Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:48, 13 March 2014

Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Tetrahydrocannabinol. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pharmacology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cannabis High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cannabis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cannabis on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CannabisWikipedia:WikiProject CannabisTemplate:WikiProject CannabisCannabis High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chemicals Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the Dronabinol page were merged into Tetrahydrocannabinol. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

12/6/2011 Edits

Before I began editing, these pages were a jumbled mess of confused science and faux-science that had clearly been compiled by recreational marijuana users with minimal understand of how solid research is conducted or reported. Most of the sections were written independently and did not read cohesively when considered by page; as such much of my efforts were spent cleaning up the inconsistencies, miscitations, and straight up fallacies that littered each topic discussed. In addition, I added more citations from appropriate and current research and reorganized the pages so that they are presented in a more digestable format. In summary, these pages on endocannabinoid receptors were not lacking attention before my edits, but had rather received too much attention from people who just did not know what they were talking about. I have simplified, clarified, and expounded where appropriate with the intention of creating a more cohesive and through product. The extent of these edits are subtle, but were based on eight research pages that I read dealing with the topics I addressed Wyliea (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Since this is a "talk" page

I'm "in medicine" and just can't get on the bus with the marijuana people. I mean, weed may have it's benefits (so does heroin) but as you've stated above, the recreational users have bastardized the literature with anecdotal testimonial "facts."

My big one is that if indeed this is a credible treatment, would you give your 10 year old cancer patient/child of your own a refer and teach him how to "fire up?" "No Johnny. You've got to inhale it deeply and hold it into your lungs. Watch how daddy does it..." Blondesareeasy (talk)Thanks for playing. —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC).

Your argument is based on the logical fallacy "Reduction to Absurdity." By your logic, Johnny wouldn't get the 'birds-n-bees lecture'; he would watch live demonstrations of safe-sex and then perform supervised demonstrations to prove the lesson was learned.

This article is about Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol, which is only one of the cannibinoids extracted or synthetically produced to provide an effective treatment for cancer patients. Based on the article, nabilone (marketed as Cesamet in the USA) would be the preferred method of treatment and is a fast-acting mouth spray. It seems unlikely any doctor would prescribe lung-damaging treatments if a safer, equally-effective and less hazardous alternative were available. Though it does seem strange that 10-12% of children in school get dosed with amphetamines to 'cure' them of their intolerance to sitting in a chair seven hours a day like 'normal' children know to do.

You want to talk about anecdotal evidence? How about the 'studies' relating violent crime to illegal substances? If they weren't illegal there'd be no need to visit criminals. That's basically the definition of statistical entrapment. There will always be higher incidence of violence in black-markets. The police and politicians know this, but the conclusions of the studies provide misdirection away from 100%-correlated causal factor.

My only concern in this matter is the perversion of logic, reasoning and argumentation. Ritual suicide by alcohol and tobacco: OK, cannabis: NO WAY. Manufactured in China: OK, cigar from Cuba: NO WAY. These are trivial examples.

Jason Singer (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

See but thats the issue right there. No one disputes the notion of "ritual suicide by alcohol and tobacco". What a specious analogy that is! The message that alcohol and tobacco are deadly is replayed 24x7x365. The issue is, as we inch towards legalization, that THC is being presented as a cancer curing miracle drug that has *never* in human history *harmed anyone*. And to the one-issue legalization zealots, *nothing* can convince them different and *nothing* else matters beyond smoking pot. Any evidence that there might be anything negative at all about pot is aggressively rejected. Why is that this does not trip your "perversion of logic, reasoning and argumentation" sensor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.134.116 (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I find it quite ironic that, in the United States, marijuana is a schedule 1 substance meaning, among other things, that it has no medical benefits. However, marinol is marketed as a medical evaluation of marijuana to assist in medical conditions and actually has a medical value, and is hence a schedule 3 substance. Why is it that if the primary substance has no medicinal value at all, but a product which is basically just THC, the assumed primary ingredient in marijuana (the primary substance), does have medical value. Where's the logic in that? Styk0n (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"Talk page" refers to conversation about the article itself and how to improve it, not debate about the subject of the article. If you feel the article as it stands misrepresents THC, gather your sources and make edits. 184.182.183.82 (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Boiling point of THC

