Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:03, 7 May 2015

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

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

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

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

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

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

Template:Vital article

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

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

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

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Jake Ellison (February 27, 2014). "Poll: Redmond geek fires up international Misplaced Pages debate: 'cannabis' vs. 'marijuana'". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved February 28, 2014.

Archives

Archive index Cannabis archive 1 Cannabis archive 2 Cannabis (drug) archive 1 Cannabis (drug) archive 2 Cannabis (drug) Archive 3 Cannabis (drug) Archive 4 Cannabis (drug) Archive 5 Cannabis (drug) Archive 6 Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Tobacco discussion Taken from Talk:cannabis to explain the existence of this article. Please see this and Talk:Cannabis/Archive 1 Talk:Cannabis/Archive 2 for the sources and discussions of this article. Squiquifox 18:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

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

Unpleasant psychoactive effects

This article doesn't cover what's colloquially known as a "bad high", a reaction to cannabis consumption involving intense anxiety, paranoia, derealization, and depersonalization. It was my most recent experience with the drug, prompting me to kick it for good, and my impression is that it isn't rare. Is there any reliable medical literature on the subject? Tezero (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There is this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2178712 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.21.53 (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

] This is a self-induced paranoia and you are seeking attention, case dismissed. Next? 2601:8:9800:64C:129A:DDFF:FEAA:BDF6 (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This can be the result of an unbalanced THC/CBD ratio. See here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2cAFRAX3Gs FLY 05:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Are you serious? I just looked at that link, and it's a stupid BBC stunt where a woman who never used cannabis is injected with pure THC and THC/CBD mix without knowing which. If youtube is where you get your information from, you are in deep trouble. PetePassword (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This can be the result of an unbalance imagination, or deliberate misinformation. Having heard of the 'bad trip' from LSD, this numpty has conflated it with cannabis and invented a #bad high' - wouldn't that be a 'low'? Utter garbage, go back to studying and playing games. PetePassword (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources - are they trustworthy?

Spotting an error, I clicked to the linked source and found it was a book, Marijuana and Madness , published over ten years ago, anti-cannabis and with a number of errors . Since this is a publication by scientists, I would have expected a more apt source for what hashsish is and how it's made would be a traditional manual or cannabis cultural source, which would have pointed out the many ways hashish is made. This may be unknown to most Americans, including cannabis users, as North Americans are familiar with only the marijuana variety, while Europe has long had hash and grass from Africa and India. If I were able to edit, I would have added the methods of making hash, and quoted a source book that is not only reliable, but is a pictorial essay on the subject showing both Moroccan and Nepali ways of making hash. The current summary is incomplete. Other parts, for instance talking about possible psychosis links needs updating. There is a schizophrenia gene which is essential for schizophrenia to manifest, cannabis never causes it, but it may be implicated in initiating or worsening schizophrenia. Much research is currently ongoing, especially into medicinal cannabis, CBD and the role of the nearly 100 cannabinoids so far identified. There is also a lack in current information on seed breeding and the variants produced for medical and other purposes. There's a lot needs doing, but I can't while locked. PetePassword (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Bear in mind that WP:NPOV and WP:V make it clear that verifiability is the primary concern. Your own information may directly contradict what one given source says, but this does not necessarily mean that the source is wrong. A fairly complex subject (such as the health effects or history of cannabis consumption) is virtually guaranteed to have experts on the subject disagreeing vehemently on a number of issues surrounding it.

It may be that your information is correct, and it may be that your information is incorrect. Either way, that does not negate the original source's information. Indeed, given that this is a biological issue, it's quite possible that both sources might be correct, and there is some hidden factor which is responsible for the variance in opinions.

The same holds true for the historical aspects you mentioned. It may be, for example, that the original source says that the X people made hash using the Y method, while your information says the X people made hash using the Z method, while the truth is that some of the X people (in a certain region, or during a certain time period, or belonging to a certain social or ethnic group, or even some combination thereof) used the Y method while others used the Z method. Or it could be that the X people used the N method, which can appear to be the Y or Z method, depending on what evidence is uncovered.

All in all, the best thing to do is ensure that the article mentions both views. This is why we have the policies listed above, as well as WP:OR. If you have reliable sources that say something which contradicts the original sources, by all means, provide them here. Someone such as myself will be happy to edit the article to ensure that it reflects both views. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

My objection is that much of the article relies on published material purely because it is published, no clue as to accuracy or truthfullness. It is also the case that much published material is published to spread misinformation, this moire than any other subject suffers from it. When I see a 'study of literature' by psychiatrists used as source for a description of what hashish is, I just KNOW the writer is either utterly ignorant of the facts or deliberately continuing the spread of misinformation. There are ample sources of information on how hashish is made. It is NOT as described here. Americans lack all personally knowledge of this, it seems, so rely on 'studies' by others who similarly know nothing. Merely by being published does not make them a reliable source. If this is the level of scholarship at Misplaced Pages, perhaps I've been wrong to defend it against criticvs all these years, or to trust anything it says. This article is riddled with inacurracies, and I don't say that as a pro cannabis activist but as a believer in truth. To suggest I send any souces to you to include is not enough, it needs some real editing by someone who at least knows what they are talking about from over fifty years' experience and knowledge. I see an attempt to pretend to be fair minded but to include as much of the muckspreading as possible. For isntance, the so-called 'link' with schizophrenia is no such thing, there is a schizophrenia gene, there has been no rise in this disease since cannabis was popularised in the 1960s, and the current lie about skunk is nonsense too, since there's been no rise in schizophrenia since skunk appeared. Is every reader supposed to check back through all these refs to find out if they are reliable or not? I suggest many are not, especially since you seem to think the FDA a reliable source on this matter! Suggest you watch The Culture High on Vimeo and get back to me. PetePassword (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

My objection is that much of the article relies on published material purely because it is published, no clue as to accuracy or truthfullness.

This is intentional. Please read WP:TRUTH and WP:V before continuing this argument.

