Talk:Effects of cannabis/Archive 4

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

Cannabis arteritis

I call BS on this, what kind of illness is that??? And why the hell would they amputate your apendages? Someone look this up, this just smells of horsecrap. 208.168.245.184 (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC) PS: The Citation it has is so false

It's in the literature. You can read about it here. NJGW (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations do not support statements in article

Someone needs to go through this article and read the citations. The statements in the article are very often not supported by the citations given for those statements. The article should probably be thrown out and re-written from scratch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.75.160 (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis LD50

In the article it claims to have a verifiable LD50 for rats, but then a general estimate is given for the LD50 in humans, I doubt this is accurate seeing as the LD50 for humans in not verifiable from any source, and the type of dose isn't given (extract, smoke etc.). I think its important to note that you would die from aspyxiation long before actually overdosing on THC. Pending actual hard research I' deleting the estimate for humans but leaving the LD50 for rats —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attwell (talk • contribs) 21:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll need a ref. NJGW (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Pro-cannabis Bias

From first glance to a more thorough inspection, this article seems infused through and through with a pro-marijuana bias. For example, any and all studies cited supporting claims of a correlation or possible causation between cannabis use and mental disorders are knit-picked apart in a way that reads "these results are irrelevant", while the few studies which support the pro-cannabis side of the argument are seemingly delivered in the same modus operandi as the critiques of the anti-cannabis studies. In other words, both and all seem to be delivered in such a way as to cast doubt on the negative effects of cannabis use and not in a way that simply portrays the facts and the results of both pro- and anti- cannabis studies. I think that this is shameful in that this web-site is where many children and adolescents get their information regarding such things. They should at least be given the opportunity to decide between two unbiased sides of this argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.16.158.213 (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the cannabis: good or bad debate, because I think it can be both. It's probably "safer" than alcohol in terms of long term abuse and addiction but I do not think it is without risk or a magical cure for everything like some of the pro-cannabis lobby would have you believe. However, this article is pretty bad. There are too many assertions on both sides, but more so from the proponents of cannabis. The effects on driving segment needs to be looked at, because people are adding ridiculous statements. Yeah, a lot of those driving whilst stoned have drunk alcohol as well, but the cannabis plays its part. It's pretty damn obvious that any substance which impacts on motor skills, reflexes and co-ordination (like cannabis or alcohol for the sake of balance) is going to affect one's driving, yet people keep adding ridiculous caveats like "people might drive more slowly and carefully" (like the drunk driver does?) and "reduced motor skills and reaction time does not impair driving ability". It's been shown to with alcohol, so how is cannabis any different? it is badd to use daaa GimpyFauxHippy (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

yeah, because the only people who edit this article are stoners who want to get their opinion out there. Tdinatale (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
This should be taken out: "Even in cases of very high doses, cannabis produces only mild hallucinations, if any; hallucinations are exceedingly rare," as well as "increased awareness of patterns and color." It's WP:OR.Tdinatale (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Serious crimes caused by cannabis are not mentioned.
Care to give some examples from the academic literature? Actually care to give some examples of any crimes that were caused by cannabis? Supposed (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Gareth Davies was sentenced to life imprisonment for a murder he committed in 2006 under the influence of cannabis.
Gareth Davies was pretty much a classic case of a psychopathic murderer, which is obviously rare. To say that Gareth’s use of marijuana was what was the precursor to his murder/rape/possible necrophailiac episode, is the dumbest statement under this topic. You have no business contributing to Wikipedia. - Gunnanmon (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Serious crimes committed are not part of this article. It's strictly about the direct effects of cannabis. <tommy> (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest you all read WP:MOS and realize that this isn't a get together and let's all share or hypothesize our experiences or what could happen on Wikipedia. You all need factual refs. That statement about hallucinogens that I previously deleted, I re-deleted because there is no reference, it's original research. Please do not re-add it. <tommy> (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the day, the fact remains that this is poorly written, the facts are poorly handled, and is probably too long. Probably needs a total rewrite. More focus should be given to meta-analysis studies, and really, are the poorly-designed ones even worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.155.40 (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Swedish study

I would like to add material that discusses the largest longitudinal study examining the link between cannabis and psychosis. It is a Swedish study that identifies the odds of developing schizophrenia later in life and controls for the use of other drugs and the existence of personality traits that pose a risk of schizophrenia. Does anyone object? --bessmorris 06:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your participation. I'd be immensely grateful if you add it here first so people can look over it. Supposed (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Let's see your source, bessmorris. Dmarquard (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Please add Canada to the list of countries that have approved marijuana for medicinal use!

Can someone add Canada to the list of countries that have legalized marijuana for medical use? Currently the synopsis states:

"Five European countries and thirteen US states have legalized medical cannabis if prescribed for nausea, pain, and alleviation of symptoms surrounding chronic illness, although it remains banned under US federal law."

Health Canada has legalized the use of marijuana since 2001, it's approved for chronic illnesses that involve severe pain, severe nausea, persistant muscle spasms ect.