The old wikipedia page got the number 157C somehow. Looking this up doesn't seem to find any real sources. So I've removed that number and placed a number given to me by the Royal Society of Chemistry from their analytic database. This other page also uses this number so I figure that should be a good start. http://en.wikipedia.org/Cannabis_(drug) LegacyWeapon (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the ChemSpider source you cited, and I cannot find the value you reported (199.14 °C at unspecified pressure so assuming 1 atm) anywhere on it. For example, looking in the Properties section, I don't see a boiling-point in the "experimental" tab. In the various "predicted" tabs, I do see:

"390.448 °C at 760 mmHg" for ACD/Labs

"407.23" and "200 @ 0.02 mm Hg deg C" EPISuite

Those are all pretty far off of 199 °C at 1 atm. Conversely, the previous 157 °C value at 1 atm is exactly what ref it had listed says. That ref has a data table that notes "values obtained from various sources, primarily Buckingham, 1992; Guenther, 1948; Parry, 1918; and Mechoulam (personal communication, April 2001)." Because I was unable to verify your value, I reverted back to the previous. Would be useful to find the underlying source for the 157 value, expecially since it is so different from the predicted results. But predicted values are only of limited reliability, especially since not reported in an actual peer-reviewed source, so I think we're stuck with either 157 or maybe nothing (per lack of close agreement among sources). DMacks (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

That other page states "the boiling point of THC is 390.4 °F (199.1 °C) at 760 mmHg pressure", cited to the chemspider source. Notice the 390.4 value...perhaps the editor who wrote the wikipedia content just misread the units when reporting it? I'm tagging that value there as a point of concern. DMacks (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

1/2/2013 Edits

Shouldn't its legal status be updated to include 2012 election changes of medical and recreation cannabis, or not because cannabis s. is not thc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.166.44 (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that makes the difference. Even if it's only "cannabis" that is now legal and not "THC", it would still be relevant to this article. So go ahead and add it in there. Charles35 (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Vaporization point (and boiling point)

I plan to build a vaporizer (for experiments with my pet animals), does anybody know the vaporization point? 95.112.162.127 (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

365 °F MidnightRequestLine (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

IUPAC NAME IS INCORRECT

Gentlemen I would like to bring to your attention that the stereochemical identities for the IUPAC name for THC are incorrect. The two chiral centers should have "R" as their stereochemical identity not "S". Solving the chirality for the two chiral centers in the structure also shows "R" not "S". This needs to be fixed right away. This is Dr. Mark A Olson of Texas A&M University Corpus Christi, assistant professor of chemistry. I was alerted by my students to this error and verified it. Please see that it is corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.71.89.15 (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)  Done

"Trade off alcohol for marijuana"

I have come upon many persons, sadly consumed by alcoholism. but in the trade off have found marijuana as an alternative to alcohol. From ongoing research can can prove to be a less destructive and possibly healthier alternative for these persons suffering through alcoholism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.80.14 (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I removed links to a journal article hosted at badgerlawyer.com, but Meteor sandwich yum reinstated them. How is this not copyright violation? Alexbrn 06:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. That was a mistake. I wasn't watching edit history. Can you elaborate (on why they're a CV), please? meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Because the article has copyright of the publisher. This is an illicit copy (unless there is something demonstrating otherwise - which I can't see). Alexbrn 06:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

(Add) it's http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.ftd.0000197091.07807.22 (indexed as PMID 16628124). Alexbrn 06:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... they didn't claim for this to be their own work, but accredited it properly to the original publisher. Still copyright violation? They gave enough detail for someone to reasonably trace the work back to its author.

