Considering that there's no avoiding this fact I find it frightening that our
governments continue to rule against it so blithely.

If a fourteen year old kid goes out to "pick up" (which I assure you he will,)he has to walk in to a
very dangerous part of town, enter a dodgy estate, go into a house where he is alone and exposed to these people and then
part with his money. In a situation like this it is easy for that kid to be "pushed" into something else.
The truth is that dealers are smart, they know that if this kid gets on to something like crack they are
going to get addicted and they are going to end up being worth more money to the dealer.

Were weed legal, the dealer would be cut out of the picture. Cannabis would be heavily regulated and sold like
cigarettes which means that it would be reliable, there would be no risk of poisons being used to
"cure" the weed and it would be easier to keep under control and close off the hard drug network,
(not to mention how much prisons and the police force would be freed up to deal with real offences!)

In conclusion, although test have confirmed the gateway theory, (and I'm not trying to dispute it)
the main cause of it's occurrence in Cannabis is it's illegality. Were it legal, people who may
have an unidentifiable desire to expand
their tastes would have no way of finding a way into the hard drug network (at least through weed, anyway.
There will always be a few who find a way but isn't a massive reduction in the amount of hard drug related
crimes and fatalities worth legalising a mediocre and frankly passive drug?
all-hope-abandon 14/12/2007 --All-hope-abandon (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there is evidence that alcohol is a gateway drug, and that hard drugsd of one sort or another are easily available in most urban centers in the world. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

New article Effects of marijuana

I noticed this while looking at the newpages. Someone has just created an article which should probably be merged into this one if there is anything not already here. Not my subject though. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I blanked and redirected it, it has a lot of OR and the rest is cover here. The history still holds what it had if anyone wants to double check. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

New name

Perhaps this article should be called Effects and health issues of Cannabis, I didn't fully understand the current title and didn't realise it also concerned the effects, SqueakBox 19:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Tobacco or not

Ok I am new here in helping improve Wikipedia and while reading this article I noticed information about the effect of cannabis or related products combined with tobacco. In my experience with cannabis and related products I noticed along with many of my friends that the effect of cannabis is very different then when smoking the substance pure. Hash of course also has a different effect, with tobacco and pure. I would like the world to be able to read that information but I only have my experience and that of my friends and many other users to back it up. I wonder if you could help me find a source for this information or maybe let me publish it as a hypothesis. Wiebrandus 23:52, 17 January 2007 GTM +1 (UTC)

See WP:NOR, no hypotheses, but if you can source it put it in, SqueakBox 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Age?

can there be more information with relation with the effects on cannabis on teens, as i have heard that the brain is negatively influenced during this time if cannabis is used. how much of this is myth, and if fact, what is affected?--24.245.71.96 02:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC) User:Akako

Human Addiction

"Animal research has shown that the potential for cannabinoid psychological dependence does exist, and includes mild withdrawal symptoms."

Just because other animals develop a dependence, it doesn't mean humans do. Moreover from my own experience.....if I smoke for 3 or 4 days straight I usually lose interest physically and mentally in getting intoxicated on cannabis. I usually don't want to get intoxicated at all for a week at least. There is no way it can be physically addicting. Have these addiction symptoms been seen in humans ever? Zachorious 10:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That anecdote is original research. Maybe somsone (you?) can say the same about drinking, but it doesn't mean animals or humans can't become alcoholic. Really. 68.122.7.157 19:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
This too is original research, but I find that the cannabis experience is most exhilarating 47 hours since the last toke.Tokerdesigner 18:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it says psychological, not physiological. And almost anything, including cannabis, can be psychologically addictive. (What I wander is, what the hell does 'psychological' mean with respect to animals?) --Army1987 15:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The contributors of this article have yet to find a study showing Cannabis's addictive nature in humans. Dependence in a human, and potential psychological dependence in animals, is a large leap. Feel free to read the cited studies and adjust the text to more accurately reflect the citation. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Somewhere in the archives is a discussion of a study discussing psychological withdrawal symptoms of cannabis, and I think the tenor of that study is rather representative of all studies so far discussing cannabis withdrawal. That is, the study found something on the order of mild irritation, depression, and an effect on appetite-- similar to the sort of symptoms one might expect from a power outage on a habitual TV watcher or a wikiholic. siafu 16:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"marijuana withdrawal is usually characterized by insomnia, restlessness, loss of appetite, irritability, anger, increased muscle activity (jerkiness), and aggression after sudden cessation of chronic use as a result of physiological tolerance."

Anything can cause psychological dependence, whether it be TV, video games, sex, ect. But according to this sentence it is also physiological, which hasn't been proven. Moreover these symptoms that are described above are to my knowledge non-existant. Is there any evidence for these withdrawal symptoms? If not they should be removed. These withdrawal symptoms sound more like they are the withdrawal symptoms of alcohol, coke, meth, anabolic steroids, ect. Zachorious 23:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The source cited on the footnote at the end of that paragraph says that such reactions were indeed found on humans. (Anyway, it should be noted that the subjects were administered oral THC at 180-210 mg per day for 10-20 days.) [19] --Army1987 15:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Part of the problem is that "psychological dependence" and "physiological dependence" are not terribly scientific terms, nor is there such a clear border between them. Any substance that stimulates reward pathways can reinforce certain patterns of behavior at the level of the brain. The "physiological" part here is the small amounts of activity with each cue leading up to receiving drug, followed by a large amount triggered by the drug itself. Think of a heroin addict who sees a needle or hears a song he usually listens to when he does heroin. The song or needle triggers a craving, and the excitement (mesolimbic dopamine activity) builds as he nears his dealer, pulls out the wadded cash, and receives the bag or vial; and peaks with injection of drug.
The exact same pattern can be seen with non-drug activities that activate the reward pathway. The buildup to sex or a favorite meal produce a more or less identical dopamine reponse pattern. The ultimate point of this pattern is to reinforce every behavior and cue leading up to the true reward (sex, food, or heroin.) The learned behaviors this produces, however, are very strong, to the point of feeling "automatic." Anything that activates the reward pathways (and cannabinoids do) shows the potential for this kind of addiction. I personally have no problem at all with marijuana, just with politicization and kneejerk reactions in general. Since more or less every physiologically rewarding activity is capable of causing permanent changes in the reward pathway, I'd be careful using the term "psychological dependence" for anything. Kajerm 14:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Blackberries were called crackberries for good reason and while cannabis is clearly psychologically addictive so are many other things, and indeed addiction to online games is considered an addiction in China. At wikipedia (IMO phenomenally addictive) we must stick with sourced material SqueakBox 18:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If a drug has a withdrawal syndrome (which cannabis does), then it should be posted, irrespective of whether common usage patterns will ever produce it. Frank withdrawal is hard to elicit with cannabis because it has such a long half life (it tends to withdraw from the body gradually), but it can occur and has characteristic symptoms. In order to understand this, compare marijuana to dalmane and other drugs to xanax. Both produce withdrawal symptoms and, in fact, act in the exact same way, but it is extremely difficult to get withdrawal symptoms from dalmane. Why? Because it stays in your blood so long, at normal doses and with normal usage patterns in an average person, the drug effectively detoxes itself. Other depressants like opiates and alcohol (which admittedly don't stimulate cannabinoid receptors) have better-characterized withdrawal symptoms because they don't hang around as long in the blood. Cannabinoids can remain at detectable levels for up to a month. It is this "tapering" that occurs in most people and with the most common routes of administration that prevents marijuana from showing withdrawal.
Like I said before, I'm all in favor of it, but you're doing a disservice to wikipedia and to the cause if you ignore scientific evidence. Kajerm 23:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is still interested in this topic, please drop in at Talk:Cannabis (drug)#Physiological vs. Psychological Addiction... — Scientizzle 18:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Self reference

" This article utilizes a diversity of credible sources, mainly peer-reviewed articles from international medical journals but also scientific reports, textbooks, websites and magazines, to establish an overview of clearly documented outcomes associated with cannabis use." Never seen any self reference remotely like this in any other article and dont think it should be here either, SqueakBox 18:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a bit unencyclopedic, the references section covers that. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Placement of information

Shouldn't there be a reference to the following study study in the 'Physiological effects' section?

Cellular studies and even some studies in animal models suggest that THC has antitumor properties, either by encouraging programmed cell death of genetically damaged cells that can become cancerous, or by restricting the development of the blood supply that feeds tumors

beause right now it is under 'Smoking: Cancer risk' and it doesn't directly relate with smoking.