Edit: Added. If anyone has any objections feel free to voice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tammb (talk • contribs) 23:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


Source: Health Canada - http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/about-apropos/faq-eng.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tammb (talk • contribs) 23:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Second hand smoke

One topic I had hoped to see covered here, but wasn't, is the issue of "second hand exposure" - the effects, if any, on individuals exposed to marijuana smoke from another party. As I recall, when snowboarder Ross Rebagliati lost his Olympic medal for testing positive for THC, his defence consisted mainly of the claim that he hadn't smoked any himself, but had attended a party where others did. Ergo second-hand exposure. I've heard similar concerns cited when zero-tolerance drug-testing policies are implemented in workplaces - the concern that if one happens to be in a room where another is smoking marijuana, can this impact drug tests on the non-user? I personally have also experienced nausea and headaches from being exposed to other individual's use and I left the vicinity out of concern that my behavior might have been affected had exposure continued. And just as people complain about clothes, breath, and even furniture being impregnated with tobbaco smoke odor, so too I've heard the same said of items exposed to marijuana smoke. This isn't meant to be a one side vs. the other comment, but I'd like to see this addressed here, either to dispel concerns or to add to concerns already discussed. This strikes me as too major an issue to not have been covered, so it might be in another article, in which case a link should probably be added to this one. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see the significance of this. Second-hand smoke consumption is a phenomenon known to exist and is certainly not limited to any one medium. Dmarquard (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Long term effects

Remove the section under long term effects as it was not accurate and made an uncited claim about mental health. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.165.44 (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not edit the section instead of delete it altogether? Article looks stupid with just a short-term effects section, especially when the long-term effects can be so significant. Simple google search yields info on the effects of the carcinogens in cannabis, correlations between mental illness and cannabis, addiction and more. 68.106.235.18 (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Transient Psychosis in the Wrong Section

In the long term mental health section there is discussion of the transient psychotic effects of THC, which I think should be under short term. Suggestions?Fireemblem555 (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree. The defintion of transient is 'short term' so that does make sense. Supposed (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

UK

Removed section lacked any citation or reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.51.6 (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Lack of integrity to Grotenherman's article: improper use (cherry-picking) of certain facts from the source

The wikipedia poster using citation number 2 (Grotenherman) are cherry picking the information contained in the original article. Grotenherman's research clearly indicates short and long term effects of cannabis use.

Example: The original article by Grotenherman states: 2.2. Physical Effects. THC produces reversible and dose-dependent tachycardia with increased cardiac labor and oxygen demand, and increased diastolic blood pressure (in horizontal position) associated with a decreased parasympathetic tone [34]. Due to tolerance to these effects, chronic use can lead to bradycardia [35]. At higher dosages, orthostatic hypotension may occur due to a dilation of blood vessels, which may result in dizziness and syncope. Myocardial infarction may be triggered by THC due to these effects on circulation [36] [37]. Dilation of blood vessels also causes conjunctival reddening. -and- The use of cannabis may acutely increase the risk of suffering from a heart attack due to its effect on blood pressure and heart frequency (see above).

Grotenherman specifically states that there is a detriment to use and chronic use of cannabis, and to misrepresent this is a violation of integrity of the original article. It is not a question as to whether the author states chronic use has the same problematic physiologic effects on blood pressure and triglycerides; the wikipedia posters are correct in that Grotenherman clearly state that the effects are not associated with chronic use. However, chronic use is not the only type of use, as Grotenherman denotes in the original article. The effects are different depending on the person and the type of use, including underlying conditions.

The implication of the person citing Grotenherman is that the conclusion of Grotenherman's research is that chronic use is not harmful to the health. This is a claim that is clearly contrary to Grotenherman's conclusions, as is evidenced by the passage directly above where the wikipedia poster took their information, which I have reproduced here.

The citations and postings using this research should be removed, or reviewed for further irregularities since this is violating ethical and objective scientific research. FMetzger (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

merge from Short-term effects of cannabis

I just stumbled upon three articles about the same subject Long-term effects of cannabis, short-term effects of cannabis (which were created by blocked user user:altenmann) and the generalized effects of cannabis. short-term effects of cannabis is long but I merged it into its section in this article. Aloofalode (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Bias?

I'm all for cannabis myself, but reading through this the whole article seemed to be justifying cannabis, with every harmful aspect justified by a 'but this is also in...' or 'but alcohol and nicotine show similar things' etc. I think this article should be more about just the facts, without trying to put a positive (or negative) spin on it. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's just how it seemed to me. 129.67.38.36 (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of the studies are done in comparison with related drugs (notably nicotine and alcohol). I do agree with bias, but this is a contentious issue and the results are currently unclear since experiments and research don't appear to have a clear consensus on effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.139.17.230 (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

someone vandlised this article

theres some bullshit at the top of this article about people who dont like pot sucking dick, someone please fix this, I am too noob.152.30.236.19 (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

sexual effect

Isn't there a sexual effect? This article should supply information on this effect. Thoughtbox (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Second paragraph of the lede

The second paragraph of the lede seems incomplete. As I found it just now, it basically consisted of a series of negative claims stating that there is no evidence of effects. But the topic of the article is the effects of cannabis... You need to put the positive claims first, what the supposed effects may be, and only afterwards put the negations and the qualifications, if they are important enough to be in the lede. Otherwise it seems like the article is stating that cannabis use has no effect, which would defeat the purpose of the entire article.

I tried to tidy up a little, but someone with better knowledge of the topic might do a better job at improving the text. --Anderssl (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

adding external link

A few days ago, I came across a non-profit offering unbiased information on the effects of cannabis and also a sizable index of medical studies. I am proposing that it be added as an external link. Site: http://unbiasedpotproject.org/ (Booboobear7 (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC))

It's an ad-laden blog; it should not be added be WP:ELNO and WP:Reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My browser blocks advertisements, so I did not notice them. I was unaware that advertising disqualified an external link and apologize for proposing it. (Booboobear7 (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC))

No worries. It appears that someone thought, "hey, I'll make a new Wordpress blog, collect a whole bunch of links to cannabis studies, post them, and make some money from ads." We get a lot of attempts to add links from similar "aggregator" sites (i.e., sites that just collect information available from free government/educational sources). Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

DNA Damage

Bio teacher talked about this earlier this semester, and then my Human Dev. professor talked about it, too just a few weeks later and then today after reading this article I googled the topic and there are a number of articles online about peer-reviewed research on cannabis damaging human DNA (and raising cancer risk, etc.).... shouldn't this be getting some airtime in the article?