I don't have anything against just going with the primary source, it's just that this makes me curious. I'm reverting article addition after I post this for safety. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. Subscription-only content I was linking to. Thanks. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes it was only the link that concerned me - which you've now fixed. Alexbrn 09:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Third party v. MEDREF tag

Meteor sandwich yum removed the MEDREF tag and replaced it with a third-party tag, which I have reverted. In edit summary, s/he mentions we have "plenty of data", which is not the concern with incorrect medical sourcing. The article uses primary sources (which can be cherry-picked to present a POV) when there are numerous secondary reviews available that are compliant with MEDRS. To avoid original research on Misplaced Pages, we prefer secondary sources to primary-- it's not an issue of "third-party", rather overuse of primary sources rather than secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Touché. I retract my action, tag names are deceiving. Medref, at first glance, sounds like it means we need more studies, not better studies. The Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis is obviously a party with a COI here, but cherry-picking is much more predominant. Even one meta-analysis seems to uphold the POV-pushing: "Research has also shown that past claims of brain damage from cannabis use fail to hold up to the scientific method..."

It's sort of a 'gray area' for this — do you believe cherry-picking might be a more representative tag? This issue can also be seen as sociopolitical, not just biological. As a side note, I notice the talk page doesn't include a "part of the scope of WikiProject Medicine" banner. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that "cherry picking" is a more representative tag (well, I wasn't aware of the existence of such a tag), but considering the purpose of a tag is to get the article fixed, the way to fix it is by consulting secondary reviews compliant with MEDRS, and removing the primary sources-- so I think the MEDREF tag is correct.

The talk page should have a WPMED project banner, but regardless, medical and health-related content anywhere on Misplaced Pages should conform to MEDRS, whether or not the talk page is tagged (and Pharmacology covers it, see MEDRS). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Added it to WikiProject Medicine, by the way. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Mouse male fertility

Meteor sandwich yum, regarding the weird statement from a primary source on mouse male fertility that you tagged, if you have time to examine the reviews at Cannabis in pregnancy, you might find the information to rewrite whatever that line was hoping to say. I only got to a rough-in at the pregnancy article, but I seem to recall seeing that kind of info in some of those secondary reviews. If you do find something there, it would be better to write it there, and then have this article link to the pregnancy article. There is a huge problem with duplication of text across all of the {{cannabis}} articles, so reproduction/fertility text might be better placed there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Will look into it — I hope to resolve some of these issues and not just tag-bomb, by the way. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

When you start seeing how much there is to be done, you may find you have to tag-bomb just to know what remains to be done! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Meteor, with respect to the duplicate and poorly sourced content everywhere in this suite, the additional difficulty at this article is sorting out which sources discuss specifically THC, versus other cannabinoids. Have fun here :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Organizational guideline

... at Misplaced Pages:MEDMOS#Drugs, medications and devices. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Human study, January 2013

Of interest?

Pot for Sleep Front Psychiatry. 2013 Jan 22;4:1. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00001. PMID: 23346060 eCollection 2013.

Proof of concept trial of dronabinol in obstructive sleep apnea.

Prasad B, Radulovacki MG, Carley DW.

Abstract on the use of Marijuana derivative as treatment for OSA

Study Objective: Animal data suggest that Δ(9)-TetraHydroCannabinol (Δ(9)THC) stabilizes autonomic output during sleep, reduces spontaneous sleep-disordered breathing, and blocks serotonin-induced exacerbation of sleep apnea. On this basis, we examined the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of dronabinol (Δ(9)THC), an exogenous Cannabinoid type 1 and type 2 (CB1 and CB2) receptor agonist in patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA).

Design and Setting:

....etc.

--Hordaland (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... Review study, within the last 2 years, sample size of 17. Mentioned conflict-of-interest, but what concerns me more is that fact that it's so preliminary. To quote (emphasis mine):

Conclusion: Dronabinol treatment is safe and well-tolerated in OSA patients at doses of 2.5–10 mg daily and significantly reduces AHI in the short-term. These findings should be confirmed in a larger study in order to identify sub-populations with OSA that may benefit from cannabimimetic pharmacologic therapy.