...It is also the case that much published material is published to spread misinformation...

...a group who seem to think they have much to lose by cannabis being legalised...

... I just KNOW...

Without reading further, I can tell you that your use of these phrases and your approach of the subject with this mentality means you will never win any argument over what should or should not be included in this article. Whether you are right or wrong (on this matter, I actually agree with your conclusions, if not your reasoning), you are clearly and unarguably biased, and thus your reasoning cannot be trusted. I am saying this not to discourage you, but to try and help. Please read the links I provided above. Please read WP:5P and WP:NPOV as well. Your approach thus far has not been in keeping with the spirit of this project. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

So, I am not allowed to mention misinformation even when it is used as the basis for this page? If you are unaware, or deny, that there is much disinformation on this subject by vested interests, you may need to widen your horizons. Does this naive belief also apply to global warming, are there no vested interests which fund disinformation on that subject? If all anyone is allowed to do is quote from published sources, knowledge is restricted largely to what Western science has published, ignoring the millenia of cultural inclusion of this plant elsewhere in the world, which all happened long before America existed, yet there seems to be an assumption that history begins with the first colonists to North America. No mention is made either of the many other uses of this plant, like fibre, or as you say fiber. It's the same plant, so information on the fibres, and their uses should be included, though there may be no learned papers on the subject to quote from so we may have a problem there, since you only acknowledge published items as valid. My remark to you about psychiatrists relates to the plethora of articles and papers all lacking scientific validity which constantly make claims they fail to substantiate. Since they claim it causes psycosis/schizophrenia, you can see why I might think they feel threatened and feel the need to attack it. I am in communication with the leadauthor of the most recent of these, and so far he has failed to answer one of my points. As for the third singled out phrase, I just know, is there absolutely no room for personal knowledge here? Is it ALL restricted to copy, paste, research and repeat without a clue as to whether sources are reliable? I do know what I'm talking about, MY knowledge is clearly superior to much of what has been quoted, since they are looking through a window to a world they are not part of, and drawing inferences, conclusions and associations as observers. That does not lead to knowledge, especially when imbued with bias. So it seems your sources can be as biased as they like, but my bias isn't allowed, nor am I allowed to point up bias when I see it? Thank you for taking it onboard how hash is made, I noted also your inclusion of Thai sticks and my point about strengths. Good to see some of my points get across. I am, as I said, only interested in accuracy, and I am not opposed to critical points if substantiated. I personally think young people should not be taking any psychoactive substances, but the illegality is at fault here in making illicit drugs exciting and 'dangerous' to the young at the age when they embrace danger! If it were typified as an old person's drug, they'd leave it alone. But for that it would need to be prescribed by doctors, ie. legal. PetePassword (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC) The obvious thing for me to do is write a book on the subject ; 'Cannabis: The Facts', publish it, put it on Amazon and then quote from it as a published source. You can quote from it also. Might take a while depending on how much time I can spare. 'My objection is that much of the article relies on published material purely because it is published, no clue as to accuracy or truthfullness.}} :This is intentional. Please read WP:TRUTH and WP:V before continuing this argument. I see no attempt in these to justify using incorrect sources merely because they are published. How exactly is it intentional? And how does that guarantee an accurate encyclopaedia? BTW, the information on medical cannabis is out of date as much more has been discovered, which a google would find. And I see no point in the Prices section since it's irrelevent, and can't possibly be accurate since not only do prices vary hugely, but they go up or down, and then there is inflation. Of course, if Misplaced Pages is just a little American reference, and the rest of the world don't matter, keep on updating US street prices, but they still won't be accurate. Illustration of price changes: in the 60s, an ounce cost around £20, now it is £150 or more depending on source. When legalisation finally comes to the rest of the world, prices will fall dramatically due to competition and the fact anyone could grow their own. But until then, organised crime and pharmaceutical companies will dictate price. PetePassword (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

What changes are you proposing and what sources are there for said changes? -- Moxy (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Too numerous to list without going through it carefully, which will take time I don't have at present. Finding sources would take more time, since I'm not allowed to know facts myself but must quote 'published' sources which may or may not know what they're talking about. One change might be that cannabis is known to cause extreme hair growth, not sure where that comes from though. ;-) PetePassword (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@PetePassword:, please read WP:CALM and WP:NPA. I'm not fighting against you, I'm trying to help you. As I mentioned before, I agree with you about much of the misinformation out there, but WP has a way of doing things, and this is for a very good reason. Now,

If you are unaware, or deny, that there is much disinformation on this subject by vested interests I have -in fact- already told you quite the opposite of that.

No mention is made either of the many other uses of this plant, like fibre, or as you say fiber. I know from experience that there are numerous sources out there on the internet which discuss the use of hemp. It should be very little trouble for you to find a few reliable sources and add the info. If you can't edit the article, just leave me a list of the sources here or on my talk page and I'll add it in.

As for the third singled out phrase, I just know, is there absolutely no room for personal knowledge here? None whatsoever. Read WP:OR. Misplaced Pages is not a place to include personal knowledge or original research.

I do know what I'm talking about, MY knowledge is clearly superior to much of what has been quoted, since they are looking through a window to a world they are not part of, and drawing inferences, conclusions and associations as observers. That is both a subjective opinion and irrelevant. I'm fairly certain it's demonstrably wrong, as well, but that doesn't really matter. You may well know the subject better than anyone else, but WP is still not the place to put your original research.

nor am I allowed to point up bias when I see it? What exactly do you think you're doing here, if not pointing out what you perceive as bias in the article?

The obvious thing for me to do is write a book on the subject ; 'Cannabis: The Facts', publish it, put it on Amazon and then quote from it as a published source. That would still be original research and not allowed. You would need to 1) Establish your book as a reliable source and 2) find someone else to include the information contained therein. Even then, the material could be removed if it was discovered you put someone up to including it. It'd be an argument if your book was indeed established as being reliable, but nonetheless.