Norlns22 (talk)

I have read some stuff about this and many studies regarding just cannabinoids and cannabis use by oral route points out, that THC and CBD are antioxidants and may actually prevent DNA damage. Smoking is something else - plant matter like cellulose is something like a vehicle which burns in case of smoking and produces for example pyroabenzen (potent carcinogen) which actually damages DNA (after it is metabolized) and of course other carcinogens and mutagens like free radicals and others. I don't know which school are you attending, but my old chemistry teacher wasn't much good and I doubt that Your teachers have been working on some real experiments of this type personally (i am sure they have this information from third hand - i don't know many teachers who are so interested in depth with such things like cannabis).

BTW:i googled it too and what ive found was just that "SMOKING CANNABIS CAN DAMAGE DNA". Well smoking peace of wood, peace of paper, standing to close to campfire, sticking hands into an ash etc. will probably result in some DNA damage ;-) . Yes that's right almost(maybe even without the "almost") any ash is carcinogenic and mutagenic. I guess you are not familiar with study of cancer incidence among chimney sweepers? No kidding it exists and guess what? they are much more likely to get cancer than average person. Some of those compounds may be neutralized by antioxidants for example ascorbic acid (vitamin C). Nevertheless there are cellular mechanisms which repairs damaged DNA and when DNA is damaged too much and unrepairable then there are mechanisms which faciliate apoptosis (cellular suicide). Guess what. Many cells under influence of nicotine undergo apoptosis generally later in progress of DNA damage and many cannabinoids do just opposite. That's why there are studies with conclusion, that cannabis users have less chance of getting cancer despite the fact that they inhale just as or more tar than tobacco smokers and that cannabis users under some circumstances have even less chance of getting cancer, than people who are not smokers at all. (from source, may be even more reputable than your science and biology teacher, I have heard that even beta-carotene (in contrast with retinol due to metabolism) is carcinogenic for lungs more than constituents of dried cannabis when vaporized). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Or (talk • contribs) 23:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The most capable element for DNA damage is radioactive isotopes. Even if lung cells can be intoxicated by smoke inhalation and DNA suffers damage, human organism is capable to locate, dispose and replace affected cells. Only radioactive poisoning can start the proccess of cancer growth, at which tumor consumes healthy cells and incorporate them into itself. These radioactive elements can also be found within Cannabis, if "proper" policies are maintained during growing the plant (and they probably would be, if Cannabis will be legalized and Tobacco tycoons would decide to refit into another business model), but cancerogenic properties of Cigarettes by pollonium isotopes, as a drawback of pesticide usage in industrial tobacco farming, is a presently determined fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.144.234.65 (talk) 05:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Comparison vs. cigarettes

Recently, an editor removed a section referencing a study that showed that joints ("marijuana cigarettes") can deposit as much as four times as much tar and other chemicals as tobacco cigarettes in the lungs. Whilst I agree with the point that it's not necessarily a fair comparison, from the point of view of overall health effects in the average person, this is hardly justification for removing this material from the article. It remains true that joints are more damaging to the respiratory system than carefully engineered and filtered commercial cigarettes are, and this respiratory system damage is still very much an effect of cannabis. I would suggest that the proper action for this objection is to reword the section so as to highlight the potential and erroneous conclusion that marijuana smoking is more harmful than tobacco smoking, and in particular to point out the confound, which is that smoking habits between the two groups are not at all similar, ideally with an RS that says so. siafu (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This content represents misuse of primary sources for the purposes of civil POV pushing. This, and related issues, are currently under discussion at WP:ANI: [1]. aprock (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
All the more reason to stick to the content; is this or is it not a WP:RS? Surely the time wasted on arguing over the behavior of other editors is better spent by us reworking the text itself? siafu (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Misuse of sources is independent of reliability. Please review WP:PSTS. In this case, we have an ideological editor cherry picking primary sources to push a point of view. Without a secondary source establishing weight, I suggest the content be removed. aprock (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Like Aprock, I am concerned mostly about the POV, which seems to both minimalize the effects of tobacco smoking while exaggerating the risk of pot smoking. I'd be more comfortable if the comparison with tobacco were deleted, and the statement confine itself solely to the risks of pot smoking. Otherwise, the apples and oranges comparison reeks of sophistry,. It makes sense in the context of the study, but cherry-picked without the context, it is misleading. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I see some value in the cigarette comparison, mostly because the units otherwise involved will likely be meaningless to the layperson. Ideally, since I've also heard this claim about 4x damage many times outside wikipedia, I would advocate including this study with a more balanced and detailed analysis of it. The apples and oranges part is only applicable to the conclusion that is often drawn, i.e. that smoking weed is much more dangerous than smoking cigarettes. This claim is obviously not borne out by the study in question, but alternate and valid conclusions can be drawn, e.g. that smoking unfiltered marijuana is more harmful on a per-unit basis than tobacco, and that in particular smoking marijuana is still harmful to the lungs-- something that is often denied in popular culture. siafu (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how adding information based on academic medical journals constitutes POV pushing but at any rate, I qualified the statement in question with an additional reference from the New England Journal of Medicine, a highly reputable source in the field of medicine. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Just adding information without context can absolutely represent POV-pushing. Academic studies tend to be very narrowly focused, whereas the conclusions drawn from them in the media and by lay readers are generally much broader. The broader conclusions that are stated, or even just implied, are often more representative of the writers' POV than the actual study results. siafu (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The intent of bringing this discussion here was to discover the specific objections to this text. If you have some (you should be interpreted broadly), please speak up so that we can rewrite this passage in a way that is acceptable enough to gather consensus. siafu (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No long term.... and new tests show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.134.151.186 (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