A sample size of 17 is way too small to state this as a demonstrated effect, only good for a pilot study. Also, I believe this is self-published? I can't find any reviews of it anywhere. Furthermore, it would further the pro-marijuana bias in this article.

If this were a meta-analysis with a larger population and we needed expansion on the biomedical effects of THC, possibly. This seems more appropriate as a concept treatment for obstructive sleep apnea than for a description of dronabinol.

My vote is no. Interesting article, however. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Marinol, Cannabis, and Mortality

The FDA's Adverse Events Reporting system cannot be used to make the claim that "While cannabis is not known to cause death, Marinol was cited by the FDA as being responsible for 5 deaths (4 direct and 1 indirectly involved) between January 1, 1997 and June 30, 2005." Neither deaths caused by Marinol nor the safety of cannabis is established by the cited source.

According to the FDA, as quoted in the cited source: "For any given report there is no certainty that the suspected drug caused the reaction. This is because physicians are encouraged to report suspected reactions. The event may have been related to the underlying disease forwhich the drug was given to concurrent drugs being taken or may have occurred by chance at the same time the suspected drug was taken." How can this possibly be used as support for the statement "Marinol was cited by the FDA as being responsible for 5 deaths"?

Furthermore, the fact that these reports are collected by FDA does not change the fact that they are case reports. Per WP:MEDRS, they cannot be used to support any healthcare related statement. "Case reports, whether in the popular press or a peer reviewed medical journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources."

Cannabis has been associated with sudden cardiac death in many literature case reports that are of equal quality to the source cited here. There's not much point in listing them, however, as case reports are not suitable sources for health related content, whehter they deal with the safety of marinol or that of cannabis. Formerly 98 (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Total and complete bullshit. The statement that "there is no certainty that the suspected drug caused the reaction" is a standard scientific disclaimer. Yes, there is no certainty when it comes to any of this, and yet, high doses of Marinol kill people while high doses of cannabis do not. Cannabis has not been associated with sudden cardiac death anywhere, and anyone who claims it has is full of crap. If that were true, college campuses would be mortuaries. Those kids smoke until they fall asleep on their couches with Cheetos-stained fingers. Nobody dies of heart attacks. They die from drinking too much legal alcohol and legal caffeinated drinks and smoking legal tobacco. Seriously? Keep fucking that chicken and keep drinking what's left of that Kool-Aid, because pretty soon the cat's gonna be out of the bag, and you'll be the last one standing. Nobody is buying the propaganda anymore and pretty soon, you guys are gonna be out of a job. It's only a matter of time now. It's over guy, pack it up and go home. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I withdraw part of my statement above. There are MEDRS compliant sources showing an increased risk of MI in the first hour after smoking a joint, published in no lesser source than the Lancet. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21353301. This should probably be added to the article. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Now you are clearly trolling. Cannabis comes at the very bottom, after traffic exposure (7.4%), physical exertion (6.2%), alcohol (5.0%), coffee (5.0%), a difference of 30 μg/m3 in PM10 (4.8%), negative emotions (3.9%), anger (3.1%), heavy meal (2.7%), positive emotions (2.4%), sexual activity (2.2%), cocaine use (0.9%), marijuana smoking (0.8%) and respiratory infections (0.6%). Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thats for overall attibutable cases in the population. Everyone is exposed to air pollution, but only a few smoke dope. The risk to those who do smoke is ranked pretty high. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Pretty high? You mean like the risk you take when walking across a crowded street or driving a car? You'll need to quantify this risk. I predict it is close to nonexistent in reality. Otherwise, why aren't we seeing it in epidemiological reports and records? Maybe because it doesn't exist? Let's look at the United States. We've got 19 million cannabis smokers as of 2013. Does the predicted risk match what we are seeing in emergency rooms? No, what we see in emergency rooms is the result of legal prescription drugs, legal alcohol, and legal tobacco use. Where is the rise in MI due to cannabis use? After all, cannabis is being used more than ever now. People should be dropping dead like flies from MI. Where's the evidence? Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is in the paper I cited and half a dozen others like it. "High" as in the 3rd largest of 12 trigger factors identified at the individual level. Which is actually pretty amazing given that while the entire population is exposed to factors like air pollution, the fraction of the population that smokes pot is mostly young and has a relatively low baseline risk.