Illustration of price changes: in the 60s, an ounce cost around £20, now it is £150 or more depending on source. To be perfectly honest (if not so politic), you're completely wrong. I know someone who would happily sell you an ounce for $50 tomorrow (no, I'm not making introductions, merely illustrating a point), and I know someone who bought $200 ounces in the 60's. Actually, it's the same guy. He's kind of a fanatic about it. The reason is that the street price of marijuana is not a simple subject. It depends on where you live, whom you purchase from, what kind you get, what sort of negotiation skills you have, what kind of mood both parties are in, etc, etc.

How am I completely wrong when you illustrate perfectly my point that the inclusion of prices is irrelevent, relative to location and changes over time? My prices, you may not have noticed were using a pound sterling sign, £, not a dollar sign $, and I can assure you are accurate for the UK. If someone bought $200 ounces in the sixties, he was either a fool or his memory is shot. I was a dealer 67-69 inclusive, if you want I'll quote you weight prices, that's pounds, kilos, hundreds of kilos. Not boasting, just believe me, and you'll have to take my word for it. What Americans get up to I have no idea, I knew a few, they seemed to fly in from LA or Canada and fly out the next day. Never quibbled prices, so maybe our proximity to Europe and North Africa meant something.

I'm not allowed to know facts myself but must quote 'published' sources which may or may not know what they're talking about That is not entirely correct. In fact, you must quote sources whom we have very good reason to believe know what they're talking about. Whether they actually do is somewhat immaterial (poor info can be quoted as an example of poor info , but not as an example of good info). Please read the policies and guidelines I've linked you to. They are quite important to how things work here at WP. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the nub of it, how do you decide which sources are kosher? I'd really like to know as they appear selected at random from a google of key words, some of the 'papers' are more than ten years old, and science has moved a long way in the last ten years. 'Whether they actually do is immaterial'? Huh? I've read the guidelines already, sheesh, stop quoting guidelines. This is about what is taken as acceptable, and you're saying veracity is irelevent, just being published and YOU accepting the source as OK is all that matters. I say maybe the reason this page was 'vandalised' was because you're getting up too many people's noses with incorrect information, repeating discredited 'research' which was nothing more than manipulation of stats doesn't pass muster. You may be satisfied with a report by a team of psychiatrists, but I'm not. They interpret the behaviour of someone high/stoned as psychotic, thus, it induces psychosis! Nice and neat and simplistic innit? The truth is the person is happy for no apparent reason except for ingesting phytocannabinoids, so to a psychiatrist they must be mental.

Papers from psychiatrists should be avoided, they are opinions, nothing more. The page on cannabinoids https://en.wikipedia.org/Cannabinoid seems much more scientific in comparison. PetePassword (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

How am I completely wrong when you illustrate perfectly my point that the inclusion of prices is irreleventWhat I meant was that you were wrong in the somewhat simplistic explanation of the prices. If what you meant was that the information doesn't belong here, then I can certainly understand that.

This is the nub of it, how do you decide which sources are kosher? Read Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources.

Papers from psychiatrists should be avoided, they are opinions, nothing more. That is an over generalization. Even when it is true, they are expert opinions.

Finally. Please be courteous of other people's posts. You have edited in the middle of my comments, which is considered quite rude. Always post your entire response at the end of the previous comment, and use one additional level of indentation (so if mine is at two levels (::), place yours at three levels (:::)). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention of being rude, but I do have problems following these posts, and not being familiar with conventions. Do you actually type in all this WP formatting? Like <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;?

But on this: I do know what I'm talking about, MY knowledge is clearly superior to much of what has been quoted, since they are looking through a window to a world they are not part of, and drawing inferences, conclusions and associations as observers. That is both a subjective opinion and irrelevant. I'm fairly certain it's demonstrably wrong, as well, but that doesn't really matter. You may well know the subject better than anyone else, but WP is still not the place to put your original research.

It's not 'original research' but knowledge assimilated over a lifetime. Yes, all opinion is subjective, I was opining that mine, with much information, study, observation and communication over many decades is superior to a team of psychiatrists who see psychosis in any aberrant behaviour . Unless they can point to actual science which shows an effect on the brain, their assumptions that a link with schizophrenia is proved are subjective, and spurious. WP may not be the place for original research, but has to be the place where facts are not ignored and prejudices confirmed. I know you aren't fighting me, I'd be much more vicious if you were LOL;-) 'ave a cookie! I don't knbow the significance of them, but they seem to be popular, if a little juvenile, but then I'm a miserable old git. PetePassword (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed your comment above to conform to commenting conventions. If you read WP:TPG, you can view the guidelines for how to format talk pages. As a note: You must indent each new paragraph. So if you hit enter to start on a new line, add a new set of colons to indent it.

But on this: I do know what I'm talking about, MY knowledge is clearly superior to much of what has been quoted, since they are looking through a window to a world they are not part of, and drawing inferences, conclusions and associations as observers. Consider this: I am actually from the planet Krypton. I was an astronaut exploring a nearby star system when my home planet exploded, and I came to this one because I encountered broadcasts suggesting another survivor may be living here. Therefore, any edits I make to the article Krypton don't need to be sourced.

Do you see the problems there? The most obvious one is that you have no reason to believe me. We're just two people typing to each other on the internet. I can say anything I want, and nothing I say will ever prove that my claims are true. On the other hand, even if I'm right, do you think I'm going to write about the strict caste system on my planet that stifled scientific attempts to avert it's demise? Or am I going to wax poetic about what a wonderful planet it was? Or (conversely), will I write scathingly about how stupid our leadership was? Even if I'm telling the truth (which you would have no way of proving), there's no telling what ways my own biases will influence what I write. In fact, the mere assumption of my truthfulness virtually guarantees that my information will be biased, as I was quite obviously strongly influenced by the subject.

That's the problem with writing content here as an experiential expert. Not only might your claims of expertise be wrong, but even if they are correct, your contributions could not possibly be unbiased.