you guys are a bunch of idiots really....... long term effects on marijuana !?? there is not enough evidence to prove any of their finding (as there has not been that much long term testing done)it is purely bullshit or as they call it nowadays a theory... new test shows that it helps prevent head and neck cancer and that it promotes brain cell grove in your hippocampus. please next time don’t go on government findings, for they will always turn their findings to suit them, start looking into your facts next time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.134.151.186 (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The danger of Pot smoking as just as good as a danger of smoking any other vegetative culture and not refers to the Cannabis plant specifics. The nature of that danger is solely limited by the clogging of lungs by heavy, inert fractions of vegetative nature (tar) in amount-per-time, that makes the process of purging those fractions out of lungs troublesome and fatiguous for human organism, thus reducing his endurance and inhibiting oxygen saturation. The Cannabis/Tobacco comparison gives the ideal method to determine the actual level of danger for inhalation of given substances. Even though Cannabis can possess greater amount of associated tar consumption, human organism is much more capable to cope with the tar, than it is with several hundreds of deadly toxines and radioactive solutions brought by the legal, developed Tobacco product. Cigarettes by themselves is an industry of waste disposal from production of Cigars, which are just as hard to smoke as they are more expensive. So called researches on tobacco health hazard is based on cigarettes, while these possess only 0,7% of actual Nicotine, compared to 15-20% of present THC to-mass ratio of Cannabis strains. One cigarette of tobacco gives an averagely one hour of nicotine saturation, while one cigarette of Cannabis is usually enough for a whole day of effective trip (given it is a waste from production of Cannabis buds, the leaves). Oral consumption of Cannabis completely eliminates any physical difficulties to digest Cannabis and it's active elements, while oral consumption of tobacco is deadly for digestion tract and it's microflora in general. Cannabis has been noticed for it's medical usage, while all the Nicotine can do is to relieve the stress, which that very Nicotine caused as result of physical dependency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.144.234.65 (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Cherry picking from sources

Why would you reference studies from the 1940s on the effects of marijuana when this is modern issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.186.190 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The facts of this section are unreliable. I cannot believe the reference to an article called "Top ten health benefits of medicinal marijuana" from ibtimes.com. Nonetheless, a reputable source such as the NIH is not used. Unfortunately, this article suffers from lack of objective data. My hypothesis is that marijuana generates too much controversy, so no clear facts other than "scientific opinions" are addressed.


the article says:

"Because it is psychoactive, it is an illegal substance in most of the world[citation needed]."

why would someone write something like thtat? i mean, you can not-know why it is illegal but wikipedia is not a place for your persona assumptions, as there is no way to affirm that it is the cause of its illegality and i have not read anywhere that it's illegal because of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.197.121 (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There are a whole couple reasons for Cannabis to be law-forbidden, and it's psychoactive features is one of the least popular and justified cause. Usual causes range from typical "gateway" effect presumptions to straightforward law enforcement by tobacco and alcohol lobbists, thriving on their product having as less business struggle as possible.37.144.234.65 (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

NORML as a reliable source?

I added the neutrality disputed tag because I find it ridiculous that an overtly pro-cannabis organization like the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws can be used as a reliable source to counter evidence of the effects cannabis can have on driving. Also, the two following sources used in that paragraph are also used in the NORML page that we are using as a source. I think this should be removed. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 09:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Deaths attributed directly to cannabis usage

The "Deaths..." sentence under the Toxicity part is very poorly cited.

The first (http://www.fsijournal.org/article/S0379-0738(01)00609-0/abstract) only gives an abstract to non-paying readers, which does not claim any deaths directly linked to cannabis. The second (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/4/e365.full.pdf+html) does not claim to have found evidence for cannabis being the reason for the deaths, only that it may be. The third (http://www.drugwatch.org/CEDARS/MarDeaths2002e.pdf), well, is from drugwatch.org. That's like citing the KKK on a racial differences article. They claim overdose deaths by cannabis, contrary to consensus even in the anti-cannabis world that ingestion of such amounts is almost physically impossible. (Someone eating a pound of ground glass and subsequently dying is a stupidity-induced suicide, not a glass-related death)

To the above commentator, please overcome your bias. If you read the study by "Drug Abuse Warning Network" (not by drugwatch.org) the study is not measuring the toxicity of the compounds in cannabis and cannabis smoke. All deaths related to marijuana were associated by coroners. Someone killed while drunk driving will be listed as an alcohol related death, likewise for marijuana. Over 37% of drug related hospital emergency visits involved marijuana. While, noone can make a direct cause of marijuana as the death even today, one can at least list marijuana as a dangerous drug, a point that is completely missed by this article. Very much 'cherry picking' involved in this section.

Someone please provide better citations or remove the sentence. 84.148.56.184 (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. It's an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary sources, and not stretching what the sources actually say. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
    • The statement is not extaordinary but is modest and in line with the references. Yes the first two references are much stronger than the third and they are very legitimate medical sources. The wording for the statement seems to have been discussed earlier on a related page. The wording should stay. Pkgx (talk)`

Driving data removed for lack of ref

Here is what I removed, this had no citation: The effects of cannabis on laboratory-based tasks show clear impairment with respect to tracking ability, attention, and other tasks depending on the dose administered. Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in: increased variability in lane position (such as taking a curve too tightly or too loosely) [and] longer decision times, leading to slower responses to driving situations. petrarchan47tc 05:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Article skews studies on toxicity

Several statements in the article attempt to downplay or skew medical research on the effects of marijuana.

It's hard to claim to know what any statements "attempt" to do.

The intro brings up long-term psychological effects by downplaying it by stating that such concerns are disputed. While certain points are disputed as cited, plenty of research exists that shows legitimate concerns over psychological effects of marijuana use, including long-term impairment of "attention, memory, and ability to process complex information." [2] The disputation of schizophrenic effects from marijuana should not be cited without also citing evidence to support these effects.

Please don't assign motives that can't be proven. The facts are that those concerns are disputed. No one has argued that there are legitimate concerns, but there are also those who dispute them, take Harvard's Lester Grinspoon, for example. Two references to support psychological effects are indeed included in the Intro.