-ChristopherMannMcKay 21:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Study rating substances more dangerous than marijuana

This recent article rating the most dangerous drugs may be of interest. Maybe we should mention it here. I do not have access to the whole Lancet article, perhaps someone else does. --Ezeu 13:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Got it via the medical library where I work. Here's a hosted copy of the fulltext pdf for Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse. --Howrealisreal 14:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis Psychosis

I can not smoke weed anymore because of haveing a predisposition to mental illness that will develop symptoms of psychosis if I use cannabis. So the chemistry of how my brain in hooked up will bring out psychosis if I use cannabis. It is not common, but I tript off smoking weed and experienced psychosis for a month and took medication to get back to reality faster. I was told that because the weed was lased was the reason for me going psychotic. I stop smoking weed for awile and then tried it again occasionally thinking what happened before was because of bad weed. I only smoked a couple of times then quit because I thought I was taking the chance of becoming psychotic again. I stopped smoking weed for a long time then tried it one more time and 2 days later I tript again for another month experiencing psychosis then took meds again to come back to reality faster. The weed I smoked was clean and I now know for certain that my chemical system is intolerant to THC-Cannabis. I guess my mind is too deep and powerful for drugs. I do not believe that the psychotic mind state which I was in is bad, I believe that it is a higher state of consciousness but the world is not ready for me to be in that state right now. The leading science right now is quantum physics and it says that everything that I was experiencing is true. All together I tript for about 2 months combined.

  • Does all other Drugs like LSD and Mushrooms, cause psychosis if you have a predisposition to mental illness that develops symptoms of psychosis?

User:alexbro11 15:16, 28 March 2007

I don't know, none of us are experts here, we work by doing research on other peoples findings. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you describe what you experienced? Did the cannabis make you have a panic attack which brought on the psychosis? The panic attack in itself isn't psychosis, I guess it might be possible the panic attack triggered a psychotic episode but it's a leap of faith to say the actual cannabis caused it.Supposed 08:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where you got the idea that quantum physics says anything about your problem, but I can assure you that it is meaningless as a model for the human brain. Quantum physics is mathematically very heavy and, as a consequence, even modelling a simple system like a tennisball being hit by racket is completely beyond our scientific abilities, let alone modelling a system as complicated as the human brain. I'm no expert in neurology nor in quantum physics, but as far as I know, the human brain is not even completely understood on the physiological level, which should be the first step for a very rough (chemical) model of the human brain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.191.8.12 (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sum of Information?

Excellent work on the article, but don't you think it would be easier for casual viewers or someone glancing at this page to have a sum of the information probably at the bottom? Including long term effects, if there are any, or dispelling rumors and false information. People could read the whole thing, but perhaps a conclusion at the bottom would be nice.

Argumentative speculation will be the article's undoing

A number of studies correlating cannabis use and health problems are currently cited in the article. I see that editors have gone to great pains to assert that these studies are flawed or that certain conclusions should not be drawn from them. They're doing this with quite a bit of speculation and drawing of novel conclusions of their own.

None of this will survive in Wikipedia for very much longer, given the way things are going; aggressive removal of such unencyclopedic content without debate is increasingly fashionable. Merely summarizing the studies' conclusions without comment is the "verifiable" approach that Wikipedia's more hard-line editors would certainly favor.

However, to let the studies just speak for themselves would only marginally reduce bias if the average reader, relatively unfamiliar with scientific process or correlation vs. causality, is likely to make improper inferences from them.

So, equipping the reader to better evaluate the quality of the cited sources and avoid drawing unintended conclusions from them is a noble endeavor that I feel should continue to be pursued, and it's why I'm reluctant to just blindly excise the offending content myself. I'm just afraid that I'm in the minority; the article will soon be gutted unless efforts are undertaken to rephrase and change the way the studies are presented so that they're free of unverifiable counterarguments.

I encourage editors to work on this, especially in the correlation and causality section. You should be able to preface any assertion with "It is readily observable that…" and have it be uncontentious and/or cited. Studies themselves shouldn't be attacked; they're already subject to peer review. The goal is to try to ensure that the studies' conclusions are interpreted by the reader of this article as neutrally as possible. Sometimes this is as simple as explicit attribution in the prose, but often it's more difficult; you have to do it without making any claims about trends and tendencies, and you have to avoid words like "probably" "could", "might", "possibly", "perhaps", unless you can find such speculation in a citable reference. There's much work to be done, but I think careful presentation and reformulation of the article can achieve it. —mjb 23:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope others heed your words, Mjb. This, I think, is the most important aspect of WP:NOR; the average reader and most Wikipedia editors can spot an unsourced essay on someone's pet theory a mile away. But the subtle--and sometimes blatant--undercutting of the content of reliable sources by those who would (consciously or un-) sway a point-of-view is, in my opinion, more damaging to the reputation of this encyclopedia. This is not an indictment of any particular editor or bloc of editors, but rather a consistent problem that permeates many subjects. — Scientizzle 23:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

New Scientific Findings

Interesting new evidence of THC's negative effects on the brain. I haven't the time to work the information into the article, but here's the link so others can: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269256,00.html

Also, not sure if this one's information is as useful for this article in particular, but it seemed to be of value in comparison to the previous one linked to: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268650,00.html

You cannot tell much from a fox news report, I would need to look at the study or report itself to know its value. News media tends to make things sound as interesting as possible. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the Associated Press not a good enough source for information? If not, then this entire page needs work, since I see, for instance, one article from the Washington Post cited as a source(viewing cannabis in a positive light). I'm beginning to believe there is a very strong bias used for this entire article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.18.26.147 (talk • contribs).

Ideally we should use the actual studies. News articles tend to be bias whether in support or against various subjects. It would be best if we cited the actual studies in the articles opposed to news articles talking about the studies.Wikidudeman (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
That I understand, however, it seems as if news articles have been used in this Wikipedia article to display cannabis in a positive light, while news articles that view it in a negative light are highly ostracized. The Associated Press articles linked to have exact quotes from the scientists of the study("We've long suspected that cannabis is linked to psychoses, but we have never before had scans to show how the mechanism works," said Dr. Philip McGuire, a professor of psychiatry at King's College, London.), as well as figures from the study(British doctors took brain scans of 15 healthy volunteers given small doses of two of the active ingredients of cannabis, as well as a placebo.). This compared to a Washington Post article used in the Wikipedia article that was cited as a source, that contains no more exact information from a scientific study than does the Associated Press article linked to. Why then, I ask, is this the case when Wikipedia is meant to keep a neutral point of view? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.18.26.147 (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
Start replacing the news articles with the actual studies. From now on I say if we're dealing with a study only a link to the text of the study or details about the study (if no link exists) is suitable. This is how it is on most medical articles.Wikidudeman (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, here's a (currently in-press) review paper by the Dr. Deepak Cyril D'Souza cited in that Fox news article:

D'Souza DC (2007). "Cannabinoids and psychosis". Int. Rev. Neurobiol. 78: 289–326. PMID 17349865. — Scientizzle 23:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is a quote from that study
"On the other hand, the large majority of individuals exposed to cannabinoids do not experience psychosis or develop schizophrenia and the rates of schizophrenia have not increased commensurate with the increase in rates of cannabis use."
Looks like the Fox article totally misrepresented it. Not that I would expect anything more from Foxnews.Wikidudeman (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Your quote is from a study by Yale, while the original quote I gave you(from the first Fox article) is from a study done at King's College in London. More than that, you say it is a "Fox" article, however, it is an Associated Press article. Misrepresentation of information is indeed easy, and as such, facts should always be double-checked when trying to discredit something. Otherwise your system of identifying misrepresentation becomes seemingly invalid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.18.26.147 (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
My quote was from the study provided by user:Scientizzle. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The study shows that cannabinoids can cause psychotic episodes in some people. The quote from the article that Wikidudeman posted is out of context. What the quote is saying is that while cannabinoids can cause psychotic and schizoid episodes, it doesn't cause them in the majority of people who use it. Also, cannabinoid related psychosis makes up such a small percentage of psychosis incidents that changes in the number of people who are exposed to cannabinoids doesn't have an appreciable effect on the total number of people who suffer psychotic episodes. This article should note that certain people are vulnerable to psychotic episodes with cannabis use, but people who are not vulnerable to these episodes will not suddenly become vulnerable because of cannabis use. Sperril 13:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Page needs drastic work

This page seems to be filled with contradicting propaganda from both pro-cannabis editors and anti-cannabis editors with many of the sources from news organizations publishing hypothesis' opposed to reliable scientific studies. If anyone is willing to aid me in improving this article please say so we can figure out a way to improve it and organize it into something to meet the criteria of a featured article eventually.Wikidudeman (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you that the page needs work, I think you may have quite a task ahead of you. The difficulty is most cannabis research is agenda driven. I would be willing to help and I have a lot of experience in the field of drug addiction. However, I have found the research to be very contradictory and confusing. Still, I would be willing to work with you on this article.Ursasapien 05:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidudeman! This article is filled with disinformation from both sides. I think this article definitely should be marked as an article not reaching the wikipedia standards of reliability.