It's not 'original research' but knowledge assimilated over a lifetime. Please read WP:OR. That is most certainly part of what original research is.

I was opining that mine, with much information, study, observation and communication over many decades is superior to a team of psychiatrists who see psychosis in any aberrant behaviour . Quite frankly, I think your opinion on the normalcy or abnormality of a person's behavior carries quite a bit less weight than those of any psychiatrist. I know for a fact that psychiatrists study human behavior. The only thing I know about you is that you edit WP.

WP may not be the place for original research, but has to be the place where facts are not ignored and prejudices confirmed. That's fine, but what if you are wrong about these biases? With the claims in the article, one can evince them quite strongly with links to respected, peer-reviewed scientific papers. With yours, we have to trust some random guy on the internet.

I know you aren't fighting me, I'd be much more vicious if you were LOL;-) 'ave a cookie! I would advise you never to be vicious here, as it is blatantly against the rules. Read WP:CIVIL for more, but the short version is: incivility is never permissible, even when you're right. Perhaps especially when you're right.

Unless they can point to actual science which shows an effect on the brain, their assumptions that a link with schizophrenia is proved are subjective, and spurious. For the purposes of WP (and indeed, the lay population in general), that article is itself scientific evidence. It was written by a group of people, all with a proven expertise in the field and reviewed by a team of their peers (also experts) and found to be acceptable. Finally, you may be unaware of this, but it was empirical research (itself done by experts and reviewed by more experts) which led to the claim in this article with which you so vehemently disagree, as the article is a review of existing research. Finally, if you insist upon seeing the original research for yourself, a Google search will give you plenty of results. Here's one, which describes a historical cohort study which found a strong correlation between schizophrenia and use of marijuana. Self reported cannabis use as a risk factor for schizophrenia in Swedish conscripts of 1969: historical cohort study. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

.

I'm aware of the 1969 'study', '69 was a heady year and seems most of the Swedish army were stoned. But the important word is 'correlation', which is not a proof of a causative link. I am in correspondence with the author of Marijuana and Madness, as he is also the 'lead author' of the most recent 'story' to hit the tabloids in the UK , which is strange since it was originally published in 2009. He has still to answer why, if marijuana has causative correlation to schizophrenia has there been zero rise in schizophrenia in the West in the sixty years since marijuana became popular, nor in the ten years since 'skunk' appeared on the scene .

You say empirical, I say observational, you say experts, I say in what? The author of the book you say is one of the sources is a psychiatrist, as are the team behind the study and others, all coming to the same conclusion from tiny samples and with assumptions rife over many years. Ask a south London drug using young male what he's taken, how much and how often and expect to be told the truth and I say you're naive, especially as these few young males were in a mental institution, and many of them didn't use cannabis. The control sample was selected for having had no previous psychotic problems. They were both small groups, and nothing more was proved than some young men who are mental also use cannabis and some don't. Some who are not mental do and some don't. Percentages were not particularly different. This is evidence? A questionnaire? Have you read the summary of this paper even?

Emperor's new clothes come to mind, not the Herrer book, but people quoting people quoting people so they conclude there must be some truth in it. I really have searched for this elusive evidence you talk of, and it still escapes me. Which, when you think how much effort is being put into delaying widespread legalisation while the pharmaceutical companies gear up and patent, is strange, you'd think it would be there set in large type across every tabloid. The scientific proof. Putting a celeb through an MRI while overcome by far too much skunk smoke is about as sincere a ddesire to explore truth as Reefer Madness. In case you missed that, it was UK's Channel 4 with Jon Snow and 2 others, probably available online, everything is. Wading through crap, tryin to find the right words to say, slowly driftin... PetePassword (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

'We're just two people typing to each other on the internet.'

I write what I know, I know what I think, I tell the truth as I see it, an honest broker. How about you? I assume that all others are also honest brokers, even when they disagree with me, until they reveal they are not. I think this is a better way to travel than with suspicious minds. . PetePassword (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of the 1969 'study', '69 was a heady year and seems most of the Swedish army were stoned. But the important word is 'correlation', which is not a proof of a causative link. The link I provided was to a second study of the same group, done 12 years later specifically to address that critique. The results are consistent with a causal relationship, and pretty much every external factor cited by critics of the original study as a possible causal factor for both were eliminated. Besides which, if you have specific complaints about a scientific paper, you should be taking that up with the journal which published it, not here on Misplaced Pages. Your complaints about it are themselves, original research and don't belong in the article, (or indeed, on this talk page, as this is for discussing ways to improve the article, not the validity of a scientific study cited in the article).

I am in correspondence with the author of Marijuana and Madness, as he is also the 'lead author' of the most recent 'story' to hit the tabloids in the UK , which is strange since it was originally published in 2009. He has still to answer why, if marijuana has causative correlation to schizophrenia has there been zero rise in schizophrenia in the West in the sixty years since marijuana became popular, nor in the ten years since 'skunk' appeared on the scene . That is fine. It is also original research and has no place in this article.

You say empirical, I say observational, There is no meaningful distinction there. The word empirical means "based on observation".

you say experts, I say in what? Psychology and pharmacology, the two subjects one must be an expert in to conduct such research. You are implying that their expertise is irrelevant, which could not be further from the truth.

The control sample was selected for having had no previous psychotic problems. That improves the reliability of the study, as it controls for the possibility of the schizophrenia being a causative factor for the marijuana use.

They were both small groups, and nothing more was proved than some young men who are mental also use cannabis and some don't.They were groups of over 50,000 individuals. That is quite a bit more than is necessary for their findings. 2-3 times more, at least.

Have you read the summary of this paper even?I've read and understood the entire paper, not just the summary. You, on the other hand, seem to have a number of powerful misconceptions about not only the paper, but best practices in such research and even the basic principles of science. I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound insulting, but you really do seem to be arguing out of your depth.