The article briefly addresses the effects of marijuana on pregnancy. A hot topic with marijuana is its effect on the reproductive systems, and brief mention of pregnancy alludes to a dismissal of all effects of marijuana on the reproductive tract. The article should also address the research that supports harm to the reproductive tract. [3] [4]

Please see WP:secondary - secondary sources are preferred. The studies you've presented in the second abstract would be fitting for the THC article. Also this information is covered in the Long-term effects of cannabis article and shouldn't be repeated here, it's already linked.

Additionally, under "Long-term Effects," the article dismisses harm to the lungs by stating "On some topics, such as the drug's effects on the lungs, relatively little research has been conducted...." This is a false statement. The article goes on to state that a US Gov't funded study concluded that "moderate marijuana use does not impair pulmonary function." Together, these statements are incredibly misleading. The cited study states the following: "Prior studies of marijuana smokers have demonstrated consistent evidence of airway mucosal injury and inflammation as well as increased respiratory symptoms such as cough, phlegm production, and wheeze, similar to that seen in tobacco smokers. However, analyses of pulmonary function and lung disease have failed to detect clear adverse effects of marijuana use on pulmonary function." The purpose of the study was to analyze lung capacity, and only lung capacity, in light of accepted research that shows that marijuana smoke harms the lungs. As stated, the Wikipedia article implies that marijuana use does no damage to the lungs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler.mac86 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, secondary sources trump any Wikipedia editor's take on a matter. The Abstract reads: Conclusion Occasional and low cumulative marijuana use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function.
Time's coverage of the issue reads: Marijuana does not impair lung function—at least not in the doses inhaled by the majority of users, according to the largest and longest study ever to consider the issue, which was published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The "long term effects" section is merely a summary of the main article. Much exists in that article citing the deleterious effects of cannabis on the lungs, etc. Your main premise, that the article is not presenting science fairly regarding the toxicity of cannabis, is not proven by the argument given, imo. Do you have secondary sources to add to the article that would support your position? petrarchan47tc 05:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

>>>>>


Lack of neutrality is problematic. It's concerning that the end result of this article is the conclusion that cannabis doesn't effect the fetus/pregnancy or driving. Try using some sources like NIH? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.57.247 (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Cardiovascular effects

I had added a very relevant quotation from an excellent medical source, International Journal of Cardiology [5] but it was summarily deleted without an explanation. This quotation has not previously been used here or in any other article. It relates very closely to the subject and needs to be included. Rlsheehan (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

As you know, we are dealing with these effects at Cannabis (drug) talk page. We don't yet have consensus on what good sources are saying. Why don't you bring this reference there and let it be discussed with the others? (Also, it is silly to claim I left no explanation for the deletion when anyone can look at the edit history and see you are not being truthful.) petrarchan47tc 01:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is very clear about being civil to other editors and assuming good faith: Wikipedia:Civil. Please try harder.
A review article in the International Journal of Cardiology says:
Marijuana use by older people, particularly those with some degree of coronary artery or cerebrovascular disease, poses greater risks due to the resulting increase in catecholamines, cardiac workload, and carboxyhemoglobin levels, and concurrent episodes of profound postural hypotension. Indeed, marijuana may be a much more common cause of myocardial infarction than is generally recognized. In day-to-day practice, a history of marijuana use is often not sought by many practitioners, and even when sought, the patient's response is not always truthful. Thus, clinicians should be more vigilant in inquiring about use of marijuana in their patients, particularly among the younger adults who may present with cardiac events in the absence of cardiovascular disease or other obvious risk factors.
The use of this quotation in Wikipedia has not been previously discussed. Since it belongs in this section of this article, discussion should be here. Constructive input is welcome. Rlsheehan (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Loop between pages

The paragraph on "Sustainability in the body" has a "main article: Cannabis Drug Testing" link. On the cannabis testing page, there's a link next to the very same paragraph saying "Main article: Effects of Cannabis", thus creating a loop between the pages with the same paragraph. In addition, the information in the paragraph is not very specific and seems to contradict other information on the cannabis testing page. Mbarchak (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal case study involving one subject

A 2005 article in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry reported on a 36-year-old man who suffered a stroke on three separate occasions after smoking a large amount of marijuana, despite having no known risk factors for the disorder, suggesting that a rare side effect of marijuana use may be an increase in the incidence of strokes among young smokers.Ref

This fails to meet the most basic requirements for inclusion. petrarchan47tc 19:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Does the journal cited fail WP:SOURCE? If it doesn't, then it's removal violates WP:NPOV and does not contribute to removal of the disputed neutrality tag currently residing on this article. 70.76.69.162 (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Your understanding of requirements for mention is lacking, IP. petrarchan47tc 20:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
It shouldn't be included per WP:MEDRS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Second hand smoke/effects

One aspect missing here is a discussion of second hand smoke effects. In paritcular the potential for passive highs. Does the research support to debunk such a thing? This is a timely topic for discussion as it is a concern in places where it has been legalized, and will be an issue in jurisdictions that legalize use that do not have public smoking bans. Note the article Cannabis drug testing states that passive exposure is considered a factor in testing. 70.76.69.162 (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

From what I remembered passive exposure to cannabis smoke is not enough to get you high or to make you fail a urine test. I did some quick searching and was able to confirm my memory with an article from Slate. Though there are some studies that would point to it not being quite as hard. Between the two sources that I was able to quickly find, and perhaps this is a case of confirmation bias, I would tend to trust the Slate article on the matter more. Zell Faze (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Positive effects

There are positive effects of cannabis and marijuana in general. And what about short term effects? Those should be included too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertquillen12345 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Update Dr. Tashkin's work to include most recent

http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/smoked-cannabis-effect-on-lungs-dr-tashkin/ and Tashkin's work has spanned more like forty years now http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM197308162890702 99.75.13.37 (talk) 03:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting. The results of the study should be added. Tashkin's class has already been mentioned in the article. petrarchan47tc 23:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Grinspoon