I agree that the article reads like a see-saw battle between the two opposing viewpoints. My own view is that cannabis, whilst not as harmful as alcohol or other drugs, certainly has the potential to be harmful if taken to excess. As ever, moderation is the key. I know people who did it all the time, and who are very agitated/depressed when they cannot get a fix. I think both sides should acknowledge that cannabis probably carries benefits and risks. Too much of anything is bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.27.251 (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps since i have only seen this report recently (sept 2007) but i do not agree with Wikidudeman. The editors of this page deserve the utmost respect and congratulations for maintaining such a high level of quality on a page that is constantly spammed with entries citing junk science and speculative news articles. I commend the editors of this page for whittling the sources down to only the ones that pass a test of utmost scrutiny and peer-review. Some of the remaining sources may contradict each other, which may cause the wiki entry to read like a see-saw, but at least i know the sources are of utmost reliability. I was excited to see that the research debunking a link between lung cancer and cannabis use was properly referenced and mentioned on this site. As a smoker myself, i was disconcerted to read about correlations between schizophrenia and marijuana use. I found the sources cited on the subject however, to be of utmost quality. Though their research was not entirely conclusive, the Wikipedia article mentions that. We should not discourage those who have worked so valiantly to maintain such high standards on such a controversial topic. Jediborg 00:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Jediborg

Cannabis and driving

This section is too complicated to read, and whoever wrote it seems to struggle in showing that there isn't any correlation between cannabis assumption and driving accidents, without having the necessary elements to actually achieve this goal. I will do some research, but even before doing it...anyone who smokes cannabis knows that driving isn't that easy (think about reflexes, it's curious that they're never mentioned in this section); and besides, it's quite contradictory to state on one hand that cannabis use can cause 'mild impairment of motor skills and concentration' and, at higher doses, 'distortions in time and space perception', and on the other hand that all studies so far have failed 'to implicate cannabis consumption as an accident risk factor'; I mean, 'impairment of concentration' alone is enough an accident risk factor to me (not to mention other effects of course). Finally, this section tries to communicate that cannabis assumption affects your driving skills in a way you can easily control, through some kind of 'compensatory effort' that (unsourced as it is) doesn't look much likely to me. Emivik 01:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this section does an adequate job of explaining how difficult it is to determine weather smoking and driving is a considerable risk. No one will argue that smoking DOESNT impair your ability to drive (even smoking a cigarette will impair your ability, given that you're distracted when taking a drag, and you're most likely driving with one hand) but what isn't understood is the EXTENT to which consuming cannabis effects your driving skills. The section mentions how, unlike alchohol, the user is aware of how much his driving ability is affected, and is able to take certain measures to compensate for that. (This is the 'compensatory effort' the section mentioned) So, in essence, the research has been unable to verify that consumption of cannabis while driving impairs your ability to drive enough to be considered a significant accident risk factor. In my personal opinion, talking on the cell phone while driving impairs your ability to drive far more than smoking while driving. 00:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Jediborg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jediborg (talk • contribs)

The Section on the effects of cannabis on driving contains numerous specific claims that are uncited. This is not acceptable by wiki standards. I have put a refimprove tag on the section, and will see if anyone can come up with some references to back up these claims. OTherwise it will be necessary to remove many of them. Halogenated (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

1.4 Memory

This section could use some additional information regarding what kind(s) of memory (rather than short-term) are assisted by cannabis.

For example: associative memory. This is relevant in music where each note or time unit draws meaning from what it is associated with. Someone who has information about Armstrong in Chicago in the 20's could perhaps source the following better than I can, but here's what I got from here and there:

Louis Armstrong moved to Chicago and became known as the riefer source for various musicians (I know, my spelling is innovative, but it's genuinely American and this is just the talk page. Yes, they called it muggles then.) He wanted to get them jamming and generate high voltage performances which in effect happened-- the "performance memory" could generate so many more coherent melodic ideas per second. Add Armstrong's instrument, the trumpet, which traditionally can be heard at greater distances than any other, and you have an achievement analogous to walking on the moon--supported by his cohorts he could utter more music per second at higher volume than any other musician in history.

This of course unleashed an arms race of jazz virtuosos trying to outdo each other. In Europe the guitarist Django Rheinhardt and his friend the violinist Grappelli led a parallel surge.

From that point on whether every musician personally toked the muggles or not was unimportant, psychic techniques had been discovered that were transferable. The racial uppitiness feared by figures like Anslinger emerged.

In 1938 a klezmerized clarinettist named Goodman brought black and white performers onto the stage of Carnegie Hall together-- in the name of jazz (or do you spell it jays). Dr. Goebbels smelled Jews. He urgently advised the Fuehrer to stir up some trouble hurriedly lest this cultural bastardization get any further. We got the Sudeten problem, the Munich conference, the assassination of some nazi by a young Jew named Grynszpan, and Reichskristallnacht.

How much of that will fit into a section on Memory in an article about Effects of Cannabis? Anyway, they are still trying to suppress cannabis for some of the same reasons as Dr. Goebbels and dear old Anslinger. contribs) 00:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this right, smoking cannabis enhances memory?! Rather than some anecdotal information regarding "state-dependent learning" or accusing those who say smoking cannabis is a danger to one's health of being Nazis, why don't you present a peer-reviewed, published, scientific journal article that demonstrates this effect. Many people feel they drive better when they are drunk, but that does not make it so. Ursasapien (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference 45 unrelated

This is related to alcohol and not Cannabis, the reference and material in the article based upon it are thus unsourced statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kintaro (talk • contribs) 13:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Paranoia

I Think this article may need a bit more on the effects the drug has on certain individuals- especially the paranoid (and the scientific reason for this if it has been recognized)

set and setting should definately be discussed more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.149.212 (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hospitalisation in the UK

The Telegraph today reports:

"16,685 adults were treated by English hospital trusts after abusing cannabis in 2006-07. The previous year, it was 14,828 - up from 11,057 in 2004-05. The data also shows that the number of children treated for using cannabis has risen from 8,014 in 2005-06 to 9,259 last year. In total, 25,944 people were treated for cannabis use last year - around 498 a week. In addition, around 70,000 people are treated for mental disorder as outpatients each year."

Kind of deserves a mention. Malick78 (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As does the fact the telegraph report is utter garbage DrugScope response to Daily Telegraph front-page cannabis story, Friday 11 January. Why is it people seem so keen to base their views on misrepresentation of the facts in the papers? This is a real problem. Supposed (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Biochemical effects section

The article, prior to my edit, contained the {{Incoherent}} tag for this section. I've removed that tag. The section is not incoherent, it's simply more technical than the rest of the article. What belongs, then, is {{Technical}} tagging in reference to that section. Per Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible, this should be noted by tagging the affected article's talk page. Thus: This relates to the "Biochemical effects" section of the article.

- Ageekgal (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

False cited info in "Toxicity" section

At the end of the Toxicity paragraph it states "A 2007 report by Health Canada however, has shown that cannabis smoke contains 20 times more ammonia than tobacco (a chemical linked to cancer), and five times as much hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides (linked to heart and lung damage respectively).[27]" I read the article and while it does say this, every other source that I have read about ammonia says that ammonia is not a carcinogen and there is no link between ammonia and cancer, for instance: [20][21][22][23]. Run a Google search if you're skeptical, there's scores of websites that say there is no link between ammonia and cancer. Even Wiki's article on ammonia doesn't say there's any link between ammonia and cancer. With it being shown that the article by the BBC is a poor attempt at yellow journalism, I will be deleting the statement in question unless someone has a valid counter-argument. Gold Stur (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Spotted, good work. Supposed (talk) 09:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Adulterated cannabis

Very interesting. "Adulterated cannabis

Contaminants may be found in hashish when consumed from soap bar-type sources.[28] The dried flowers of the plant may be contaminated by the plant taking up heavy metals and other toxins from its growing environment.". In my opinion the existance of soap-bar and gritweed is one of the biggest health risks in using cannabis, oweing to the carcinogenic chemicals often found in soap and the risk of a host of respiritory problems like silicosis from smoking gritweed. I think this bit needs some work Supposed (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Citing examples

It may be good to cite a few examples at the start of the article to demonstrate the following. "Today, there is still a substantial amount of propaganda and misinformation from both cannabis advocates and opponents due to the legal issues of cannabis, including legal and political constraints on cannabis research.Supposed (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Edit warring

Two editors have been going back and forth about the following passage (particularly the italicised sentence):

The 79 person study noted that "In the near future we may see an 'epidemic' of lung cancers connected with this new carcinogen. And the future risk probably applies to many other countries, where increasing use of cannabis among young adults and adolescents is becoming a major public health problem." The study was criticized for using inferior quality marijuana, with little or no THC.

The sentence is not cited and appears to be original research. On top of that, it does not make any sense. Does this imply that the THC in marijuana provides some protective factor regarding lung cancer? The health issues of smoking marijuana are difficult enough to determine without some POV original research that further obfuscates the results of the study. Ursasapien (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Apparently, this diff is problematic to some editors. My stance is that we cannot write that an academic study "was criticized" without giving any source to information on such critique. This undermines the validity of the study itself, and in my view is a clear example of weasel wording aimed at diminishing and depreciating the research. Just adding a "fact" to such an ungrounded claim is not sufficient, as still the reader is left with the understanding that the academic study was somewhat incorrect or wrongly performed. If anybody can link to the study's critique, they should do so. Otherwise just ungrounded mentioning that the research was criticized by someone is not encyclopedic. I will be grateful for comments and thoughts on this matter. Pundit|utter 01:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

short term vs. long term, split proposal.