I write what I know, I know what I think, I tell the truth as I see it, an honest broker. How about you? Are you implying that I'm being dishonest? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, I was assuming you to be honest, so my question was asking confirmation. It was in response to your statements that I could be making it up or mistaken etc. You may, however, be paranoid!

BTW, Reference 7 only contains links to WP, and not to a source. PetePassword (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, we seem to be at cross purposes here, you say 'They were groups of over 50,000 individuals.' not in the paper I had mentioned, and was talking about. So perhaps we should start again, as I have no idea now what you are referring to, and clearly you have no idea what I am referring to; namely the sample of young males in a South London mental institution. It used 410 patients with first-episode psychosis and 370 population controls. Here is the PDF of the Lancet article They are psychiatrists, not Psychology and pharmacology as you say.

The word empirical to me means derived from experiment, rather than theory. The report I'm talking abut relies on theory - that cannabis causes psychosis - and then go on to 'prove' it with stats. Anyone who knows how stats are manipulated to 'prove' just about anything, will not be impressed.

It would obviously help if we were talking about the same reference I originally disputed, it's the one in the Lancet PDF. Your study is? PetePassword (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

'Quite frankly, I think your opinion on the normalcy or abnormality of a person's behavior carries quite a bit less weight than those of any psychiatrist.' Really? I'm tempted to think you're a psychiatrist, which might explain your defence of them, and your inability or unwillingness to understand my POV, which you keep misunderstanding. This could be a result of confusion on which particular study is being discussed, since this has gone on a long time and seems only to get more confused. Psychiatrists are not scientists. Their craft is all based on observation and conclusion, but not backed up by any real science. Freud clearly wanted to have sex with his mother, so applied that to all males rather than acknowledge he was weird, perverted and possibly psychotic. He has a lot to answer for. My personal view is that anyone who has a desire to diagnose others' mental processing from theories is certainly egotistical, and possibly deranged. Certainly not a scientist. My opinion is worth any other opinion, I have lived in the world, I have experienced arguably a lot more than most psychiatrists and just because I didn't first learn the psychiatric litany doesn't mean my opinion is worthless. Many of them have led sheltered lives, have done little other than study and sit in an office listening to people with problems. Cannabis users rarely have problems a psychiatrist could help with any more than an agony aunt can. One I knew made a good living writing heroin prescriptions for visiting jazz musicians in the sixties, and screwed up his children's heads.

Further, a quote from WP:DSM 'It has also been alleged that the way the categories of the DSM are structured, as well as the substantial expansion of the number of categories, are representative of an increasing medicalization of human nature, which may be attributed to disease mongering by psychiatrists and pharmaceutical companies, the power and influence of the latter having grown dramatically in recent decades.' What have I been saying?

The same article concludes that the connections between panel members and the drug companies were particularly strong in those diagnoses where drugs are the first line of treatment, such as schizophrenia and mood disorders, where 100% of the panel members had financial ties with the pharmaceutical industry. Again what I've been saying and why one must be cautious when quoting psychiatrists making claims about 'new findings on cannabis'. PetePassword (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

'"The Myth of Medical". Scholastic Inc. 2012. Retrieved 12 January 2015.' is referenced in this article. It is a 'drugs war' website dedicated to misinformation and just say no to students, we have similar in the UK with justaskFrank, all nonsense insinuations laced with known facts, and very simplistic. This kind of thing shouldn't ever be referenced as any kind of source for facts since it is clearly biased. But that's OK, only those supportive of cannabis as medical and recreational drug are to be bothered about providing unbiased refs. PetePassword (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Break

OK, we seem to be at cross purposes here, you say 'They were groups of over 50,000 individuals.' not in the paper I had mentioned, and was talking about. I see. You earlier said that you were aware of the 1969 Swedish study, which led me to believe you were referring to the 1969 Swedish study when you went on to talk about a study without mentioning that you were referring to a different study. Well, then we now have 3 (I linked to one and referred to another) studies which passed peer review in two different fields (Pharmacology and Psychology) to be published, all of which evince a link. Even if you have misgivings about one, there are two others, one of which specifically addresses your complaints. I would say that in this case at least, the science is pretty clear: There is a link (however mild) between use of high potency marijuana and schizophrenia; a link which is perfectly consistent with a causal relationship.

The report I'm talking abut relies on theory - that cannabis causes psychosis - and then go on to 'prove' it with stats. No, it does not. That is not how science works, nor is it how that paper is framed. What the paper you linked to does is ask the question "Is there evidence which would support a causal link between the use of potent marijuana and schizophrenia?" and the go on to gather evidence. The procedures outline by the paper are those designed to best yield a negative answer to that question. Despite this, the answer was still positive, if weak. That is how it managed to pass peer-review. Any paper which sets forth a hypothesis (not a theory, a hypothesis), then goes about gathering evidence to support it would never pass peer review for the Lancet.

It would obviously help if we were talking about the same reference I originally disputed, it's the one in the Lancet PDF. Your study is? The one I previously linked, which itself contains a link to the prior study it addresses. You know, the one you claimed to have been previously aware of.

'Quite frankly, I think your opinion on the normalcy or abnormality of a person's behavior carries quite a bit less weight than those of any psychiatrist.' Really? Yes. Do you really have difficulty comprehending why I would take the word of an acknowledged expert in a given field over that of some random guy on the internet? The answer should be quite obvious.

I'm tempted to think you're a psychiatrist, which might explain your defence of them, and your inability or unwillingness to understand my POV, which you keep misunderstanding. I'm not. I am, in fact, a strident supporter of marijuana legalization with a background in physical sciences and computers. As to your position, you seem to vary in how you describe it, but the consistency I've seen has been that you don't seem to believe that there is a causal link between using marijuana and schizophrenia, and you seem to think that wikipedia should reflect what you believe to be true. If that is incorrect, you should spell out your position more clearly.