I have removed poorly sourced text here. The sources are laypress accounts from an advocate, which are disputed by WP:MEDRS compliant secondary sources, and also demonstrably false per case reports. See (among many others) PMID 23386598 PMID 24234874 PMID 20565525 and PMID 21943539. There are numerous secondary reviews of mortality wrt cannabis; we don't use the laypress or advocate statement to dispute secondary reviews in journals, and the oft-repeated claim in our articles that "no one has ever died from cannabis" cannot be reliably sourced, and is demonstrably false per at least one case report. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Cannabis and pregnancy

I am unable to get my hands on he full text for the review that us being used to support "exposure to certain substances, especially marijuana and cocaine" (impact the fetus). However, it appears there is no reference to cannabis' effects on pregnancy alone. What is the text from the full review that is being used to support the claim made? Does the review speak to cananbis' effects sans other drugs? If we can't eke out this information, this review shouldn't be included as it does nothing to inform the reader. It does, however, belong in the Drugs in pregnancy article. petrarchan47tc 18:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I have PMID 22114955 and yes, it speaks (extensively) to cannabis alone. There is quite a bit of text used to support the statements; in fact, I may expand the article even further to assuage your doubts. What about this text do you find "does nothing to inform the reader"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Some excerpts at Talk:Cannabis in pregnancy (but there are also two large tables). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
What does the text regarding cannabis and pregnancy say? Can you tell me here in a way that won't be a problem due to copyright? As a reader, the wording seemed to indicate that the studies referenced had not eked out effecs of cannabis, but spoke about drugs in general. From what I understand most, if not all, studies on this topic include alcohol and/or other concomitant drug use. If this is one of those, that needs to be communicated to the reader, if it should be used in this article at all. petrarchan47tc 20:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
As I said above, "some excerpts at Talk:Cannabis in pregnancy" (which is the main article-- we are having this conversation now on three pages). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Three? My apologies, I missed your link to the text. Thanks, petrarchan47tc 21:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

NIDA in Lede

Information about NIDA's research restrictions will be added to the body of the article(s) as soon as the PUBMED template thing comes back online, or after the holidays, whichever comes first. Thanks for your patience. petrarchan47tc 08:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Too much America. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The reviews I am reading don't seem to find this US-centric, I am mentioning the restrictions from NIDA in the articles because the reviews are mentioning it. I am sure you're aware of this, you can't possibly have done any amount of research in this area and not have come across this. Wikipedia articles cover what RS covers, and we don't get to leave out stuff just because it messes with some narrative. petrarchan47tc 08:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Federal barriers

Scientific research on the medical effects of marijuana has been limited due to the stipulation that all studies must be funded by the National Institutes of Health. PUBMED 22129912

(Further...)

With cannabis declared to have “no currently accepted medical use,” the FDA designated it a Schedule I drug, a categorization reserved for street drugs with high abuse potential, such as heroin, quaaludes, lysergic acid diethylamide, and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine.3 This designation has resulted in a near-cessation of scientific research on cannabis in the United States, particularly because the only federally authorized source of cannabis is a strain grown at the University of Mississippi and accessible to researchers only by applying to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which is reluctant to support medical research and has historically focused its efforts (almost) exclusively on demonstrating the drug's harmful effects. According to Ware et al, most cannabis research in the United States occurs "under a paradigm of prohibition and the study of risk is not yet balanced by much-needed research on benefits." Mayo Clinic PUBMED 3538401

"Another federal restriction is the requirement that clinical studies be funded from scarce grant money controlled by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). These restrictions have discouraged researchers from studying the medical benefits of marijuana. For example, the 2012 estimate for clinical research on cancer accounts for approximately six billion dollars of the NIH budget, which totals 31.2 billion dollars. The 2011 NIH budget allocated the following funds available for marijuana research for qualified organizations: $2 million in 4–5 awards. According to NIH Grant guidelines on marijuana, applicants may request budgets with direct costs up to $500,000 per year for a maximum period of 5 years. Therefore, the total budget would be $10 million over the 5 year period. Of the yearly NIH budget of approximately $31.2 billion, the $2 million going toward marijuana research can be calculated as comprising 0.006% of the yearly budget, thus illustrating how marijuana research is vastly underfunded." PUBMED 22129912

"Only 6% of research on marijuana published in [2013] analysed benefits. The other 93% are designed primarily to investigate harm. According to Sanjay Gupta, "That imbalance paints a highly distorted picture"." CNN

American College of Physicians:

"[the] ability of scientists to conduct impartial studies designed to answer the question of marijuana's role in medical therapy has been greatly hampered by political considerations."PUBMED 19492213

Why Does This Page Exist? Shouldn't It Be "Short-Term Effects of Cannabis"?