I Vote for the slpit of this article, which being extensive as it is has gotten quite long, to a

FOR:

Cancer section

Upon reading recent vandalism I would agree with the poster that the following is unnecessary.

"The 79 person study noted that "In the near future we may see an 'epidemic' of lung cancers connected with this new carcinogen. And the future risk probably applies to many other countries, where increasing use of cannabis among young adults and adolescents is becoming a major public health problem.". It's a 79 person study, the conclusions of such a study are largely irrelavent oweing to small sample size. Terms like "may see" are unhelpful given the size of the study, this is very poor reasoning. No evidence is given of a "major public health problem". The wikipedia article itself indicates that such moderate cannabis use is not a "major public heath problem, thus by citing such research in this way the wikipedia article appears to contradict itself. Neither should the study refer to cannabis smoke as a carcinogen on its own, it contains carcinogenic compounds, however it also contains anti-carcinogens. Thus the author could refer to the smoke as either type. Hence the study is clearly biased in its use of language, and lacks credibility due to the relative insiginficance to other studies which should really be pointed out to the reader. WE make the situation worse by giving this insignificant study prominance as the first study mentioned in the section. This bias is perhaps hard to avoid however, the relative insignificance of the study due to the small sample size should not give it prominance on wikipedia and at the moment there is no reason why the sesction should begin with it. there's plenty of reasons why it should not. Supposed (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, at the moment it is not a major health problem, but cigarettes had also not been one before its relation with cancer was discovered. The critique of the scientific study presented by you here is OR. However, I think at the moment it is clear that there was one study proving the cancerous influence of cannabis, while there was also another that was contradictory. The reader clearly sees that there is a dispute in this matter going on. Pundit|utter 15:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Pundit what you are failing to realise is that a study with 79 participants CANNOT prove anything, and the fact the wikipedia article alludes that it can using comments from the authros of the study is unhelpful to the reader. Supposed (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I am sure the editors of the journal will be very interested in your comments. However, for now we have a scientific study and your opinion against each other. The publication process in journals is really tough, each article is reviewed by editors and anonymous scholars. I incline to believe this process rather than you that the sample was correct to make the conclusions. Surely, though, we should inform the readers how big the sample was and if they share your concerns, they will not treat the study as particularly important. Pundit|utter 15:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay Pundit I think we need to deal with each point in turn. The first I'd like to raise is the matter of the use of the word 'carcinogen'. The term has been used incorrectly, there are carcinogens in cannabis but this wikipedia article also states there are anti-carcinogens, thus it's disingenuous of the author of this study to refer to cannabis as a "new carcinogen" and I don't think wikipedia should promote such inaccuracy unless such inaccuracy is pointed out clearly to the reader. Currently it's not. You mention the peer review process however it's not foolproof, to give another example, have a lookt at this paper (which could be added to the article) which states, " The ratio of these two compounds in smoked cannabis varies – there are higher levels of 9-THC in `skunk' or genetically modified strains of the plant". [24]. Perhaps the solution is for us to query the authors to edit the paper but until they make a correction I don't think we should quote their inaccuracies. Supposed (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
on reflection I may be mistaken a little if he refers to cannabis smoke as a carcinogen although again I think that's being disingenuous as he must know there are chemicals in the smoke which are protective against cancer, the opposite of carcinogen. However he refers to this carcinogen as 'cannabis' which I think is unacceptable as it's the burning which makes the cannabis carcinogenic? As in consuming cannabis by eating fresh herbs or vapourising pretty much elimiates the carcinogens? and it looks like he's refering to any form of consumption being carcinogenic. Supposed (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the carcinogenic effect related to cannabis in this study is indeed attributed to smoke. In fact, smoking most weeds is probably increasing cancer risk quite a lot (just my guess). Eating cannabis or drinking liqueurs based on it may not have this adverse effect, but because most cannabis consumers just plain smoke it (usually unaware of the possible dire consequences) most of the research focuses on smoking, and not on eating (much as it may improve health and protect against cancer). Pundit|utter 16:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay Pundit, then you agree wikipedia shouldn't reproduce his mistake of referring to 'cannabis' as a carcinogen rather than the smoke? Supposed (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I was only expressing my personal opinion, which can hardly be called a reliable source. I'm afraid that as long as you do not prove the study was indeed about smoke only, there are no valid grounds for any changes. Somebody with experience in biology/medicine would have to carefully and without a bias read the whole study. Pundit|utter 16:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
basically Pundit I don't think it's acceptable for wikipedia to reproduce errors,a nd stating that "cannabis" is a carcinogen is an error I think, and that's all which needs to be checked, whether "cannabis" can really be referred to as a carcinogen. Personally I think it's crazy to refer to it as either a carcinogen or an anti-carcinogen as both only tell half the truth and are infact both biased statements. Wikipedia should not promote bias, and if it's necessary to include biased statements we need to at the very least point out specifically to the reader where that bias occurs, and it occurs when the author of this study refers to 'cannabis' as a "carcinogen". Supposed (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It is just that what any editor "thinks" of some academic research is irrelevant. We cannot arbitrarily decide that a valid scholarly publication in a recognized journal is erroneous. Sorry, this does not work this way. If some research was faulty, seek information about this in another publications, but don't just assume that any editor's opinion in this respect is sufficient. Pundit|utter 20:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Addiction

The recent edit demonstrates how unhelpful it is to just add peer reviewed studies without commenting on the validity of those studies. A recent edit has just displayed this study into cannabis addiction prominantly in the addiction section. This promotes bias, the study only had 12 participiants, yet it made some pretty sweeping conclusions on addiction made worse because these users were all chronic users of both cannabis and tobbaco. Should we really report those conclusions? There is very little evidence to show cannabis is physically addictive at all. Supposed (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The number of participants may not be too small - I'd be actually surprised if it was, as it would have real difficulties in being published. The source is the Drug and Alcohol Dependence journal, but the topic has been studied before here, or here or here - all demonstrating that cannabis may develop dependence. However, if you have access to the original article (I don't) look into "limitations" section (a standard in most studies of this sort), and cite from it at will. Pundit|utter 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


Tolerance

The article states: "These changes require the user to consume higher doses of the drug to achieve a common desirable effect, and reinforce the body’s metabolic systems for synthesizing and eliminating the drug more efficiently."

I've found just the opposite is true with my use. That is, after 14 years, I use less now than I did in the first years of use. The phenomenon is referred to as "reverse tolerance" in some of the texts I have here on drugs and behaviour. I think it has to do with recognizing the effects: in my early years of use, I didn't always feel the high right away, and so, I'd keep smoking. Nowadays, especially if I'm out with friends, three or four puffs is enough. When alone at home, I tend to smoke more, as I'm less concerned with how the effects will interfere with my ability to socialize, to get around, etc. Yet even then, I still smoke less than I did in those initial years of use. So I'm curious about the article's contnetion that more marijuana is needed as time goes by. It doesn't jibe with my experiences, with my university texts, or with what I see in others who use the drug.

192.75.95.127 (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I, too, found that the information in the article seems to be inaccurate here based on formal research (presented in university texts I've read and studied) and other anecdotal evidence I've come across. THC is in fact one of a rare group of drugs in which it takes more for a first-time or novice user to achieve psychotropic effects than it would in a veteran user (and as the IP address above posted it's called REVERSE tolerance). I think this should be corrected and I do have a source on hand from an old university text to cite as evidence if needed. --128.230.201.87 (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sperm Count

This article says marijuana lowers sperm count but if I remember correctly in the movie Super High Me, the thirty days he did smoke marijuana he reported a much higher sperm count. Any explanations? ScrollMaker (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, he just smoked for 30 days. Now, maybe you could attribute it also to the fact that he mostly used vaporisers, and spared himself some bad components of marijuana.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.115.135.58 (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Let us not be under any illusions. The article says that THC has been shown to impairs sperm production in animals. The article says that the impact of THC on human sperm is unknown. It does not say that is lowers sperm count in humans. HIBC 06:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Tar

I don't think the tar picture belongs here. It's not even on the tobbaco article which suggests abit of POV bias here. Besides, I doubt that's easily extracted from weed in that form. Supposed (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the picture seems to be a bit out of place here, I think it should be removed. Any objections?--UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up this page