Psychiatrists are not scientists. Their craft is all based on observation and conclusion, but not backed up by any real science. Are you a Scientologist by chance? I know that Scientology teaches this as an axiom, but honestly, it could not be further from the truth. While it's true that most psychiatrists are practitioners (Psychiatry being a medical discipline), it's completely and demonstrably false to claim that their practice is not based on science. In addition, all science is based on observation and conclusion. It is nonsensical to complain that being based on observation and conclusion makes something non-scientific. This is why I have previously questioned your competence to judge the merits of these studies: You don't seem to be very knowledgeable about how science works. If you want to change that, Misplaced Pages is a great place. You can start by reading the following articles:

• Scientific method
• Methodological naturalism
• Observational study
• Experiment
• Causality

Freud clearly wanted to have sex with his mother, so applied that to all males rather than acknowledge he was weird, perverted and possibly psychotic. Freud's theories have long been discounted by the psychiatric community. Virtually nothing beyond a pop culture image of Freud has survived.

Further, a quote from WP:DSM There is no article called WP:DSM. But it doesn't matter. Corruption in the updating of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual does not invalidate psychiatry as a whole. Also, having financial ties to a company does not automatically mean you are in their pocket. Those financial ties could be having a lucrative consulting position which requires little work and pays a lot of money true, but they could also mean that the doctor in question once went to a medical conference sponsored by the company. The former implies bias, the latter does not. Finally, you seem to be forgetting that the hypothesis that potent marijuana use can be causally associated with schizophrenia is not unique to psychiatry, but has also been posed by Pharmacologists and Psychopharmacologists.

IMPORTANT It is very important that you read this paragraph. Our discussion about the validity of sources has mutated into a discussion about the merits of certain scientific papers and disciplines. This is not an appropriate line of discussion for this page. I have responded to the off-topic discussion until now, but cannot do so any longer. This page is reserved for discussing changes to this article, not for a debate about marijuana legalization. Therefore, I will not respond to any more off-topic discussion. Please try to limit your further responses so as to bring the discussion back to the proper topic, if you intend to keep it going. That is to say, please get back to what changes you wish to see to the article, and how those changes might be sourced and implemented. Thank you, MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBmAPYkPeYU
2. http://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/pdfs/14TLP0454_Di%20Forti.pdf

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2015

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

The article on Cannabis has a minor error. It states that Washington was the first to legalize recreational use with Colorado following close behind. In actuality, both states voted to legalize on the same day, effectually making neither (and both) first. They both voted to legalize on November 6th, 2012.

2601:1:8480:167B:18D0:FB91:7F0E:391 (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} 10:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably shouldn't be done. Washington and Colorado both voted to legalize at the same time, and Colorado finished rolling out the law earlier, but the first change in Washington law (decriminalizing possession of less than 1 ounce) went into effect December 6th of that year(), whereas the first change in Colorado law was not required until ratification by the governor, which happened on December 10th(). So they voted to legalize at the same time, but Washington implemented the first part of its legalization law 4 days earlier. I have no idea why that would merit pointing out that Washington was the first state (with the second state coming in 4 days later, they might as well have been simultaneous), but it's apparently true. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Marijuana delivery service

For the last year or so, marijuana delivery services have been in the news. Maybe a Marijuana delivery service article would be useful. For the lead section there are various reliable sources. and it could mention Nugg, Nestdrop, Meadow, Flow Kana, Canary, and Eaze. After that, the names of all those individual services could redirect to this new Marijuana delivery service article (Nugg, Nestdrop, Meadow (delivery service), Flow Kana, Canary (delivery service), Eaze). This should also help prevent editors from creating stubs about non-notable companies/apps. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is the right place to discuss that, though it's not a bad place to gather support for it. It would probably be better for you to write up a draft of that article and then bring it up at WP:AFC. If you do so, leave a note here. I'd be happy to help write such a draft, though I don't have time to do it alone. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Cannabis fatalities

The original material, sourced to the Huffington Post was removed here for not being WP:MEDRS, and rightly so. The Huffington Post is most decidedly not a reliable source for medical information. I then found MEDRS sources for two similar claims (the lethal dosage of cannabis and the lack of recorded fatalities) and added that information with the new sources here.

This new material, which has twice been reverted is NOT the material which was originally removed. The new material is significantly shorter, more succinct, and does not mention driving at all. The new sources are perfectly in keeping with MEDRS. Before reverting in the future, please discuss. If you disagree with the claims, find sources which refute the provided ones and they will be evaluated by all involved and a consensus achieved. Simply blindly reverting under the assumption that the new materials and sources are the same as the old is disruptive and unhelpful. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

No they're not WP:MEDRS-compliant or don't support the content as proposed, please go through each part of the proposed content change. Zad68 17:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Two things:

1. Your assertion that they are not MEDRS is not good enough. Explain what makes them non MEDRS, and also please explain how they do not support the content added (content which was nothing more than a re-phrasing from the source).
2. If you intend to be recalcitrant regarding those sources, how about these?

Regarding lethal dosages there's this which is unassailable per MEDRS, the decided anti drug drugabuse.gov regarding the possibility of overdosing resulting in death, and finally which is also decidedly anti-drug for the complete lack of recorded deaths.

Blindly reverting edits you disagree with is nowhere near as helpful as opening up a new tab with google and actually making an effort to contribute. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not doing anything blindly here. First, at 18 years old, the Mathre source fails WP:MEDRS per WP:MEDDATE plus other factors: Mathre isn't an M.D. and the publisher McFarland isn't a medical publishing house. It's below the standard needed to make such a specific statement as "A fatal overdose of marijuana would require the consumption and total systemic absorption of 2112mg of THC, a level that would require 1000 to 2000 marijuana cigarettes." Second, in general we shouldn't be using partisan sources, either pro or con, to source unattributed statements of fact, and so both Mathre and Nadelmann are problematic on that criterion.