Cannabis consumption is also associated with increased risk of stroke: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23850313Formerly 98 (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Your so-called "evidence" is pure bunk. Give it up. Viriditas (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no evidence at all. 19 million Americans use cannabis daily, yet there is no reported incidence of MI in those users. Where's the evidence? Viriditas (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any objections to the actual sources or are you merely going to object based on your own intuition? Second Quantization (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You call yourself a skeptic, but that's obviously false. There's no evidence that cannabis causes MI on a statistically significant basis. You're content to cite political propaganda as fact, but I'm not. Please don't call yourself a skeptic anymore, as you are denigrating the term. Viriditas (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit looks good. Related papers which are well cited. Related and well cited paper about K2: . The article should mention the general effects of THC on the cardiovascular system, some of which the linked article provides,

"It is well known that marijuana has pathophysiological effects on the cardiovascular system. The physiologic effects of THC are mediated by stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system through release of norepinephrine9 and also by parasympathetic blockade. THC has been shown to increase cardiac output by as much as 30%.10 Marijuana use can increase the heart rate from 20% to 100% in a dose-dependent manner, which leads to increased oxygen demands on the myocardium. Heart-rate increases start in the first 10 minutes after smoking and last up to 3 hours.11,–,16 Smoking marijuana also leads to an increase in carboxyhemoglobin levels, which results in a decrease in oxygen-carrying capacity."

Second Quantization (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

And yet no evidence whatsoever that any one of 19 million American cannabis users has ever been admitted to the hospital for MI due to their cannabis use. None. But you'll continue to cite sources sans evidence that use the unscientific fear-mongering term "marijuana" instead of the medical term "cannabis" because those NIDA dollars have to keep rolling in and the DEA must meet their quota. Pure fucking nonsense. You're no skeptic, that's for sure. This entire nonsense has been completely debunked by a cardiologist. You have lost your "skeptic" rights. Viriditas (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Get that peer reviewed then come back to me. I have no interest in your American politics, stick to the topic. Second Quantization (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