I'd like to archive this talk page, and then do some major work in cleaning up this page. I'd also like to rename this to "Physiological effects of cannabis" -- it seems more professional. Or perhaps just "Health effects of cannabis" -- the issues bugs me. If nobody responds, I will go ahead and rename, and I'm gonna be cutting and shifting around here anyway... II | (t - c) 03:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Bulbous, I think you're going to have trouble justifying the inclusion of an in vitro primary study. We should be using reviews. In vitro studies are the worst evidence you can find. I'll give it a couple days for people to comment and think it over, although I think it would be best if you simply took it out yourself. Or you can post a note over at WP:RS/N, or WP:MEDRS. If you choose not. II | (t - c) 03:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts. However, I am not "justifying an inclusion". I am opposing a massive edit without discussion. Bulbous (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Read BRD. The motto on Wikipedia is "be bold". If I had to bring up all my edits on the talkpage before I did them, I wouldn't be able to edit much. The only article that I took out was the in vitro study; since I converted them to PMIDs, it was hard to notice that... you don't mind if I take out that in vitro study? II | (t - c) 04:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Be bold in editing; much of the time you will not run in to objections. In this case you have - immediately upon submitting your changes. Even your recent edit takes out the study you find objectionable, but also makes other changes. Are you trying to sweep things "under the rug"? Bulbous (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean? Did you not read the first section that I created? Those things you've added back were already in the article. The only study I've taken out was the in vitro study. As I stated in my edit summary, the studie syou just added were in -- and so now they are in there twice. II | (t - c) 04:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, let's take this slowly. I have not "added" anything. I have reverted your removal of material. You've removed it in bunches; whether you have one good reason for eliminating a study is irrelevant since you have also made several other edits in the same go. Try doing things one at a time - especially the non-contentious ones, and you may have more luck. Bulbous (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Please read this carefully: the only study I have ever removed from this page is the in vitro study. I made this clear in my edit summary. I moved these others around. We now have studies which are cited twice, because you are not reading. Now, is the in vitro study contentious? II | (t - c) 05:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename: "Effects of cannabis use" perhaps

The current title doesn't represent the article very well. The article deals with a wide-ranging set of effects -- biochemical, physiological, and psychological, and follows these with a tangentially related discussion of the effects of illegality on research.

"Health issues" in the title suggests that the focus of the article will be on either (a) health hazards of cannabis use, or (b) medical use of cannabis. Neither one is really the case; while the article touches on both subjects, most of the article focuses rather more neutrally on on scientific results.

I'd like to suggest a rename. The first title that occurs to me for the current article content is Effects of cannabis use. Other alternatives would include Biochemistry of cannabis. Thoughts? --FOo (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Effects sounds good to me. Go for it; if you don't do it within the week, I will. ImpIn | (t - c) 09:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Bringing this down because I really think that this article needs to be renamed. I suggest "Physiological effects of cannabis", "Effects of cannabis", or "Health effects of cannabis". Please state your preference. II | (t - c) 19:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Physiological effects of cannabis is not a good title as it does not give creedence to pyschological effects and the effects of prohibition which also happen to have an effect on peoples health. I would like the article to be expanded to give these effects further emphasis. However even without this the psychological dependence people experience with cannabis is not necessesarily physiological. Supposed (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

From our Wikipedia article, "Physiology (from Greek: φυσις, physis, “nature, origin”; and λόγος, logos, "speech" lit. "to talk about the nature (of things)") is the study of the mechanical, physical, and biochemical functions of living organisms." That clearly seems to encompass the biochemical effects on the brain, doesn't it? The psychological effect of cannabis is rooted in physiological biochemistry. II | (t - c) 16:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of what it states in that definition (which is still pretty ambiguous in regards to psychological effects), it means little to the common man. The person who suggested the original title change, suggested we use 'Biochemistry of cannabis'. I think this shows just how little consideration was originally given to the effects of prohibition on peoples health and the psychological effects of cannabis. Just to reitterate the point about the effects of prohibition, these are discussed in the artiele. They are NOT physiological effects of cannabis , they are the physiological effects of what cannabis has been adulterated with. Perhaps that's a little pedantic but there is a much broader topic which should be discussed here relating to the direct health effects that are created when cannabis is prohibited. This topic is broad but it does not warrent a seperate article. Either way, either the article name should be changed or sections of the article should be removed. Supposed (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to try to move it to "Effects of cannabis" (ask an admin?), I have no problem with that. That seems like the best title, given how broad this article is. II | (t - c) 19:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I personally think a title like 'Cannabis use and health' would be better as it's much more encompassing. Supposed (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with that. This page has a section devoted to the biochemical effects. Health in the title puts a POV spin on the page. Now, if we were to separate the page into biochemical and health effects, maybe we could do that. But I don't think that would be good; the biochemical mechanisms are intimately related to the possible health effects. II | (t - c) 22:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Neurotransmitters causing decrease in activity?

Experiments on animal and human tissue have shown the potential for the disruption of short-term memory,[10] which is consistent with the abundance of CB1 receptors on the hippocampus. The effects of THC at these receptor sites produce what resembles a "temporary hippocampal lesion."[10] As a result of this, several neurotransmitters like acetylcholine, norepinephrine, and glutamate, are released that trigger a major decrease in neuronal activity in the hippocampus and its inputs. In the end, this procedure could lead to the blocking of cellular processes that are associated with memory formation. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that these effects are permanent, and normal neurological functionality is eventually regained, usually as the drug is metabolized.

A major decrease in neuronal activity is the exact opposite effect that I would expect from the release of acetylcholine, norepinephrine, and glutamate.

Reference or explanation, anyone?

--66.31.5.11 (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"neural activity" is a very vague term, used in this context as a mean to use superlatives and verbs, to an otherwise uninteresting, or non-eventfull data. it's the semantic of the language that causes this.

Perhaps a little history lesson revamp

For those Anti-Canabis idiots who insist on screwing up the other article with fiction.

...

Hemp was George Washington's primary crop, and a secondary crop for Thomas Jefferson, so hemp has been around in America for a long time, without apparently causing much destruction in society. Each sailing ship carried several tons of hemp in its rope and sails, so cultivation of hemp was a major industry. Even though cannabis was widely grown, there were no allegations that it led to harder drugs.(2,3,5,10)

In 1910, they believed that the certain steppingstone to opiate addiction was "eating Mexicanized food". The fundamental idea comes from America's puritanical history. It is the idea that pleasure is sinful, and small pleasures lead to cravings for larger pleasures. In this example, those who crave spicy food will inevitably crave larger pleasures, such as opium.(1)

In the 1920s, some states outlawed marijuana because of the belief that heroin addiction would lead to the use of marijuana - just the opposite of the modern myth. (2,3)

Cannabis had been widely known and used in many medicinal compounds for hundreds of years, so there was ample evidence in the 1930s to know whether there was a connection between marijuana and harder drugs. (7,8)

In 1937, Harry Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, testified before Congress that there was no connection at all between marijuana and heroin. In the testimony for the Marihuana Tax Act he said: [quote] ANSLINGER: This drug is not being used by those who have been using heroin and morphine. It is being used by a different class, by a mostly younger group of people. The age of the morphine and heroin addict is increasing all the time, whereas the marihuana smoker is quite young.

MR. DINGELL: I am just wondering whether the marihuana addict graduates into a heroin, an opium, or a cocaine user.

MR. ANSLINGER: No, sir; I have not heard of a case of that kind. I think it is an entirely different class. The marihuana addict does not go in that direction.

MR. DINGELL: And the hardened narcotic user does not fall back on marihuana.

MR. ANSLINGER: No, sir: he would not touch that. [/quote]

The reason marijuana had to be outlawed, he said, was because it caused insanity, criminality, and death. One example he gave was of two young lovers who became so crazed after smoking a joint that they eloped and got married. Marijuana causes people to become so crazy that they get married. The other reasons he gave were no more sensible. The hemp industry representatives who testified were uniformly surprised and mystified to hear that a dangerous drug could be made from this widespread and common crop. The American Medical Association testified that they knew of no evidence that marijuana was a dangerous drug. (2,3,4)

The US Government encouraged farmers to grow hemp during World War II, because it was vital to the country's war effort. There were no claims at the time that marijuana would lead to harder drugs.(2,3,10)

In 1944, the La Guardia Committee Report on Marihuana confirmed Mr. Anslinger's statement -- there was no connection at all between marijuana and heroin.(6)

In 1951, the story changed. Harry Anslinger was testifying for the Boggs Act about why he needed more money and men to enforce the marijuana laws. Just before he testified, the head of the Federal addiction research program testified that they knew for certain that all of the reasons that had been given for outlawing marijuana in 1937 were entirely bogus. They knew for certain that marijuana did not cause insanity, criminality and death. Anslinger was left with no reason for tougher laws so he made up -- on the spot, with not a shred of evidence -- the assertion that marijuana is the certain stepping stone to heroin addiction. He directly contradicted his own testimony from 1937. It has been the basis of US marijuana policy ever since. (2,3)

Since that time, the Federal drug enforcement officials have tried to support this myth with the idea that most heroin addicts started with marijuana, and statistics which seem to show that marijuana users are more likely to have used cocaine. The first assertion would get a failing grade in any freshman Logic class. The second can be explained by the fact that people who engage in one risk-taking behavior are likely to engage in other risk-taking behaviors. It, too, would earn a failing grade in freshman Logic.

In 1970, the Canadian Government did their largest study ever of the subject, and found no connection between marijuana and heroin.(9)

In 1972, the US Government did their largest study ever of the subject, and found no connection between marijuana and heroin. (8) This was also the conclusion of the largest study ever done by Consumers Union, published the same year.(5)

Every major study of the marijuana laws in the last 100 years has concluded that the only connection between marijuana and heroin is that they are both prohibited and, therefore, sold in the same black market.(11)

The most recent study of the subject was the report of the US Institute of Medicine on medical marijuana.(12) They reported: [quote]Instead it is the legal status of marijuana that makes it a gateway drug.[/quote]

In other words, the people who support prohibition are using the bad effects of prohibition as justification for prohibition. The conclusion of all the research is that we have a "gateway drug policy". It is the laws that create the problem.

All of these references can be found on the Internet at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/history.htm

(1) Themes in Chemical Prohibition, NIDA Conference Report, 1979 http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/ticp.html

(2) History of the Marijuana Laws, speech to the 1995 California Judges Conference, by Professor Charles Whitebread, USC Law School. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

(3) Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of Knowledge: The Legal History of American Marijuana Prohibition, Professors Richard Bonnie, and Charles Whitebread. http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/LIBRARY/studies/vlr/vlrtoc.htm

(4) Transcripts of the Congressional Hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, see transcripts of Harry Anslinger's testimony. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/taxact.htm

(5) Marijuana in the New World,http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cu54.html from The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs, 1972. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm Also found under http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer - Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy.

(6) LaGuardia Committee Report on Marihuana http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/lag/lagmenu.htm- Also found under http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer - Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy.

(7) Cannabis Fluid Extract, From the Parke, Davis & Company 1929-1930 physicians' catalog. http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/history/vbchmed1.htm

(8) History of the Medical Use http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/nc1a.htm -- From Marihuana, A Signal of Misunderstanding, by the US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972 http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm -- Also found under http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer - Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy.

(9) Canadian Government Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, (The Le Dain Report) http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/ledain/ldctoc.html - Also found under http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer - Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy.

(10) Transcript of Hemp for Victory, US Dept of Agriculture Film, 1942. http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/hemp4v.htm

(11) Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy -- http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/studies.htm

(12) Marijuana as Medicine, Assessing the Science Base, by the US Institute of Medicine, 1999 -- http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/iomreport.htm

- Herbert West —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.197.182 (talk) "06:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, this was an amazing historical essay. if you just pleaee wikify it's refferences and edit the POV elementso ut, I will be supportive tof inserting this essay as the History" section of this artcile. :) Good Work.11:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)~
If neither of you mind, please move this to the legality of cannabis article, where it is more appropriate. If you want to add some of this stuff, you can, but it doesn't belong here. This is for the physical/psychological effects of cannabis. II | (t - c) 09:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Toxicity chart

This chart is a complete violation of NPOV. It attempts to compare deaths resulting from or *related to* other causes, while comparing it to deaths from Cannabis toxicity. It's complete apples and oranges, misleading and POV. Bulbous (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay perhaps a better chart would be to compare deaths that result from the 'use' of cannabis and other drugs. Supposed (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
[EC]Agreed. It's simple enough to write "there have been no reported deaths related to cannabis toxicity[ref][ref]" in the text without synthesizing a comparison to other intoxicants (for obvious purposes). — Scientizzle 16:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I actually disagree with your reasoning. The first graph does partially compare cannabis toxicity to the toxicity of other drugs. I agree it shouldn't be there but rather because it's original research. If a scientific study elsewhere did the same we could include it on wikipedia. It would not be a NPOV violation. Supposed (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem is the disingenuous nature of the comparison: nobody dies from an OD of THC, but nobody dies from an OD of nicotine, either. The addition of "Hospital administered drugs" (so broad and vague as to not be useful) is clearly a WP:SYNTH addition, as well. One can cleanly state that NORML (others, too?) argues that cannabis is safer than many other common intoxicants with refs.
Furthermore--let's be honest--NORML ain't exactly the most neutral purveyor of information regarding this...It's highly misleading to say "more than 440,000 premature deaths annually are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is non-toxic and cannot cause death by overdose." Tobacco smoking causes death primarily by contributing to the development of cancer, heart disease & COPD, not by acute nicotine toxicity, and it's used to a far greater extent worldwide. Given this source, it's best to attribute the specific claim to NORML without giving it undue weight. — Scientizzle 16:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Toxicity chart

Could those of you who disagree about the chart below please discuss it here.

Annual number of deaths in the U.S. from various causes
Substance(s) Number
Tobacco 440,000[1]
Hospital administered drugs 106,000[2]
Alcohol 46,000[1]
Marijuana (toxicity) 0[1][3]

Supposed (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

References
  1. ^ a b c "International - NORML". norml.org. Retrieved 2008-06-30.
  2. ^ "JAMA -- Abstract: Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients: A Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies, April 15, 1998, Lazarou et al. 279 (15): 1200". jama.ama-assn.org. Retrieved 2008-07-08.
  3. ^ "marijuana overdose by drug overdose.com". www.drug-overdose.com. Retrieved 2008-07-30.
Hmm, this looks about as unrealistic as one can imagine, are we really claiming that 440,000 people die every year from overdosing on tobacco or that cannabis is not a factor in any deaths, eg from cancer. neither seems realistic. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The chart is not consistent. The first three lines compare deaths associated with various causes. The last line refers to the specific toxicity of Marijuana. You need to either list (in the final line) the number of deaths associated with Marijuana use, or else you need to re-do the chart to reflect the toxicity of the other items. Tobacco use, in that case, would also be 0. Bulbous (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana Use And Lung Cancer" :
    • {{cite news|url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm|org=Science Daily|date=[[26 May]] [[2006]]|title=Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana Use And Lung Cancer}}
    • {{cite news|url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm|org=Science Daily|date=[[26 May]] [[2006]]}}
  • "TumorGrowth" :
    • {{cite news|url=http://www.drugabuse.gov/MedAdv/00/NR6-20.html|title=Study Finds Marijuana Ingredient Promotes Tumor Growth, Impairs Anti-Tumor Defenses|org=Journal of Immunology|author=Dr. Steven M. Dubinett|date=[[2006-07]]}}
    • {{cite news|url=http://www.drugabuse.gov/MedAdv/00/NR6-20.html|title=Study Finds Marijuana Ingredient Promotes Tumor Growth, Impairs Anti-Tumor Defenses|org=Journal of Immunology|author=Dr. Steven M. Dubinett|date=[[June 20]], [[2000]]}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Two Toxicity Sections

There are Two Toxicity Sections with basicly the same info , The first Toxicity could be deleted. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.58.40 (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is the toxicity under short term effects and The toxicity under the Biochemical effects is pointless. I think the toxicity under short term effects should replace the Biochemical effects toxicity. Toxicity has more to do with Biochemical effects than short term effects. Please tell me if I can go ahead with the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.5.112 (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

does this belong on wiki?

It's like someone from the 1930's hijacked this website. It has just about every myth mentioned over the past 80 years. Can we get the bull out and stick with facts please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejolson (talk • contribs) 18:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Libido

Libido is already mentioned earlier in the article under [Psychoactive effects]. The section specifically r.e. Libido added nothing to the simple statement that cannabis can cause increased libido (which also is uncited, but I won't protest this). Without any citations and nothing but personal tesimony this cannot be expanded upon as per WP:OR. Cheers Halogenated (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Toxicity

This section had some poorly written portions I rewrote and simplified. In addition, the estimate of LD-50 was based on the wrong information. I rewrote this with a range for oral, and added the extrapolated value for inhalation based upon the inhalation LD-50 given for rats. For this I gave the caveat that this assumed similar toxicity. In reality this often underestimates the toxicity in humans - e.g. an LD-50 of 750 mg/kg for a substance in a rat may actually be 300 mg/kg in a human. It would probably be best to just remove these extrapolated uncited dosages completely, which I will do until someone can put up a proper citation for it. Halogenated (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The extrapolation is fine for wikipedia. It's done on other articles, little reason why it can't be done here. If you want to dispute that you can't extrapolate it to humans and get those figures I'm afraid you will have to provide some sort of reference to that effect. I mean, why do you think we have to extrapolate LD-50 values from rats to humans? Do you think those performing LD-50 tests on rats are primarily interested in the lethal toxicity of chemicals in rats?Supposed (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Using the extrapolation probably violates the WP:OR since it is not referenced by an acceptable source - wikipedia editors are generally not qualified to make medical assessments regarding the toxicity of substances based upon studies in other animals, and even if they are they still cannot do so under WP:OR. I don't believe this is common practice in most articles, but I've never looked at this specifically before. That is why I think it best to simply provide the cited info in rats for now, and not provide likely incorrect information about toxicity in humans. Halogenated (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of wikipedia policy the main aim of LD-50 is to determine the toxicity of chemicals in human beings. Wikipedia should reflect this. Supposed (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Then the reader can look up under the article LD-50 and make their own determination. It is not appropriate for editors to make this determination on their own, even with a caveat that it might not be accurate. Halogenated (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

CARDIA longitudinal study on cardiovascular risk

The abstract from the CARDIA study [25] suggests the effects of cannabis on the body do not raise heart attack risk. I think this is an important finding due to the nature of this study, using 15 years of longitudinal data from 3,617 black and white young adults, but not sure how to add it to the article. It may need a new section altogether. I've never liked loaded statements like "may", you could equally say "may not", or how about "very unlikely"?

The claim that cannabis use may cause heart attacks is given using two references, which are discussed below.

In stating "cannabis may cause heart attacks" wikipedia is quoting the following,

"Myocardial infarction may be triggered by THC due to these effects on circulation [36] [37]."[26]

What follows is a discussion of the two refereces [36] and [37].

The first [36] gives the following conclusion.

"Concerns have been raised over the possible contribution to death from use of cannabis in persons with compromised cardiac function (e.g. coronary artery disease). Sharp rises in blood pressures and heart rate could give rise to myocardial infarctions in susceptible persons [160]. An increased incidence of stroke should also be considered."

Little evidence is given, whilst it states there are 'concerns', without giving a source for. Reading through the article it appears poorly written as it doesn't even cite anything for the strengths of different types cannabis that it quotes and even refers to 'skunk weed' as it calls it... as being different from Sinsemilla. Even stating 'skunk weed' is 20%+ THC in strength.

The only evidence they give (quotation 160 above) is from the following article which documents six cases of heart attack where cannabis is the only drug detected in blood samples.[27]. However be warned, it is far from conclusive as the following conclusion of the paper suggests.

"Several reports of acute cardiovascular episodes associated to cannabis use have been published in the last 20 years and underlying patho-physiological mechanisms have been discussed. Cannabis is generally considered to be a drug with very low toxicity. In this paper, we report six cases where recent cannabis intake was associated with sudden and unexpected death. An acute cardiovascular event was the probable cause of death. In all cases, cannabis intake was documented by blood analyses. To our information there were no heavy drug addicts in our material and the deceased individuals seemed to be occasional cannabis users. Coronary pathology was revealed by the autopsies in some cases. Further investigations of clinical, toxicological and epidemiological aspects are needed to enlighten causality between cannabis intake and acute cardiovascular events."

The second of the two references [37] as shown below proves nothing.

"Smoking marijuana is a rare trigger of acute myocardial infarction. Understanding the mechanism through which marijuana causes infarction may provide insight into the triggering of myocardial infarction by this and other, more common stressors." [28]

The above quotation is actually wrong. There is no evidence that cannabis is a trigger of acute myocardial infarction. At best there is a rare 'possibility' due to association.

Given these conclusions the author of the paper originally cited has been a little careless.

Supposed (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite interesting - I will take a closer look at this stuff later tonight/tomorrow and lend my impressions. But I think that this will warrant some rewording of potions of the article. Cheers Halogenated (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I was abit too hasty with the last thing I said above. Upon looking through the whole 37 article it appears quite extensive but I don't have time to read through it tonight Supposed (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Would you agree the following seems quite poor to conclude cannabis increases the risk of heart attacks, especially as it suggests tobbaco may be an important confounder.? "Of the 3882 patients, 124 (3.2%) reported smoking marijuana in the prior year, 37 within 24 hours and 9 within 1 hour of myocardial infarction symptoms. Compared with nonusers, marijuana users were more likely to be men (94% versus 67%, P<0.001), current cigarette smokers (68% versus 32%, P<0.001), and obese (43% versus 32%, P=0.008). They were less likely to have a history of angina (12% versus 25%, P<0.001) or hypertension (30% versus 44%, P=0.002). The risk of myocardial infarction onset was elevated 4.8 times over baseline (95% confidence interval, 2.4 to 9.5) in the 60 minutes after marijuana use. The elevated risk rapidly decreased thereafter." I mean it's possible 50% of the people having heart attacks had smoked a cigarette an hour before. It just seems odd they can conclude it 'increases risk' if there were only 9 people in the study, about 0.23% who had smoked it an hour prior before showing symptoms. OF course not to mention the fact that tobbaco is often smoked with cannabis. And then there's the higher percentage of obesity among the cannabis using participants which increases their risk by a factor somewhat unknown to us. It's unfortunate that we have to report conclusions like these. They seem so unscientific. Supposed (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Methods Of Consumption

Shouldn't methods of consumption be in the main article, and not in Effects of Cannabis? Liamrooney92 (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, except insofar as we want to describe differences in the effects based on method of consumption. For instance, it's pretty well-attested in the medical cannabis literature that one reason many users prefer smoking or vaporization over oral consumption is that the effects are more rapid (e.g. pain relief) and easier to control. --FOo (talk)
What is this 'medical cannabis literature' you speak of? I haven't read it but I'd be interested to. Supposed (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ratios

I thought more CBD was associated with lessened anxiety, as pure THC supposedly causes anxiety. The wording of the ratios in this article suggests that a greater amount of THC decrease anxiety. 24.65.95.239 (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

THC boiling point?

"[...] a vaporizer heats the material, ideally to 180°C (356°F), so that the active compounds contained in the cannabis boil off, [...]"

The boiling point of THC is given as 392°F, or 200°C (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THC). Is 356°F too low? Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.236.158 (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Cannabidiol has a lower boiling point than THC. So, even if the vape didn't get to 392, the user would still feel the "sedative" or stoned effect, as shown in some animal studies where they were given only cannabidiol, and no THC.Tdinatale (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the result of this edit flows properly. The section begins by talking about some research, discussing it in detail then mentions at the end that a study (the exact same study of the research) refutes the findings of the study in question. Supposed (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Cannabidiol has a higher boiling point than THC, not lower.Fireemblem555 (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

effects that arent true

This article lists lots of claimed side effects that end up not being truthful. It's especially confusing to the reader when they are listed in with other actual effects. For example, the summary says "chronic use is not associated with cardiovascular risk factors". this kind of statement is silly in an article titled "effect so cannabis". It makes no sense to list non-effects anywhere else in this article besides a "non-effects" section. I propose dividing this article in to three sections: Actual effects, disputed effects, and non-effects. The summary should briefly list all actual effects, then say "Many other effects have been claimed which have turned out to be either not completely true or totally false." Possibly linking to the sub sections or briefly listing said effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.89.125 (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

One disputed effect that I don't see listed in this article is gynecomastia. The article mentions decreased testosterone levels, but does not go on to mention anything about the possibility of gynecomastia. 74.190.48.43 (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of Template:cn

User Steinberger complain about my edit "However, this observation is contradicted by that improved methods for treatment with early intervention in psychosis has helped to keep down the number of people with long periods of psychosis." The article early intervention in psychosis has 31 different sources that show that there has been a big development in the methods for treatment of younger patients with psychotic symptoms in the last decades. I can of course add source 32 etc that support the text above, but what is the point. Dala11a (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So what your saying then is that you don't have a source saying that Degenhardt L, Hall W, Lynskey M (2006) has been contradicted. That is called wp:OR, which you should know for all the times people have explained it to you. Please be sure you are adding real information instead of your opinions. NJGW (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
So 32 sources about the fact that frequency of psychosis is something that is possible to affect by treatment, and that the methods for treatment of psychosis has developed fast in the last decades is nothing that contradicts Degenharts conclusion. That is original research by you, mr NJGW Dala11a (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Have you considered that maybe the reason you can't find a source which says what you're thinking is that such sources don't exist? NJGW (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

General poor standard

Firstly, I'd encourage editors to read any scientific journal's professionally written review on any heavily-studied topic in medicine, such as Nature's somewhat recent review on precisely this topic, the effects of cannabis ( Nature Reviews Neuroscience 8, 885-895 (November 2007) | doi:10.1038/nrn2253 ).

In citing scientific literature, it's appropriate and argumentatively rigorous to provide direct citations of conclusions provided in abstracts. For instance, consider the following citation directly from the DOI link provided for the first reference in the article (reference "[1]", a and b, appearing as Ranganathan M, D'Souza DC (November 2006). "The acute effects of cannabinoids on memory in humans: a review". Psychopharmacology (Berl.) 188 (4): 425–44. doi:10.1007/s00213-006-0508-y. PMID 17019571.)

"Conclusions This profile of effects suggests that cannabinoids impair all stages of memory including encoding, consolidation, and retrieval. Several mechanisms, including effects on long-term potentiation and long-term depression and the inhibition of neurotransmitter (GABA, glutamate, acetyl choline, dopamine) release, have been implicated in the amnestic effects of cannabinoids. Future research in humans is necessary to characterize the neuroanatomical and neurochemical basis of the memory impairing effects of cannabinoids, to dissect out their effects on the various stages of memory and to bridge the expanding gap between the humans and preclinical literature."

It is entirely appropriate for an article bordering on meta-analysis like this one to thoroughly quote concluding remarks. This is academically and encyclopaedically rigorous.

Please note the clear language of "long-term" effects and its further conclusions. These seem to contradict the two sentences to which this citation is applied. First, in the introduction:

"Acute effects while under the influence can include euphoria, increased appetite, anxiety, short-term memory loss,[1] and circulation effects which may increase risks of heart attacks. However, chronic use is not associated with cardiovascular risk factors such as blood triglyceride levels and blood pressure in the longitudinal CARDIA study.[jargon][2] The evidence of long-term effects on memory is preliminary and hindered by confounding factors.[2][3]"

It's clear that [1] is not a study exclusive to acute to effects, but all effects, including chronic effects. The "evidence of long-term effects on memory", at least as far as [1] is concerned, is not "preliminary". If "Future research in humans is necessary" [1] is being interpreted to mean "preliminary and hindered by confounding factors", editors aren't going to be satisfied with any scientific literature ever. All scientific conclusions suggest further research; this is standard practice in research.

The author of the intro also makes incorrect conclusions based on the remaining citations, [2] and [3]. The citation for the statement "confounding factors" is [2] and [3]; [2] makes no claims about confounding factors, and [3] states:

"care needs to be exercised since many human studies are flawed by multiple drug abuse, small sample sizes, sample selection and sensitivity of psychological tests for subtle differences"

"Confounding factors" is actually language that appears in citations on other Wikipedia cannibis articles--I will not look for where it actually appears here. It suffices to say that [3] doesn't use that language, and tends to make a more conventional statement. Specifically, this study is doing what almost every scientific study does, which is propose (but not prove) flaws and imply that this study does something to address said flaws. This quote is not an implication against all studies in general, however, and certainly is not meant to say that all studies are "hindered by confounding factors". In fact, the evidence is supported and investigated in [3], while conclusions are conjectured (i.e., postulated or supposed), but not certainly proven.

The introduction therefore has limited basis in its citations. Indeed, a critical reader would stop there and be prejudiced against the rest of the article, but I think that's unfair.

Consider secondly, in the short-term memory loss subsection:

"A 2008 review of the evidence surrounding the acute impact on memory concluded that cannabinoids impair all aspects of short-term memory, especially short-term episodic and working memory."

The expression "short-term" does not appear in any part of [1]'s conclusions. It is at best an incorrect citation or a corruption of the article, and at worst a misunderstanding on behalf of the author of that sentence.

Note that [1] was written in 2006, not 2008 as the second sentence claims ("A 2008 review"). I searched the first 9 citations to see if it had been a typo, but I could not find a review from 2008, nor a citation from 2008 which makes any claims on short-term memory.

Curiously, the majority of author-written conclusions drawn from abstracts--which are in and of themselves conclusions--seem to miss what the researcher/researchers were actually concluding. I have reproduced a few early cited abstracts below. Ask yourself: After I just finished reading the entire abstract, does the abstract conclude/agree with the text in the Wikipedia article where it is cited? I generally feel "no", but you're advised to decide that for yourself.

Many of you editors will be unable to read the full studies cited, since the content is accessed by institutional or private subscriptions. But abstracts are generally available. In the event abstracts are not available, or that editors are making editing decisions based on citations they don't have access to, how could editors make good editing decisions? In the first and most trivial case above, it's clear that editors haven't been rigorous, or that that they've made poor editing decisions.

Having skimmed through the archives, I get the impression that if I made the changes myself, they would be immediately reverted. In general, the behavior of editors on a useful, oft-visited article like this one seems to go against Wikipedia principles of open-editing, peer review and rigorousness. I urge the frequent editors of this article to do a thorough review of the citations.

Some abstracts, for which we have permission reproduce:

[2]: "The acute side effects caused by cannabis use are mainly related to psyche and cognition, and to circulation. Euphoria, anxiety, changes in sensory perception, impairment of memory and psychomotor performance are common effects after a dose is taken that exceeds an individually variable threshold. Cannabis consumption may increase heart rate and change blood pressure, which may have serious consequences in people with heart disease. Effects of chronic use may be induction of psychosis and development of dependency to the drug. Effects on cognitive abilities seem to be reversible after abstinence, except possibly in very heavy users. Cannabis exposure in utero may have negative consequences on brain development with subtle impairment of cognitive abilities in later life. Consequences of cannabis smoking may be similar to those of tobacco smoking and should be avoided. Use by young people has more detrimental effects than use by adults. There appear to be promising therapeutic uses of cannabis for a range of indications. Use of moderate doses in a therapeutic context is usually not associated with severe side effects. Current prohibition on cannabis use may also have harmful side effects for the individual and the society, while having little influence on prevalence of use. Harm is greatest for seriously ill people who may benefit from a treatment with cannabis. This makes it difficult to justify criminal penalties against patients."

[3]: "Marijuana and its psychoactive constituents induce a multitude of effects on brain function. These include deficits in memory formation, but care needs to be exercised since many human studies are flawed by multiple drug abuse, small sample sizes, sample selection and sensitivity of psychological tests for subtle differences. The most robust finding with respect to memory is a deficit in working and short-term memory. This requires intact hippocampus and prefrontal cortex, two brain regions richly expressing CB1 receptors. Animal studies, which enable a more controlled drug regime and more constant behavioural testing, have confirmed human results and suggest, with respect to hippocampus, that exogenous cannabinoid treatment selectively affects encoding processes. This may be different in other brain areas, for instance the amygdala, where a predominant involvement in memory consolidation and forgetting has been firmly established. While cannabinoid receptor agonists impair memory formation, antagonists reverse these deficits or act as memory enhancers. These results are in good agreement with data obtained from electrophysiological recordings, which reveal reduction in neural plasticity following cannabinoid treatment, and increased plasticity following antagonist exposure. The mixed receptor properties of the pharmacological tool, however, make it difficult to define the exact role of any CB1 receptor population in memory processes with any certainty. This makes it all the more important that behavioural studies use selective administration of drugs to specific brain areas, rather than global administration to whole animals. The emerging role of the endogenous cannabinoid system in the hippocampus may be to facilitate the induction of long-term potentiation/the encoding of information. Administration of exogenous selective CB1 agonists may therefore disrupt hippocampus-dependent learning and memory by 'increasing the noise', rather than 'decreasing the signal' at potentiated inputs."

[5]: "Therefore, the potential problems arising in relation to marijuana consumption in adolescence suggest that this developmental phase is a vulnerable period for persistent adverse effects of cannabinoids."

--140.247.71.93 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - this article has gone so far downhill. I added some of the psych problems content, but I don't care enough to have an edit war trying to keep it intact. Some junior philosopher always adds another note to say that correlation doesn't imply causation, so we can't be sure that dope makes young men psychotic. There's an interesting link here - [29] but I guess a majority of editors will discount the Royal College of Psychiatrists as the biased representatives of the man. And remember guys, Hair are your Aerials. Ah this one seems quite nice too: [30] --Dilaudid (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit to Neurological Effects Section

I would like to see this referenced information become integrated into the Neurological Effects Section

"Earlier studies purporting to show structural changes in the brains of heavy marijuana users have not been replicated with more sophisticated :techniques." -Institute of Medicine, "Marijuana and Medicine: Assesssing the Science Base," 1999
"No pattern consistent with evidence of cerebral atrophy or loss of white matter integrity was detected. It is concluded that frequent cannabis use is :unlikely to be neurotoxic to the normal developing adolescent brain." -Harm Reduction Journal May 9, 2006
"Laboratory studies of humans and primates show little support for amotivational syndrome. School performance does not vary with cannabis consumption in :college students." -Understanding Marijuana, Dr. Mitch Earleywine
"No studies show the pervasive lethargy, dysphoria, and apathy that intial reports suggested should appear in all heavy users." -Understanding :Marijuana, Dr. Mitch Earleywine

Does any one have any suggestions for making these edits? Or objections? --Agent Agent (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

In light of the insightful critique of "summaries" of research conclusions given directly above this section, I recommend that more information be provided: more info about the publications, authors, dates of the cites offered here, and more context for the conclusions themselves. Frankly, they sound suspiciously cherry-picked and counter-intuitive: "School performance does not vary with cannabis consumption in college students". Yeah...right. "No studies show the pervasive lethargy, dysphoria, and apathy that initial reports suggested should appear in all heavy users." Sounds bogus: scientific research almost never accepts as a study criterion an allegation that any outcome is expected to appear in all cases, heavy usage or not, and it is hard to imagine that any scientific studies made such allegations in the first place. Generally, these cites sounds too sweeping, and I would look at them and their sources very closely for verifiability. EylonTheGreen (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on semi-protecting this article

I am not sure how the locking/protecting process works here on WP, but I feel like this article receives a fair amount of vandalism and nonconstructive edits from non-registered users. Is it possible this article could be semi-protected so that only established users can edit it? Any thoughts? --Another Believer (Talk) 04:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Effects_of_cannabis/Archive_3&oldid=1136691129"