If you really believe this is "unassailable per MEDRS" I'm sorry but you really need to review that guideline, there's no way we're going to use something from 1946 for toxicity. What is wrong with the article's existing coverage on toxicity? Zad68 18:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I now have this, a review article published in the NEJM last year, it looks very useful and isn't in the article yet. What's interesting is that it doesn't make a statement about the LD50 or other lethal effect of marijuana, except that "marijuana is the illicit drug most frequently reported in connection with impaired driving and accidents, including fatal accidents." If an up-to-date review article in the NEJM (no less) doesn't attempt to cover fatal toxicity, probably the Misplaced Pages article shouldn't either. Zad68 18:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not doing anything blindly here... Very quickly, I would point out that your edit summary belies this. You said that my sources had already been identified as not reliable, which was demonstrably and obviously untrue.

That being said, thank you for replying. It's much easier to work with someone when they actually communicate. I see why you would say the source doesn't meet MEDRS with regards to the author (who is rather credited as the editor, according to the page I linked), however I'm still not seeing how the source doesn't support the claim, something which you've alleged above. Also, WP:MEDDATE doesn't actually exclude it. You might want to re-read that section, as it says to favor newer sources over older sources. It also specifically cautions against dismissing a source due to it's age.

Second, in general we shouldn't be using partisan sources, either pro or con, to source unattributed statements of fact, and so both Mathre and Nadelmann are problematic on that criterion If you check the sources, you will see that both statements are themselves sourced, so they're not "unattributed" any more than a sourced claim on WP is "unattributed". I didn't follow them back further than the citation because I didn't think it would be necessary, given the ease with which such claims can be sourced. Secondly, when a source which is biased against a position presents information which supports that position, it is almost certainly reliable. This is a principle that is held to be true in a large number of fields, including a number of scholarly subjects.

there's no way we're going to use something from 1946 for toxicity Does lab data have an expiration date? I wasn't aware that it did. This will be big news in scientific circles. Lots of new job security, lot of new(old) work to be (re)done... What is the shelf life of lab data, anyways? Do different types have different lifetimes?

Seriously, all (good humored, I assure you) sarcasm aside, the date of publication makes very little difference. Aside from what I said about MEDDATE above, for the purposes of this article the accuracy of lab results using equipment from the 1940's is more than sufficient. We're an encyclopedia, not a pharmacological research database. One may require modern data with it's greater accuracy for scientific work, but not for informing the general public.

What is wrong with the article's existing coverage on toxicity? I could ask you the same, since you simply removed the content instead of replacing the source with the source used elsewhere in the section.

However, to directly answer your question; as of right now, the safety section opens with an immediate single-sentence paragraph about suicide rates, which is disjointed and odd. Opening with information about the actual toxicity and rates of overdose deaths makes much more sense, and the existing information lacks specificity. Saying the toxic dose is "extremely high" is not very encyclopedic, compared to saying that the toxic dose is X milligrams per kilogram, then noting how high this is in comparison to other drugs.

If an up-to-date review article in the NEJM (no less) doesn't attempt to cover fatal toxicity, probably the Misplaced Pages article shouldn't either. I could not disagree more. Misplaced Pages is not a medical journal and their standards do not apply here. Simply because the LD50 of cannabis doesn't bear repeating in scholarly articles doesn't mean it's not worth including here. After all, the definitions of LD50 doesn't bear repeating in that article, either, yet that link is (rightly) blue. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The opening paragraph of Calabria et al. 2010, which is already cited in the article, states: "Other illicit drug use and associated mortality is more frequently investigated, especially opioid overdose deaths. Because cannabis use is not reported to cause fatal overdoses, its impact on mortality has rarely been explored." Psyden (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

All of those sources either cite a previously tested or estimated LD50, or establish one itself through testing. It might be a "rarely" explored subject for pharmacological research, but in the modern world, that word is highly relative. It's a gross misunderstanding of how scientists think to assume that because there's no pressing need for some tidbit of knowledge that no scientist will go out and discover it. It is an accurate assessment, however, to state that because there is little risk of it becoming an issue, that it does not bear repeating in every review of the subject. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

My point is, Calabria et al. 2010 is a valid medical source (it is a recent enough systematic review) and it agrees that fatal cannabis overdose has not been reported. Psyden (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought you were implying that the source claimed there was no information available on the lethal dosage. I see I was mistaken. I should have seen that by the section you underlined, but I was regrettably caught up in defending my position. Please accept my apologies if my response seemed at all confrontational or condescending.

Perhaps I should state my interest here: I want to see a well-written article. Right now, the safety subsection intros in a disjointed manner and I want to fix that. I also want to include what information there is on the LD50 of the drug. I don't particularly care what sources are used to support this, so long as they are reliable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This review states that the "safety ratio" for cannabis use is over 1000x the normal dose. Unfortunately it is from 2004 and would not meet WP:MEDRS guidelines. There must be a more recent review available that cites this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyden (talk • contribs) 13:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The WP:MEDDATE guidelines are not absolute rules. In the absence of newer information, older information can be used. If you check the section, it even includes caution against recentism. I think 1000x the normal dose is an accurate enough number to satisfy me. If there are no other objections, I'm going to add it to the opening paragraph in the safety subsection with the source, and add an extra in-line citation to Calabria et al. 2010 at the sentence you added about the lack of reported deaths. I think those three sentences should be enough to provide a comprehensible introduction to the sub-section. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad we're not trying to use Mathre or a source from 1946, as both are entirely unacceptable per WP:MEDRS. Gable 2004 isn't ideal but it's much better. Psyden can you provide the complete quote from the source? Thanks... Zad68 14:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The "greater than 1000" figure comes from the column "Safety Ratio" in "Table 1 Estimated lethal and effective doses of abused psychoactive substances". They are using this term in place of the normal term, "Therapeutic Index" since this is in the context of recreational use. The relevant paragraph is: "The results of the present review disclosed substantial differences in the safety ratio of abused substances. The most toxic substances appear to have a lethal dose less than 10 times the effective dose. These substances include: GHB (oral), heroin (intravenous) and isobutyl nitrite (inhaled). Less acutely toxic substances, with safety ratios from 10 to 20, include: alcohol (oral), cocaine (intranasal), codeine (oral), dextromethorphan (oral), MDMA (oral), methadone (oral) and methamphetamine (oral). A diverse group of drugs have still wider ratios, ranging from above 20–80: DMT (oral), flunitrazepam (oral), ketamine (inhaled), mescaline (oral) and phenobarbital (oral). Five substances have ratios of 100 or above: fluoxetine (oral), LSD (oral), marijuana (oral), nitrous oxide (inhaled) and psilocybin (oral). These safety ratio estimates should be interpreted with caution. Because they are based on aggregated data, none of the ratios in Table 1 is applicable to any particular individual." Psyden (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Quick question: Does that paper define the effective dose of cannabis? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