An argument from authority as a response? No true skeptic would say that.  :). Peer review, as in the political process which publishes anti-cannabis propaganda on a daily basis based on small sample sizes but won't allow pro-cannabis studies based on large sample sizes to see the light of day? You mean that broken, biased process which serves the interests of the government and the pharmaceutical companies, but not the interests of the public and patients? Is that what you mean? Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Using peer reviewed articles is standard on wikipedia, it's not about being a skeptic or not. Where is your evidence that any of your conspiratorial claims are true? I'm disinclined to listen to somehow claim that scientific peer review is a "political process which publishes anti-cannabis propaganda on a daily basis based on small sample sizes but won't allow pro-cannabis studies based on large sample sizes to see the light of day". It sounds like pure conspiratorial reasoning. Second Quantization (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The cannabis literature is more than 90% negative and chock full of false assumptions, half-truths, and scaremongering because it is funded by first and foremost drug "abuse' and drug control and prevention programs, and this starts at the United Nations and works its way down. You seem to be blissfully unaware of the political bias inherent in the medical literature. Positive research can't get published and positive studies can't get funded, and researchers who are studying positive effects can't get cannabis to use from the government. You seem to be the very last person in the world to be aware of this historical fact. Someone is vastly ignorant in this discussion, and it isn't me. Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You were more than willing to go to the mat to defend the idea that Marinol causes fatalities based on half a dozen case reports , but faced with greater evidence (a larger number of case reports and some actual controlled studies) supporting a link of cannabis to CV events, suddenly its all a conspiracy. I think you should cool it.Formerly 98 (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Marinol has killed people, and its warnings are well known. Yet, it is offered by pharmaceutical companies with the help of the FDA as an alternative to cannabis, which has been proven to be safer and more efficacious than Marinol. This is not an idea nor a conspiracy, it is proven historical fact suported by actual medical evidence. On the other hand, once cannabis starts gaining grounds for legalization, it's suddenly, out of the blue dangerous and harmful. Sorry, we're not buying the usual round of bullshit. Sell your pharmaceutical snake oil elsewhere. As Dr. Rehman clearly shows, the notion the original findings are based on a 2001 paper that "studied heart attacks in 3882 patients, of whom only 3.2% used cannabis and only 9 patients had used cannabis within an hour of the heart attack. The 4.8 fold risk determination was therefore based on this tiny sample of 9 patients". We see this continual misuse of sources and data again and again in the cannabis literature, all to justify the drug war and the continuing persecution of cannabis users by the medical-prison-judicial-industrial-complex. It's bullshit, and I've called you out on it. You can call it a conspiracy all you want. The fact of the matter is, there are 19 million cannabis users in the US alone who aren't suffering from heart attacks or strokes, diseases which have a strong genetic risk factor. For some reason you can't explain, the emergency rooms and hospitals in the United States aren't filled with cannabis users suffering from heart disease and strokes. Can you explain that? Or will you just cite another debunked study pointing to a sample size of 9 patients who drank alcohol, smoked tobacco, and consumed caffeinated drinks, and whose genetic risk factors for heart attacks and strokes were not determined? Surely, the college campus clinics should be teeming with students having strokes and heart attacks? Why aren't they? Instead we see legal pharmaceutical drugs killing 23,000 people alone in 2010, while 26,000 died from legal alcohol in that year alone. Where are all the bodies of the dead cannabis users and why are you hiding them? Could it be that they don't exist and you are promoting propaganda? Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. If you think the Sources don't meet WP:RS then provide an argument. If they conflict with the sources you find reliable that doesn't mean they are actually unreliable by wp:rs standards. There's room for pro-pot, anti-pot, and people who don't actually care to edit here if they follow wikipedia policy. There's no point in incivility.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No, we don't know Marinol has killed people. All we have is a FIA document from the FDA stating that people who were taking Marinol died, but the cause of death is undetermined. Its a spontaneous reporting system. People come to the hospital, tell the nurse what drugs they are taking, and some of them die. If they are taking a legal drug, they likely tell their doctor and if the doctor thinks there is the slightest chance the drug played a role in the death, they report it to FDA. If the patient is taking illegal drugs, they probably don't tell the doctor. So those who die from cardiac arrest in the hour after smoking a doobie don't get reported to AERS. And since AERS is designed to capture side effects of Rx drugs, even if the doctor knew the patient was smoking pot an hour before having an MI, most wouldn't think to report it to FDA. Its not an FDA regulated drug.

We have several controlled studies saying that stroke and MI are increased in the aftermath of cannabis consumption. You ask why people aren't dropping like flies as if everyone in the country personally knowing several who died was the minimal threshold for demonstration of harm. Did you know anyone who died of a heart attack while taking Vioxx? It killed 25,000 in 10 years on the market. Do you know anyone who had a heart attack on Premarin? It was the biggest selling drug in the US for a decade, and probably killed 50,000 or so. Spread across a few million people, several thousand unecessary deaths a year are easy to miss. Up until the early 1960's, many cigarette ads featured physicians recommending an after dinner smoke to improve digestion. You don't have to have half the population dying each year to have a real problem. And you won't necessarily catch on without the type of epidemiological studies that I cited in the article.