Considering that there is a long-term effects of cannabis article, shouldn't this article discuss only the short-term effects? Are there any "medium-term effects" that don't fit into one of these two categories? Also, having two articles whose subjects encompass the same topic (long-term effects of cannabis) is a horrible thing, as it promotes redundancy, contradictions, and the neglect of the lesser-visited article. I understand the need for back-compatibility with articles and websites that link to this, but it could just be a user-selected redirect page to the short-term and long-term articles. Let me know what you think about moving this to short-term effects of cannabis; I'm doing a full revision of the long-term article now and may revise this afterward. I'll contact admins about this if I don't hear back. Thanks. Exercisephys (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Merge Two separate articles covering the effects of cannabis is unnessesary. It makes sense to merge them, creating sections to deal with time-related variables. petrarchan47tc 19:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I would be supportive of renaming this page to Short-term effects of cannabis and then making Effects of cannabis into a disambig page that links to both short and long term. Or alternatively redirecting Effects of cannabis to Short-term effects of cannabis with a note at the top of the page that there is also a long-term effects article. I think the size of both articles and their natures makes it impractical to have them both be merged into one article. Zell Faze (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    (See below) I have to agree with you and Exercise, it should be "short term" and long term". petrarchan47tc 23:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I disagree. This is a parent article. It should address long-term effects in a more summary style, allowing people to drill down to more detail in the long-term article. II | (t - c) 05:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I've changed my mind. This comment makes the most sense. I'm not sure about the state of these articles now, but the last time I combed through them both, I found it impossible to tell them part, once immersed in the body. There was an incredible amount of overlap, with similar discussions of the same studies. It would be a good idea to make sure the parent article isn't repeating lengthy "long-term" info. "Short term", I imagine, could fit into a subsection here. petrarchan47tc 18:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support merging of long term effects article to this title♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with SqueakBox-- we should have one article, and it should be "Effects of cannabis". I suspect we have so many articles because they had grown unnecessarily large with the addition of original research and primary sources, but since the content has been cut back to MEDRS-compliant text, it can all fit into one, "Effects" article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

2013

Gemma Moss died of the effects of cannabis on 28/10/2013 in Bournemouth in England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.33.23 (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Deaths from inhaling vomit could be said to be not directly caused by the drug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.33.23 (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Five died from inhaling vomit in Britain from 1993 to 1995. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.33.23 (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

== Requested move ==Please research the effects on the heart from consuming cannabis. Recent studies from France suggest a 20% death rate from long term intake of cannabis. The study also mentioned that the rate is probably a lot higher as this is a new area of study.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, not moved (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Effects of cannabis → Health effects of cannabis – The current title is far more vague than the proposed one, and suggests that it might include the effects of marijuana on anything from the economy to earthquakes to elections. In fact, it only discusses the effects of marijuana on human health, and its ability, or lack thereof, to either increase or decrease the risk for a variety of undesirable medical conditions. Finally, I note that the title I am proposing is apparently similar enough to the current one that it redirects here already. Jinkinson talk to me 22:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose - this usage is common enough in books, and someone could misconstrue "health.." as advocacy, without realizing it includes "adverse health effects". As for the effects of marijuana on the economy that would be marijuana dealing not marijuana, just as "effects of corn on the American economy" isn't how we'd describe effects of corn-growing. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment I don't know if I buy that first argument, because of the 13 pages with similar titles, none of them appear to be unduly positive toward the substance they are discussing the effects of. Also, my use of the phrase "the economy to earthquakes to elections" wasn't specifically supposed to draw attention to any of those things, I just wanted to give examples of the effects of cannabis on things other than human health. Jinkinson talk to me 23:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

How can we resolve this article's neutrality issues?

I'm aware that the use of medical cannabis is a controversial issue, so I'm not sure how the article can present this issue in a neutral and unbiased way.

In March 2013, a {{POV}} tag was placed on this article. I attempted to resolve some of this article's neutrality issues by briefly mentioning the effects of medical cannabis to the lead section, but this addition was promptly reverted by another editor, who believed this information to be undue, since there's already an article about medical cannabis.

Currently, the lead section of this article only describes some of the detrimental effects of cannabis. If the lead section of this article can't mention any potential benefits of medical cannabis, then is there any other way to address the article's ongoing neutrality dispute? Jarble (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved now. Jarble (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Effects of marijuana on sodium and potassium

One study found decrease in serum Na+ and K+ levels in marijuana smokers. Also casestudies of synthetic cannabinoid use report low potassium.[6][7]--Custoo (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

creating appetite section into a page called The Munchies

I don't know about you but this seems like it can be a phenomenon on its own, if anyone would be interested in making that into a project. Dudanotak (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

New review

Full text available and I've added the Laysource parameter to show how one also links to press coverage of a secondary review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hallucinations?

Hey, what's this idea about Marijuana producing hallucinations? I'm confused by this very much, and have never heard of it. I know that THC has the possibility of causing such psychic reactions; however, ALL Cannabis has CBD in it as well, which is literally an antipsychotic and causes said hallucinations to not occur. CBD is responsible for the so-called "body-high" (whereas THC causes the "mind-high"). მაLiphradicusEpicusთე

  • I've always heard that large doses of THC can cause hallucinations in some people. Psychosis is much more rare but happens. As far as CBD, it is only a minor constituent of cannabis in most strains (particularly sativas), although CBD rich strains like Charlotte's Web are becoming more common. CBD content of indicas is typically higher. If the dose of THC is high enough, the average CBD may be inadequate to offset, and hallucinations can follow. Then, we are talking about pretty large dozes, which would be more common with edibles or various forms of hash. Since it is a Schedule I drug, there is obviously a lack of research in this and other areas. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a thing called "scaremongering" for a reason! As a recreational user myself, I have NEVER had any hallucinations whatsoever! In most cases, the most I have experienced is higher focus and an increased ability to finish things that Ive started as without it, I usually NEVER finish anything! Maybe if these people that do these studies would actually be honest in their study, then people would know the real truth and stop feeding the population with false propaganda! That's all! User:Edward Spader 17:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.1.28 (talk)
  • There is a thing called "scaremongering" for a reason! As a recreational user myself, and since I have had no hallucinations, it is impossible that anyone else could have them! Wikipedia should reflect my personal experience as scientific fact! 104.189.8.152 (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This is so poorly written that it doesn't even make sense; "Exposure to marijuana has biologically-based physical, mental, behavioral and social health consequences and is "associated with diseases of the liver (particularly with co-existing hepatitis C), lungs, heart, and vasculature" according to a 2013 literature review by Gordon and colleagues. These diseases have only been reported in cases where people have smoked cannabis.[102]" . So according to Wikipedia diseases of the lungs, heart, liver all have only been reported in cases where people have used cannibus? 70.68.168.208 (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  • According to a study done by King's College in 2012, you are correct. The effects of THC on the right caudate were negatively correlated with the severity of psychotic symptoms it produced. The effects of CBD, on the other hand, were the opposite of THC. [1] Johnacorn (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/05/marijuana-may-both-trigger-and-suppress-psychosis/


External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Effects of cannabis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Effects of Cannabis: A Bird's Eye View

I was born on July 27, 1962 with an intractable seizure disorder that wasn't officially diagnosed until I was 31 years old. Once this had been accomplished I was given a variety of drug treatments. None of them fully kept me from having all different types of seizure episodes that left me unconscious, and then took hours if not days to recover from. In addition to my seizure disorder I also have Cluster Headaches that make a migraine look like a candy cane. I live in Coventry, Rhode Island in the USA and Medical Marijuana was legalized here in 2009. How fortunate it was for me that science proved the medical effects cannabis has on the human endo-cannabinoid system. As far as the Toxicities section of the article goes, I know from a lifetime of use and also from the positive effects cannabis has had on my overall health in general, that the majority of what this claims is completely unfounded. Moreover, it is my opinion that cannabis shouldn't be classed as a psychedelic drug because it is not a substance whose primary action is to alter cognition and perception. Granted, it does have some side-effects (anxiety, panic attacks, and short-term memory loss) especially for a novice, but with additional use these do alleviate over time. Remember, no matter what we ingest there are side effects but when the benefits outweigh them then they are no longer of any concern. I feel that the entire article attempts to place cannabis in a 'bad light', in order to continue with the fallacies being propagated against cannabis by Big Pharmaceutical corporations. --RIpilgrim (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2562334/

I'm glad it worked for you! Most articles on Wikipedia are in need of improvement and you are welcome to contribute. Since a lot of content in this article is related to human health the sourcing requirements are a bit higher. You can read about it at WP:MEDRS. I would imagine this article leans toward "bad light" simply because that is where most of the funding and research is and consequently where we can find review articles. Sizeofint (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Nicely stated Sizeofint, Cannabis is mostly seen as negative & dangerous "simply because that is where most of the funding and research is", that actually highlights a global problem effecting the reliability of Wikipedia articles in general. That if research is paid to ignore certain aspects of any subject then only the aspects that have received focus is considered real and verifiable. Thus shaping & dictating a world view and not a true representation of the world. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 08:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but we need to keep in mind we aren't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, just to write an encyclopedia. Sizeofint (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, since you're referring to this post elsewhere, in the above I was trying to be welcoming and avoid WP:BITING a new editor. RIpilgrim technically is violating WP:NOTFORUM here, but I didn't want to what them with that in one of zes first edits. Sizeofint (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
As Secondary English user none of what you are saying is making any sense to me --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 09:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia guidelines violations cannot be allowed and discussion stay open because a editor is new. Technically I am a new editor but do not get the same preferential treatment. This discussion was left open for almost two years while mine was immediately snubbed in the bud.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 10:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Effects of cannabis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

increased lung capacity - on inhalation of moderate amounts

smoking a small amount can increase lung capacity i measured this myself using professional nursing equipment. - i know it's hard to believe but it's 100 percent true and the results are staggering. Your lung capacity almost doubles. Just putting it out there so someone with an open mind and some credibility in the medical field can indeed confirm this. Not a doubt in my mind. ( pass it on ) just try it. I used tests including the one where you blow the floating ball as long and as high as you can. You will see your own results double. i will be honest i tried it as a joke expecting the opposite. I was wrong it really works and works better than any inhaler. might be good for copd or asthma for temporary lung expansion. give it a try you will see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:7484:DD00:4D6F:9E7:54FF:9432 (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Section deleted

The section Psychological effects links as main article to Medical cannabis#Strains, which is a section which appears to have been either deleted or re-named in the destination article. What to do now? Has the information originally linked just been moved or re-named, or is it really gone? The article Cannabis strains, which upon first glance may appear a sufficient substitute, actually is a botanical article and has least of all to do with psychological effects in humans upon consumption. --2003:71:4E19:1807:C09F:BA9:D8B4:DAEF (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted the link as it is no longer relevant. I believe the point was to show that different strains have different psychological effects. This information has likely been merged with Cannabis (drug) Sizeofint (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Effects of cannabis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge Long-term effects of cannabis here

Proposal January 2020. 104.228.101.152 (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Searching for informaion not Anti-Weed article.

I came hear searching for information on THCs effect on Cardiac Output, a serious question. However this artivle glosses over medical effect. An authoritative article said that marijuana slows down heart rate and increases volume of blood pumped (analgous to digitalis but not as potent). Important to me as I have Congestive Heart Failure. Again, anti-marijusna Bias: tobacco smoke paralyzes bronchial cells cilia that push toxics like PAH out of the lungs. Most marijuana smokers are stimulated to cough up the contaminated mucus. I can see skipping that because it really belongs to tobacco, however it should be addressed because the article seems to indicate tobacco is healthier (why?). Artical fails to note how many thousands of years of knowledge about cannabis consumption (cf a drug like Colchicine known to ancient Egyptians) compared to the relatively recent (1600s) introduction of tobacco. (Although, disliking tobacco as a former smoker, any persecution of tobacco should include the order of magnitude more lung cancer in the United States (the use of radioactive fertilizer in the US, East Coast phosphate mines were originally opened for Thorium). TaylorLeem (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Clinical effects of Tetrahydrocannabinol would be at its own article. In general the anecdotal evidence that cannabis preparations have medical benefits have not be borne-out by research, except for some anti-seizure applications. Alexbrn (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Science

Mandrax form use 197.221.232.129 (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Effects_of_cannabis/Archive_4&oldid=1178658954"