In Table 1, for cannabis, the review lists "Usual lethal concentration (and range) in blood" as "(180–315 μg/L)". It lists "Usual lethal dose (and range) reportedly administered" as "> 15 g(extrapolated)". It also lists "Usual effective dose (and range) for non-medical purposes" as "15 mg (12–22)". So they must be using 15 mg as the effective dose. Psyden (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the method of delivery would also be important. Assuming that they are talking about the raw plant here, the TI would very much depend on the potency. Smoking 250 joints at a sitting is likely to be fatal to a significant number of users simpy from the effects of smoke inhalation. Formerly 98 19:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying, but I think it's generally presumed that the method of ingestion for cannabis is inhalation, unless the author states otherwise. Published articles generally refer to dronabinol when they study oral ingestion, though it's worth pointing out that most articles I've seen seem to prefer to refer to it as Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol within the body of the article, leaving the common names for the title and abstract. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Psyden: "Usual lethal dose (and range) reportedly administered" as "> 15 g(extrapolated)". It also lists "Usual effective dose (and range) for non-medical purposes" as "15 mg (12–22)" I think that's enough for me, then. Does anyone object to the following paragraph?

Cannabis has not been reported to cause fatal overdoses. A 2004 review categorized the
lethal dose as being more than 15mg, or 1000 times a normal effective dose. Research
into a possible link between cannabis use and suicide has not produced clear results.

I intend it to be the opening paragraph for the safety subsection, and I intend to use inline citations to both Calabria et al. 2010 and Gable 2004. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Psyden (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that we would start this section out with a statement that the lethal dose of cannabis is 1000x the effective dose" based on what I have understood of this discussion. The data presented above ("Usual lethal dose (and range) reportedly administered" as "> 15 g(extrapolated)" and "Usual effective dose (and range) for non-medical purposes as "15 mg (12–22)" is for pure THC, isn't it? If you get (sorry, I'm outside my expertise here) 50 mg of THC from a joint, you're gonna have to smoke 300 joints back to back to get to 15 grams of THC. And I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a fair number of cases of mycardial infarction arise from such an endevour. The statement seems inappropriate here but would be fine in an article about THC. Or have I misunderstood? I dont' think you can extrapolate a TI for cannabis based on the TI of pure THC. Formerly 98 22:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps to clarify maybe it should read:

Cannabis has not been reported to cause fatal overdoses. A 2004 review categorized the
lethal dose of THC, the main psychoactive ingredient of cannabis, as being more than 15mg,
or 1000 times a normal effective dose. Research  into a possible link between cannabis use
and suicide has not produced clear results.

? Psyden (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Psyden: That looks good to me, except I made the mistake of saying the lethal dose was 15mg when it should be 15g according to the source, and you carried that over. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I know this POV will not be very popular here, but I am a little concerned that the safety section of this article is leaning a little too far in one direction. We plan to start out with the statement that no one has ever died from the drug, and that the therapeutic index (estimated therapeutic index, actually) based on the effective dose and the LD50 is 1000. In the next sentence we call nabiximols "well tolerated", a statement that contrasts sharply with the contents of its package insert, which warns of fainting episodes, changes in heart rate, anxiety, delusions, disorientation, hallucinations, and transient psychotic reactions. I am not aware of any prescription drug with similar side effects that is described simply as "well tolerated" in Misplaced Pages.

We then move on to a discussion of cardiovascular effects that are described in 48 pubmed listed reviews (limiting the search only to those papers with which cannabis and cardiovascular effects are discussed in the article abstract). Unfortunately, we have cherry picked those references that simply write these observations off as being due to other drugs without acknowledging other viewpoints. According to Thomas, " In 2 studies examining riskfactors for stroke in young subjects, marijuana use was found to be an important risk factor for ischemic stroke.".

According to Karila,

"Acute adverse effects include hyperemesis syndrome, impaired coordination and performance, anxiety, suicidal ideations/tendencies, and psychotic symptoms. Acute cannabis consumption is also associated with an increased risk of motor vehicle crashes, especially fatal collisions. Evidence indicates that frequent and prolonged use of cannabis can be detrimental to both mental and physical health. Chronic effects of cannabis use include mood disorders, exacerbation of psychotic disorders in vulnerable people, cannabis use disorders, withdrawal syndrome, neurocognitive impairments, cardiovascular and respiratory and other diseases."

According to a review in Lancet, "The most common acute adverse effects are anxiety, panic reactions, and psychotic symptoms, all of which are most often reported by naive users." and

"Regular users have a higher risk of chronic bronchitis and impaired respiratory function, and psychotic symptoms and disorders, most probably if they have a history of psychotic symptoms or a family history of these disorders. "

But we quickly dismiss all these concerns as being due to use of other drugs, though the secondary sources described above do not do so. Lastly, NIDA estimates that 455,000 ER visits each year result from cannabis use (145,000 of these were associated with cannabis use in isolation and not with other drugs) and that 84,000 were admitted

I don't want to go all "Reefer Madness" on you guys, but we have a responsibility to provide people with balanced information that allows them to make informed choices. I think the article is skewed way too far in one direction. Can you imagine what the tone of this article would be if this were a pharmaceutical product that led to nearly half a million ER visits each year?. Formerly 98 22:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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