Somebody is using this article to try to pump a product with very limited medical benefits and well-established risks as a cure-all. I'll be cleaning it up over the next few weeks to remove material that is not properly sourced with MEDRS compliant citations. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you have no good evidence that cannabis causes these health problems, but you feel confident that adding weak associative studies based on small sample sizes and poorly controlled subjects is acceptable. I believe the MEDRS guideline says the opposite. Furthermore, I do know people who have died from the legal pharmaceutical drugs you've mentioned, some of them quite famous. However, I believe the legal settlement prevents people from talking about it, which is why you haven't heard much about it. Your argument from ignorance stinks. The fact that there is a well funded and organized effort to demonize cannabis is a documented fact, and the twisted data and contorted study results prove it. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Just because a paper is nominally MEDRS compliant doesn't mean it is reliable or intelligent, let alone that it should be used. View the link that Viriditas posted in his "bunk" statement above. The study on MI risk centered on a mere 9 people for their big claim, and the authors of the stroke paper didn't do any of the work needed to prove it was cannabis and not any of the other drugs their subjects were taking. So really, these papers are no good for anything beyond the pointlessly generic statement "some potheads have had heart attacks and strokes". Just because they managed to get through peer review doesn't mean we have to accept their conclusions at face value. If we were reading multiple reviews of this work that supported the same conclusion, I might change my mind. As far as the FDA statement goes, most likely every drug in existence has been in the system of someone who recently had a heart attack and died. It's an issue so generic it's not worth reporting in an encyclopedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I would be weary of using the FDA source if the other sources themselves are weak.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Someguy, who is using the study from 2001 that viriditas addresed? The one I have linked to is from 2011. Viriditas dismissed all the studies by attacking one and his linked "debunking" only addressed one of the studies mentioned by Wolff while ignoring all other evidence they claim. If he focussed on backing up his claims which he has made rather than going on the offensive perhaps he would actually convince people. The papers I provided are highly cited, if they are highly cited, but poorly done, then the citation trail should show objections in the literature. This will not satisfy Viri, though, because he has claimed there is a conspiracy to exclude pro-cannabis studies. Second Quantization (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Your very own 2011 paper is the one using the 2001 paper. That's where they got their data (they did not collect their own). The conclusions are overreaching in both cases. And I did read the studies. The 2011 work from the Lancet simply accepts the marijuana data at face value, and that data came from a rather small sample. It's a study of literally just 124 people who smoke pot and had heart attacks (incidentally 84 of them were tobacco addicts, 53 were obese, 37 had high blood pressure, and 15 had a history of chest pain). Their groundbreaking conclusion is based on the fact that 9 of these 124 individuals had their heart attack within one hour of smoking a joint (two of them were also snorting coke at the same time). All this speaks to is the fact that the investigators found a group of very unhealthy potheads, and some of them had heart attacks soon after smoking a joint. If these guys are anything like the potheads I knew in college, a significant chunk of the day is "soon after smoking a joint". This study is the sole basis of the claim you are attempting to cite from the 2011 paper. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Someguy, I already know that the 2011 paper I have found cites the 2001 one. That is what I said. Read what I wrote. Now read the rest of it: " his linked "debunking" only addressed one of the studies mentioned by Wolff while ignoring all other evidence they claim". You have ignored that again and focussed on the one study and used your original research to try and debunk it. Saying that all the papers are just based on this is directly contradicted by what they say, the 2011 one for example is a study on 48 patients. Saying the Mittleman paper is "a study of literally just 124 people who smoke pot" is misleading. No it's not, it's a study of 3882 patients, 124 of which smoked cannabis. The significance of this effect is determined by statistical methods, not by ad-hoc reasoning (in part informed by your personal experiences about your friends) about what you think is significant. Second Quantization (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class pharmacology articles
• High-importance pharmacology articles
• WikiProject Pharmacology articles
• B-Class Cannabis articles
• High-importance Cannabis articles
• WikiProject Cannabis articles
• B-Class chemicals articles
• Mid-importance chemicals articles
• Unassessed medicine articles
• Unknown-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages