Talk:Medical cannabis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Medical cannabis article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants (Rated B-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of hallucinogens. Feel free to participate by editing this article or by visiting the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. WikiProject Alternative medicine      (Rated B-Class) Complementary and Alternative Medicine Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. WikiProject Philosophy      (Rated B-Class) Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Ethics WikiProject Drug Policy This article is part of WikiProject Drug Policy, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of drug policy. Feel free to participate by editing this article or by visiting the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Ed Rosenthal 2 Australia 3 USA 4 Canada 5 UK 5.1 Jamaica 6 Bias 7 Proposed article split 8 proposed name change 9 ry-va 2727 bc ? 10 New Pro-cannabis userbox 11 Dr. Stuart Hoffman 12 Medicinal cannabis strain list 13 Biased 14 Added Criticism section 15 Neutrality disputed 16 Advocacy groups 17 POV editing? 18 sources to be incorporated 19 Health Effects 20 Suffragette granny 21 Synthetic THC 22 US centrism 23 External links 24 Tennessee Study 25 Criticism? 26 I have spent years studying this subject 27 Use of "ma" for anaesthesia in the Chinese language 28 There's nothing medical in marijuana 29 The Medical Marijuana Museum 30 Infiltration??? 31 3. Harm Reduction 32 Medical Cannabis Summary needs to be re-written - it is US centric and faulty 33 Potentially interesting 34 Cannabis legality world map 35 Legality in U.S. 36 Non-notable? 36.1 Image

[edit] Ed Rosenthal

Ed Rosenthal is an marijuana activist, a renowned horticulturist and grower of medicinal marijuana who was growing the marijuana legally (based on local laws), yet was just convicted of several counts. I added him as a proponent, and someone removed him, why?

[edit] Australia

I live in australia and although the law may be changed by now, im sure somewhere in western australia, medicinal marijuana is allowed, and not just in the act.

I just wanted to let everyone know the guidelines I used in writing this and why, after having finished, I'm not sure they're good. I only included links to scholarly reports or detailed summaries of scholarly reports (with citations). After investigating the first 100 links off google, and searching in vain specifically for it, I was unable to find anything that met the criteria arguing against it. There were quotes that purported to claim all sorts of things from various people, but the closest I could come were the various reports suggesting that marijuana may have medical value, but that the evidence is not conclusive enough to decide for certain. I didn't include links to advocacy groups on either side, except in that most of the scholarly reports were only available on these sites, in which case I linked directly to the scholarly report (unless it was a PFD, cuz I didn't know if that was legal/polite/possible to do so). The article reads extremely POV now, so I will be considering changing the criteria and would appreciate input from others. I really don't want to link to advocacy groups because there are much too many of them. Maybe if we only select an equal number of pro and con major sites, and clearly mark them as politics and advocacy, and not science.Tokerboy

The layout stinks too. I was expecting to find different information, so my plan didn't work out as well as I had hoped. I'll go tinker. Tokerboy

Very good work, Tokerboy! My name is Skywolf, aka Neal Smith. I'm with Indiana NORML and a long time Cannabis/Hemp researcher.

Someone in this forum said something about the U.S. gov't position. I think you should eschew them until they learn to speak the truth.

I just discovered Wikipedia a couple of weeks ago. I'm very impressed with the whole scheme. I tend to trust places that have good information on Cannabis.

Skywolf.

The UK is undertaking trials for medical marijuana. UK courts have already set a sort of precedent whereby people using, possessing or growing the stuff for medical purpose are not charged. try the Disability Now website for info, they may have archives of old issues -- Tarquin 23:04 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Tokerboy, thanks for your work! You're right, it reads a bit one-sided (the US federal gov't position is missing, for one thing [1]), but it's a great start. As for which organizations and groups to cite, I'd say we should set a threshold at membership numbers or financial backing. Where this data is not available, we ignore the gruop. The historical background which is also mentioned in some of the studies should be directly referenced within the article, but needs to be double-checked first. One problem:

"In addition, Marinol was far more effective, costing upwards of several thousand dollars a year for the same effect as smoking a weed easily grown throughout most of the world. Many users felt Marinol was less effective,"

I presume you mean "expensive" in the first sentence. --Eloquence 23:22 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

Oops -- I'll go fix.

[1] I do not mean to imply that other governments' positions should be ignored, in fact, this article should provide as much international perspective as possible.

The reason I didn't include the US gov's position is that there was no scientific evidence that I could find evidence of to report on. I've gotta go for a little while, but I'm thinking now of a section that would look like:

[edit] USA

I question whether or not the article should cite the FDA claims, since it is a politically motivated organization. Tanman627 11:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

33 states technically allow medical marijuana, but only 7 enforce it. The federal government claims there is no use and a dozen heavily armed DEA agents recently arrested a crippled grandmother after pointing an AK47 to her head

Was the USA really the first country to ban the plant? From Prohibition - TheSite.org: The first country to prohibit cannabis was South Africa in 1923, in 1928 Britain followed suit and in 1937 America did too, in spite of the fact that it was not in widespread use as an intoxicant at that time. Ladysway1985 17:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice if there was some information or links to other sections on why the United States banned the plant.

• Specific state laws:

States with partial decriminalization:

• Alaska
• California
• Colorado
• Maine
• Minnesota
• Mississippi
• Nebraska
• Nevada
• New York
• North Carolina
• Oregon
• Ohio

States with medical marijuana laws:

• Alaska
• California
• Colorado
• Nevada
• Oregon
• Hawaii
• Maine
• Maryland
• Montana
• Vermont
• Washington

Should we move these in the article to a table beside the USA section for quicker reference? --Silverweed 04:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canada

Mention that court case there's a link to at the bottom that said a ban on medical pot is unconstitutional.

[edit] UK

Medical users are not charged.

And etc as needed (I linked to a report from the Aussies, but I didn't actually read it and I don't know if the government did what the report advised anyway; I think it's legal for medical use in Norway, but I could be wrong.) Tokerboy

---

I'm norwegian and certain it is not legal for medical use. Norml's norwegian sibling, normal normal.no, have been advocating it for years. --85.165.147.247 (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I found this site which probably has a lot of good info on the status in many countries, but is badly translated from German by Google, so I gave up trying to figure it out (the entry on Greece is hilariously incoherent). Somebody who has even just an inkling of German might be able to parse it, or even read the original, which presumably makes sense. Tuf-Kat

---

Comment by anonymous user:

[edit] Jamaica

When I've been there I was told that is legal to own it under the religious freedom, that means for Rastafari people.

• I presume he means followers of Rastafarianism. -- goatasaur

Probably, but I'm pretty sure he's wrong. My understanding is that cannabis is illegal in every UN member and this could not be changed without breaking an international treaty. Possibly the law is not enforced ever or under certain circumstances, such as for Rastafarians, people with certain medical problems or within coffee shops in one city, but I don't think any UN member has or could legalize it (without causing an international incident). Tuf-Kat

UN members are encouraged to keep cannabis illegal, but are not obligated to do so. --Thoric 22:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he's wrong too. Your explanation seems accurate. -- goatasaur

I thought a lot of Rastas objected to the Rastafari Movement being called Rastafarianism. "The movement is called Rastafarianism by some non-Rastas, although Rastas themselves generally regard that term as improper and offensive, because of the saying that "isms" denote "schisms"." Ian 19:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

I think that the "external links" section of this article is biased. While there are links to websites supporting medical marijuana usage, there are no links to websites or articles denouncing medical marijuana usage. --NoPetrol 01:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another sample of the bias is this statement: "No such bill has received enough votes in Congress to become law, possibly because the currently dominant Republican Party is opposed." The bills didn't get any support when Democrats controlled the House, Senate, or Executive Branch. And, of course most recently the liberal judges on the SCOTUS ruled against Raiche.

-The mention of the Republican controlled congress is biased and political and shortsighted, and should not be on wikipedia because this is an archive for all generations and all people. Plus it is true Democrats and Republicans are part of the same contingent who have not voted for Medical Marijuana: This is Not A Political Issue! The Raiche case was doomed from the beginning, anyone with any knowledge of the Constitution could have told them to go at it from a different angle. The statement "No such bill has received enough votes in Congress to become law, possibly because the currently dominant Republican Party is opposed." is not biased it is political. If you remove reference to the Republican Party being opposed this statement rings true for all people in all times.-

--The Pot Snob 22:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This is way too biased towards the legalization of cannabis. I wish that the arguments against this (and reasons why the federal government have prohibited cannabis in the first place) were a little more fleshed out than they are, because this IS a controversial issue.

The problem is that there is not really a very good argument against cannibis use for medical usage, except of course the economic argument of keeping lawyers and other criminal justice types employed to enforce the marijuana laws.01001 02:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"reasons why the federal government have prohibited cannabis in the first place"

1. It makes a Negro disrespectful of white men.

2. It drives Mexicans into an uncontrollable killing rage.

3. Negros seduce wholesome white women with Pot and Demon Voodoo Music, Jazz.

4. It Causes a Negro to "step on a White mans shadow.

5. It drives a casual smoker insane and homicidal.

6. It makes a casual smoker docile and turns US solders into Pacifists.

If you want to put these in the article go ahead but I don't think it will help the Bias issue because every one of these bigoted and ignorant remarks are part of public record and were used by Harry J. Anslinger.

Quotes by Anslinger:

"Colored students at the Univ. of Minn. partying with female students (white), smoking [marijuana] and getting their sympathy with stories of racial persecution. Result pregnancy"

"Two Negros took a girl fourteen years old and kept her for two days under the influence of marijuana. Upon recovery she was found to be suffering from syphilis."

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races." Billyjoekoepsel 16:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed drug prohibition is a form of racism. As a person from minority I am obliged to denounce this racism. Wooyi 20:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an extremely ignorant remark that has no support of factual basis to it whatsoever. It's simply not true, not to mention that it makes no sense. - hmwithtalk 04:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Fact is Marijuana being Illegal is Racist and Ignorant. Mentioning the actual history, including the actual words of the senators and people involved in the illegalization of Marijuana is exactly what Wikipedia needs. The facts lay in the records of Congress. Everything done to pass the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937-with all its bigotry- should be made publically available to all people for all time. I intend to make all this information widely available for all to see-

All The Prejudice Will Be Seen And Heard - For all People To See and Make Judgement for themselves about Marijuana

--The Pot Snob 22:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed article split

This article is overweight and needs to be split in 2, otherwise it cannot be freely edited. I propose splitting it into Medical marijuan (history) and medical marijuana (research). I really want to read here what other people want. I propose to split the article next sunday. Squiquifox 19:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would rather split out a section on legal status of medical marijuana with all the by-country info. I think the history and research sections are what the reader is most likely looking for. Trying to keep those two subjects separate would be diffcult; I worry that having a history of medical marijuana article would be seen as bias in favor of MM. Tuf-Kat 22:55, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused what you mean by that. Cannabis has been used medicinally for thousands of years, right up until it was prohibited. --Thoric 20:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have brought the issue of whether articles should be split/slimmed or not to Village pump (policy).Squiquifox 02:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the article should be slimmed down, and much more brief. Then at the begining of some of the sections, it should say Main article: History of Medical Cannabis or Main article: Political standpoints ect... --74.70.39.154 02:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is enough information about the History and wide use of Medical Marijuana on this article at all. I intend to add more sources and more information about Medical Cannabis before the Drug Companies came along.

--The Pot Snob 23:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] proposed name change

Why medical marijuana? High grade pure quality hashish will clearly have the same effect, so why not call the article medical cannabis. Google gives exactly same number of hits to both, 1,530,000. Medical hash gets 115,000. --SqueakBox 01:18, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree "marijuana" is a name fraught with POV connatations. Cannabis is the proper terminaology so it should be used. Dainamo 00:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I second the motion of the name change along with the article split -- do both at the same time. The "Medical marijuana" title makes about as much sense as a term like "medicinal hootch" does for medicinal use of alcohol. We should encourage the proper name of the plant over a slang term. As for the article split, this article contains little more than history, and we really could use an article summarizing all the recent medical discoveries, and how effective is has been treating pain that has not been effectively treated via other means. --Thoric 19:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I second thoric's seconding, split and rename.

I first went here to look for some spesific info and found the info confusingly layed out. A list by symptoms/illness connected to what researchpapers would be very nice.--PetterBudt 21:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ry-va 2727 bc ?

i removed this:

" The earliest recorded reference to medicinal marijuana is in the Ry-Va (ancient Chinese Pharmacopeia), believed to have been written in 2727 BC. These ancient uses are well documented, but are not proof that cannabis is a useful medicine."

that date, at the very least, is certainly bogus; there are no chinese texts that old. some web sites say "15th century bc", which is possible; but i can find no evidence that this text even exists at all.

Benwing 03:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Pro-cannabis userbox

If you would like to have this on your userpage, just add {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/pro-cannabis}} to your userpage, and the box at right will appear on it. Also, if used in your user space, the page will be listed on Category:Pro-cannabis Wikipedians. If you would like to share it with someone else, type {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/pro-cannabis|stamp|right}}

Also, consider weighing in on the Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll.

Stand up and be counted while you still can,

StrangerInParadise 20:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Stuart Hoffman

There are a couple of issues with the criticism by Dr. Stuart Hoffman in the lead. Before I argue for the removal of this content, I would like to know if anyone thinks Hoffman is a notable person in this field. I would very much like to include criticism from both sides, but as far as I can tell, Hoffman is not notable and has a conflict of interest pertaining to this issue. Any suggestions would be helpful. —Viriditas | Talk 08:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medicinal cannabis strain list

Would it be alright to post a link in the external links section a page with a list of cannabis strains, their breeder, individual pages for each strain describing them as well as information as to what particular ailment they help with. Here is the link: http://www.cannabishq.com/forum/index.php?topic=612.0 Is it ok to post? Non-profit website with helpful information.

[edit] Biased

I agree with the aformentioned section "Bias". This article seems to overly push medical usage of cannabis, both in how it is written and its supporting links. I also wonder at opinions behind this phrase and why its included in the article (under the Canada section): "There is some belief that American egotism or desire to be "the world's policeman" is a factor in its attitudes."

It isn't a bias -- we've been mislead:

"Neuropathic pain is notoriously resistant to treatment with conventional pain drugs. Even powerful and addictive narcotics like morphine and OxyContin often provide little relief. This study leaves no doubt that marijuana can safely ease this type of pain." --Lester Grinspoon, an emeritus professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, is the coauthor of "Marijuana, the Forbidden Medicine.".

From http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/01/opinion/edgrinspoon.php -- Renice 06:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is not that biased. The fact that it seems too pro-medical cannabis is not because we don't want to put opposition opinion there, but rather is because that those opinions are so absurd, callous, and laughable. If those opinions are posted people would be so repulsed. Only people who don't care about those patients' life would agree with the government to arrest them. Wooyi 15:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree. If the government's view was as absurd etc as you say they would have no backing for them (even dictatorships dont work ion a vacuum let alone democracies). It may appear callous etc to you but clearly not to everyone. We need to present both sides of the argument and let our readers (who will be from a wide range of backgrounds) make their own minds up, SqueakBox 16:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, SqueakBox, your logic doesn't hold up either. If the government's motives (or rather those of agents of the government) are wrong, say greed for example, then it/they could easily be supporting a callous disregard for patients in chronic pain.

Grinspoon writes, "The pharmaceutical industry is scrambling to isolate cannabinoids and synthesize analogs and to package them in non-smokable forms." Each analog that pharmaceutical corporations isolate is another expensive (and incomplete) drug.

That prospective product line is a powerful motive for forces of darkness -- i.e., all those who will profit from packaging a natural, God-given product. Who said 'You will know them by their works'? The apostle Paul said, 'Test everything.' How? By their works/fruits. The fact is some people have a hard time letting loose of power... and its resulting money.

[Btw, the endocannabinoid system is precisely how we are 'wired' for faith (not religion, faith -- religion=rules, faith=trust), and C is a way to learn how it feels to fill your CB-system receptors and Trust. Ever wonder why negative thoughts kill the buzz? It's a lesson to Trust, and an exercise so you can recognize when your own thoughts are 'sinful', i.e., negative. C = "training wheels" for Trust and walking in the light. /end sermon, PSA, pep_talk ;> ]
--Renice 17:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My logic doesnt hold up? All I am saying is we are encyclopedia writers and we must be neutral and unbiased in our approach to this subject. I personally think all cannabis should be legalised everywhere forthwith but I am not trying to use wikipedia to promote my personal views. We cannot satanise the US governemnmt who have, from wikipedia's POV, an equally legitimate POV to that of we who say legalise it now, SqueakBox 17:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that WP should be unbiased (and I agree that the statement mentioned in the starting post of this thread is an example of bias (even though I believe Dub is benighted)), but I think that will mean exposing greed (or uncharitability) as a motivation for keeping cannabis illegal -- and that entails challenging the common wisdom that governmental rules are always created in the best interests of the governed. (Sometimes they are created to support campaign contributors.)

I think this can be done simply and fairly by publishing recent cannabis research by pharmaceutical corps. As Grinspoon, a reasonable authority, writes, the pharmaceutical analogs have NOT "shown any improvement over the plant nature gave us to take orally or to smoke." So why else would analogs be developed but for greed? I'm trying to be open-minded, really ;>

However, if all you're saying is that all the reasons for illegality, including those by the benighted and uncharitable, should be presented in the article, then we are in agreement. --Renice 15:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't really that biased. In reality, good science is never biased, while politics are always biased. If there are going to be sections in this article arguing the usage of medical cannibis, they should be coming from a scientist's viewpoint, not someone with religious or moral motives for being biased. A separate section in this article should be created for political standpoints, or it should be included in criticism. 74.70.39.154 01:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added Criticism section

In order to balance this article out, I added a "Criticism" section. Basically it's a series of footnoted points showing that smoked marijuana is not an effective medicine and that it's more harmful than not. I think it's important to have this in the article because as of now it's completely skewed to the concept that there is such a thing as "medical cannabis".Okaythere 08:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how misrepresenting data, manufacturing opinion, and citing selected isolated studies "balances" anything. I've reverted your additions as a result. The therapeutic use of cannabinoids is recognized by physicians and established by reliable research. —Viriditas | Talk 09:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Okaythere's edit was full of propaganda, much of it patently false.Anarchist42 18:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's "patently false" then please tell me which of it is false and then point it out. There are clearly and obviously doctors that disagree that SMOKED cannabis is an effective medicine. I'm putting the criticism section back in to balance out the obvious bias in the article.

Okaythere 01:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please dont call cannabis the US centric term marijuana. The article is called cannabis, and marijuana is meaningless slang to most of our readers. I suggest if you want to put all this stuff somewhere it belongs in cannabis and definitely not here. Though I would probably revert it there too as a political rant, whereas all the issues you treat are dealt with at Cannabis (drug) but in an WP:NPOV way, so not here please, SqueakBox 01:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll change all references "marijuana" to "cannabis". There are specific health issues, footnoted and referenced, that show that legitimate medical organizations see problems with SMOKED cannabis as a medicine. Therefore this is the appropriate place for it. Putting it back in.

Okaythere 01:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of Okaythere's proposed edit concerns opposition to medical cannabis, much of it concerns health effecs. So some of the information belongs either in this article, and some probably belongs in Health issues and the effects of cannabis. The two are related, particularly where medical professionals obejct to medical use of cannabis on the basis of health issues. There's nothing wrong with a criticism section in this article, as long as it is well-sourced (like everything else on Wikipedia). Please be as specific as possible when citing sources. -- Chondrite 01:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

OK I took a first pass at copyedit and reviewing sourced and unsourced statements. There's no reason for the criticism section to be the second section of the article. Most of the statements in the criticism section should be moved to the Health issues and the effects of cannabis article. As it stands, the section needs a major copyedit to reorganized and remove redundant statements; I suggest using subsections to organize the various arguments. --Chondrite 02:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think in the criticism section we should definitely include statements from those who worked in outlawing the drug, such as anslinger. Make sure people realize the words said that created these laws.

--The Pot Snob 23:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality disputed

In this article there is no reference to the fact that the FDA has officially issued an inter-agency advisory against the legitimacy of smoked marijuana. There is also no reference to the fact that several major public health organizations oppose the use of smoked marijuana. Additionally, while the article is heavy on pro-medical advocacy, there is no reference to the fact that no major medical association considers smoking marijuana as modern medicine.

Of course you are more than welcome to put them up if you can find reference to it. But just to tell ya, frankly, if anyone has any compassion he would not deny something that can make a terminally ill patient feel better. If you only have one day to live why bother about the health effects? Wooyi 21:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If you only have to live one day why bother about a law that many people consider wrong? SqueakBox 00:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wooyi, for your point of view (POV) on this. I'm glad you're expressing your bias in this forum instead of in the article. I will add references to public health orgs that dispute the efficacy of smoked marijuana and source them. Thanks!

No problem. Also I'd like to point out, you wrote supporters of medical marijuana mainly come from ones who support full legalization. But this is not true, there are many who only support medical use, like prominent figures such as Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (see his article). Saying "predominately" legalization advocates support med-pot is like saying "only racist support abolishing affrimative action". Wooyi 21:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point Wooyi, I'll clarify by noting that its not supporters of legalization which support medical marijuana (although in many cases that is true) I'll add a note sourcing the fact that the Marijuana Policy Project has directly funded and run every medical marijuana initiative in the United States since the mid-90's, as is noted on the "accomplishments" portion of their web site. [1]

Remenber this isnt medical cannabis in the US but medical cannabis, SqueakBox 00:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks squeakbox. This is not a US enclyclopedia entry. But the thing is in rest of the world medical cannabis has no dispute and is very widely accepted. In US the moral panic and intolerance has made us left behind the whole world. Indeed, it is a shame that people have to argue about medical cannabis when the world has no problem with it. Wooyi 00:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I hear that (though here in Honduras I can assure you the situation is at least as bad). I wouldnt object to a Medical cannabis in the US article, SqueakBox 00:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The lack of the two facts you mention above does not warrant a POV tag. Anarchist42 21:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree--this article is VERY POV and I respectfully suggest that the POV tag belongs until the pro-marijuana bias is eliminated or balanced by arguments and evidence to the contrary. There are also many unsourced statements.Argos'Dad 05:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article, in the version that I read, is balanced, but could do with being longer. I am surprised that there is no mention of the efficacy or otherwise of cannabinoids in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. There was recently a court case about this in the UK (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6183637.stm). Also, to what extent is the medical efficacy (if any) countered by the side effects. Many people find the psychological effects of cannabis unpleasant, frightening and disabling. Are there any preparations of cannabis which reduce or eliminate the psychological effects? I would be glad if the article could be enlarged, to include discussion of these points. Greensea

The Fact is there is no shortage of anti-marijuana bias in America. This is not America, this is the Wikipedia, and the international encyclopedia for all people in all times. Giving too much credit to those against medical cannabis is not correct, and should be very limited, just as the limited length of time marijuana has been stigmatized and illegal.

--The Pot Snob 00:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advocacy groups

I just reverted an edit where the editor removed the ONLY advocacy group listed that opposes medical cannabis. This is precisely what is meant by the fact this article is not NPOV. I pledge to work to balance it out, and hope the other editors will also join in good-faith to do that.Argos'Dad 04:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

But that group is erroneously listed under "advocacy" group, which isn't the case. we should create a section called "Anti-medical marijuana organizations" and put that group under the section. Wooyi 04:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

DFAF is an advocacy group that advocates a different perspective from the other groups listed. That is what "Neutral Point of View" requires: both perspectives be presented. To argue that "advocacy groups" all promote medical marijuana and everyone else is an "anti-advocacy" group is an example of what is wrong with this article. Any group that advocates for or against medical cannabis should be listed in that section.Argos'Dad 04:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Since this is article is about Medical cannabis, so a section on "advocacy groups" should logically include only those groups which advocate medical cannabis, and not any groups which don't advocate medical cannabis. Anarchist42 17:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed the title and re-added the anti group. Wikipedia is neither pro or anti cannabis and this is a policy I will enforce, SqueakBox 17:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you SqueakBox, I think you did the right thing. The title change was needed, since the previous title would cause confusion. Wooyi 22:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV editing?

User:Argos'Dad made this edit, saying my explanation of Mark Souder was POV. However, it was true that the DEA under Bush Administration did actually raid on patients who are using medical cannabis. So I can't see why it was a POV. Wooyi 00:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sources to be incorporated

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/01/opinion/edgrinspoon.php

Nice quote: "If marijuana were a new discovery rather than a well-known substance carrying cultural and political baggage, it would be hailed as a wonder drug."

Can you work this stuff in? --Renice 05:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• News articles about one such cannabis analog, HU-308:
  • Scientists Develop Prototype Drug to Prevent Osteoporosis Based on Cannabinoids Produced by Body:
    • http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-53522.html
    • http://hunews.huji.ac.il/articles.asp?cat=6&artID=589 HU Scientists Develop Prototype Drug to Prevent Osteoporosis Based on Cannabinoids Produced by Body]

• Research article about HU-308: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=24419 HU-308: A specific agonist for CB2, a peripheral cannabinoid receptor

• Pharmos drug corporation press release about HU-308 patent: http://www.pharmoscorp.com/news/pr/pr090704.html Pharmos Corporation Receives Notice of Allowance for U.S. Patent for CB2 Receptor Agonists and Grant to Develop Technology

• Cannasat drug company website: Cannasat Therapeutics; "Our Mission: To research, develop and commercialize novel pharmaceutical products that target the endocannabinoid system."

• Cannabis in India: Ancient lore and modern medicine by Ethan Russo. Chapter from Cannabinoids as Therapeutics, Edited by R. Mechoulam, 2005, X, 272 p., ISBN: 978-3-7643-7055-8

• Links to research from Multiple Sclerosis International Federation: http://www.msif.org/search_rn.rm?criteria=Cannabis%20OR%20cannabinoids%20OR%20marijuana&preset=true

• Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) exhibits anti-tumor effects on various cancer cell types -- http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jpet.106.105247v1

[edit] Health Effects

Please stop unilaterally removing studies by declaring them "debunked." This article belongs to all of its editors, and we are trying to make this NPOV. It is unhelpful to remove wholesale content because you don't agree with it. Also, please join the discussion here before acting unilaterally. Argos'Dad 23:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you READ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cannabis_%28drug%29/Archive_3#debunked_studies yet? Anarchist42 23:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I am not persuaded that the studies reported here are "debunked." In fact the whole language used here is POV. You can say, one study showed this, but another study showed that; this is an attempt to remove information rather from the consideration of others and it makes this page rmeain POV. The whole point of presenting a BALANCED approach is to report each side's perspective. Argos'Dad 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, Argos Dad. Ajor 05:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Argos Dad JS747 (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry "metoo" arguments have no weight here. Studies come and studies go; not all are equal nor should all be represented. —Viriditas | Talk 01:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So who is to determine which studies should stay and which should go? You? I don't think so.JS747 (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suffragette granny

Perhaps we should include something about the lady in this article? Its the lead UK story on the BBC website right now and she is being called a suffragette, SqueakBox 16:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Two standout quotations: "In 2005, Judge David Hodson refused to jail Tabram, saying he did not want to make her a martyr. " and "The Crown Prosecution Service said medicinal use of cannabis was not a legal defence to possession and cultivation of the drug."

Until the latter changes, there will be martyrs. If this story is referenced, is there a way to include info about the research showing why cannabis relieves both aches and pains, as well as depression? MS research may be the most thorough in making that connection. (See search.)
--Renice 19:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synthetic THC

We have a page about medical marijuana but that is focused primarily on smoking it, a little on Marinol, and nothing about Cesamet (Nabilone)?!? JRey 21:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC) JRey

I edited the nabilone page and added a link to the medical cannabis page. I also added a section on pharmacological THC derivatives. I think the article is of generally low quality and more or less a mess. Most of the verbiage could be tightened up quite a bit.--Dr.michael.benjamin 08:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US centrism

This article is way too US centered, and is therefore more political then scientifical (actually it is almost solely political). I don't think that any political bodies, especially not US ones, should be quoted (they should be mentioned of course). Let The Sunshine In 18:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

i agree, this article is much too focused on medical marijuana and the Unites States; the first paragraph in particular positions the article in this respect. 72.0.72.121 06:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I'm thinking of deleting all the external links. Most of them seem to be commercial or quasi-commercial ads for medical cannabis acquisition. I'm not sure that's the intent of the encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr.michael.benjamin (talk • contribs) 05:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Deleting all the external links is a means of suppressing information. This is not the end of all sources on Medical Marijuana. I wonder how many commercial or quasi commercial sites are in the external link sections of other articles?? Delete these, and you must delete all the others, or it is called thought control. I am here to make sure this does not ever happen here. I would call this a political move.

--The Pot Snob 01:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You are responding to a message that is almost six months old. The discussion has moved on. Pairadox 01:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:EL for a guideline on what is acceptable in External Links sections. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tennessee Study

The text as it currently stands is contradictory. It reads: "90.4% success for smoked cannabis; 66.7% for oral THC. 'We found both marijuana smoking and THC capsules to be effective antiemetics. We found an approximate 23% higher success rate among those patients administered THC capsules....'" The success rates posted are higher for smoked cannabis, but the quoted text clearly states that oral THC has a higher success rate. Operating on the assumption that the success rates were mistakenly switched, I have edited to show 90.4% success for oral THC, 66.7% for smoked cannabis. If I have misunderstood, feel free to revert. Regardless, someone may want to check the study to confirm things.

[edit] Criticism?

Why is this under criticism, "In a 2001 study by the Mayo Clinic, Marinol was shown to be less effective than megestrol acetate in helping cancer patients regain lost appetites.[10]" It appears this has nothing to do with medical cannbais because Marinol is not cannabis, but just has THC in it; note "Marinol lacks beneficial properties of cannabis, which contains more than 60 cannabinoids, including cannabidiol (CBD), thought to be the major anti-convulsant that helps multiple sclerosis patients, and cannabichromene (CBC), an anti-inflammatory which may contribute to the pain-killing effect of cannabis."

Shouldn't "In a 2001 study by the Mayo Clinic, Marinol was shown to be less effective than megestrol acetate in helping cancer patients regain lost appetites.[10]" be on the Marinol article instead of the Medical Cannabis article? Would anyone care if I moved that sentance to the Marinol article and took it off here? (it obviously does not belong on this page) -ChristopherMannMcKay 06:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Could relevant info be put in the Pharmacologic THC and THC derivatives? (btw, CB2 has been shown to promote healthy bone development.) --Renice 12:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have spent years studying this subject

I am new here and I do accept a good encyclopedia needs impartiality. I could give another author/editor some directions they may want to look in. I had been told by the Clinton administration that the NIH study would set the policy for marijuana. The study (too narrow for my needs) showed that smoking pot really is the best medicine available for some conditions such as wasting syndrome, and a lot of AIDS patients need it to take the large number of pills their treatment requires. The NIH study said that for most other conditions probably had enough medicines that work that they could not in good conscience recommend smoking anything due to health concerns. .. That is probably the main supportable anti-pot arguement. The problem the Feds have is that as well as saying pot is not a cure-all it almost certainly has a value as a medicine. I do think the comment I read about the UN Treaty that outlaws pot world-wide has some truth to it, but more and more countries are deciding to let individuals decide for themselves. I guess they would technically be in violation. That's 2 arguements against pot. Another comes to mind — when smoked the typical user experiences an increase in heart rate, making it unwise for some heart patients to use pot. No, I'm not trying for a job at DEA, I just think this encyclopedia should express more than one viewpoint.

I think a POT CLUB category is needed to descibe the actual situation on the ground in the US today.

If you have any questions or wonder about my experiences you may e-mail me at Morganterry@earthlink.net

MorganCharlesT 15:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If it is smoking cannabis whish is probably the main supportable anti-pot arguement then we are talking about deception here, since cannabis need not be smoked (and the NIH knows it). Anarchist42 17:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree a Pot Club Category is definitely needed. It will expose the truth about how Prop 215 passed in California, and why Marijuana is the largest cash crop in California.

I also agree with Anarchist42 that the smoking stigma is part of the greater deception perpetrated by those who don't understand the benefits of Cannabis as a medicine. The best example is that at any medical cannabis dispensary in California you can get a wide range of edibles, including Ginger Snaps, Toffee Bars, Medicated Coffee, Medicated Ice Cream, Fudge Brownies, Cookies of all sorts, Hash Chocolates, medicated peanut butter, and medicated chocolate sauce just to name a few. Also there is a wide availability in the dispensaries of Pills that contain all of the cannabis compounds.

Giving Too Much Credit to those with sentiments against Medical Marijuana will only further this deception and ignorance.

--The Pot Snob 00:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "ma" for anaesthesia in the Chinese language

I've been doing a little bit of scratching around the edges of the Chinese language recently, and it should come as no surprise that hemp is a very elemental component of the language, a "radical" used as a character and from which other characters are built.[2] Omitting pinyin markings (see the preceding source for full details), hemp is "ma", sesame is "zhi ma" (literally, sesame hemp), flax is "ya ma" (Asian hemp), bulrush? is "zhu ma", nettle is "qian ma", and ephedra is "ma huang" (yellow hemp). But more surprisingly, not only is marijuana "da ma" (big hemp) and narcotic "ma zui ji" (hemp intoxication medical preparation), but anaesthesia is "ma yao" (hemp medicine), and even chloroform anaesthesia is called "ma zui yao" (hemp intoxication medicine). That last one really stuns me, because when chloroform anaesthesia was invented, China was in the grip of an epidemic of opium addiction like the world has never seen before or since - yet chloroform was effectively described as a type of hemp! Additionally, some other usages really seem to point at an ancient role for hemp anaesthesia, because leprosy is described as "ma feng" (hemp air), paralysis as "ma bi" (hemp paralysis), and the castor oil plant as "bi ma" (paralysis hemp).

The reason why such wordplay seems informative is that the history of ancient Chinese physicians such as Hua Tuo has been subject to dispute. The evidence of language seems to point to a very widespread association of hemp with pain relief in ancient China, not just by one famous physician. I'd like someone who actually knows Chinese to consider whether my observations here make sense, and if so to add what is most important to the article. Mike Serfas 00:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We definitely need to include all this information in the wiki article on Medical Cannabis, it displays the close relationship of the development of the human civilization and the use of the Cannabis plant for both medicine and fiber.

--The Pot Snob 00:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There's nothing medical in marijuana

That can't be found elsewhere.

So? We are here to write an encyclopedia and nothing more so the fact that some people think cannabis has medical value is why the article is here, SqueakBox 18:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Medical Marijuana is one of the most documented medicines ever. Before major drug companies attempted to monopolize the medicine market in the 1930's - 40's, Marijuana extracts were used more then anything else.

Don't believe me- Prove me Wrong

WHOIS: For Freedom —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Pot Snob (talk • contribs) 21:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Medical Marijuana Museum

I am not personally affiliated with this site whatsoever. They are a California Non-Profit Corporation that is building a physical museum in the San Francisco area. This should definitely be included in Wikipedia, as it is dedicated to archiving and compiling information about Medical Marijuana.

Let me know what you think.

Medical Marijuana

--The Pot Snob 21:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks okay to me, SqueakBox 21:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, having spent hours looking at every single External link, I think there is some evidence that there is a connection between The Pot Snob and the Museum website, but since the site is being discussed here I'm willing to overlook the COI for now. On the merits of the website, I see nothing on the site to indicate that there are any plans for a physical museum. There is no indication that it is a California non-profit. There is no indication that the people who maintain it qualify as experts in the field, and thus fail the reliable sources criteria. There is also nothing really unique about the site, which duplicates similar information (with less POV) found in other links. I would be opposed to it's inclusion for now. Pairadox 22:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Medical Marijuana Museum is a registered Non-Profit in the state of California, and is attempting to gain momentum for a physical museum in the Bay area.

The Museum Does Not Claim To Do anything but archive information associated with Medical Cannabis and does not claim to be an expert, but has created a web portal to bring as much of the experts evidence as possible in one place.

The site is highly unique, as I found it searching on Google and it was the most qualified result for the keyword typed.

Medical Marijuana needs to be archived with all of the studies, organizations in One Archive-Why Not A Museum?

I find the writing to be highly provocative and unique to Medical Marijuana websites, I believe there should be a link to the museum.

--The Pot Snob 23:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The claim that it's a non-profit is not supported by the site (and, if true, is yet more evidence that you may have a connection to it). The only unique aspect is the review of clubs, and even that is useless because it's empty. Every bit of the medical info links to other websites (including this very article). I like it is not a reason for inclusion. Pairadox 23:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Pairdox did not go to the Donations Page because lack of motivation to donate for the cause. The Donations page made it clear, It is a Non-Profit-dedicated to building a museum in San Francisco. They say in the Last Light on the front page, that San Francisco is the chosen place for the museum, because it is a place people were witness to their friends and family dieing of HIV and how Medical Marijuana helped them to suffer less. Which is why more than any other place, San Francisco will never let the light go out on Medical Marijuana.

The fact that this user that does not believe the museum should go on the site did not go to the Donations Page shows their Bias against the site. We should not disclude a website because we do not "Like It" Nice Try

Get Up Stand UP

WHOIS: for freedom anymore?

--The Pot Snob 00:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, I did miss that information in my read through. My apologies. I don't donate to organizations that don't offer a full disclosure of their board, policies and finances, so I probably wasn't reading that page as carefully as I should. (I would suggest Church and Market - that locale has a LOT of history behind it.) Pairadox 01:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infiltration???

It appears to me that this page is being regulated by those who do not believe Medical Marijuana is a Medicine. This talk page is full of people who dislike medical marijuana. Since the majority of Americans support Medical Marijuana for those having chronic pain and suffering. Who on here has an agenda to bad mouth Medical Marijuana? It is obvious the one continuous source of misinformation about medical marijuana is the DEA.

I am beginning to believe that someone with an agenda is attempting to hinder the future generations from being able to access the truth about Medical Cannabis right here in Wikipedia. Future generations must be made aware of how common and useful marijuana has been as a medicine up until the drug company takeover of the 1930's.

They also must be made aware about the truth about the drug laws, and how competition and disenfranchisement play a role in keeping Marijuana and all drugs illegal.

--The Pot Snob 21:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiscanner might be helpful in this case, try it out [3]. Regards, Adamantios 21:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Marijuana makes you paranoid.  :) Corvus cornix 21:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that makes a marijuana smoker paranoid are the laws associated with it.

In places where medical cannabis is consumed and legal in California, no one is "paranoid" taking bong hits at all. Don't continue to fester the ignorance associated with Marijuana.

--The Pot Snob 21:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Do remember what most Americans think isnt very relevant as we are an international encyclopedia (that is why the article is called medical cannabis). I agree with Corvus re cannabis and paranoia, not all the people allt he time but some of the people some of the time. We need to present both the pro and anti views in this case, SqueakBox 21:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:The Pot Snob came to Wikipedia with an pro-marijuana agenda, as his very first posts (to his user and talk page) clearly demonstrate. If you go looking for an enemy, you're likely to find one (even if one isn't present). Instead of casting accusations, try following the policies about assuming good faith, no personal attacks and verifiability. Oh, and the talk page is for discussing the article itself, not a forum about the pros and cons of the subject. Pairadox 22:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If this is a truly Global Encyclopedia We should not let one countries Drug Laws effect the article very much. The Long History and use of cannabis extracts as medicine has been pivotal to the development of the human species. To allow the stigma associated with the last 50 years in the country of the United States play a huge role in this article does a diservice to all people in all times.

--The Pot Snob 23:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Then try working on the article. There is a huge amount of information found in associated external links that could be used, but complaining about stigmas and conspiracies on the talk page ain't gonna make it happen. Pairadox 23:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I intend to definitely contribute to the Wikipedia articles on a variety of subjects including Medical Cannabis. The stigma is what I intend to end. Get Up Stand Up --The Pot Snob 00:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please also read Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Corvus cornix 01:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia will no longer be a soap box for law enforcement agencies in the United States to spread biased information about Medical Marijuana. I am not trying to be underhanded here, I am trying to be truthful about the benefits of Medical Cannabis. I speak with no political affiliation, or website affiliation at all. The only propaganda is spread by those who would keep Cannabis illegal to sick people. Does it seem right, that to protect the public good, we raid Sick people who are cultivating a plant in their own home???

Arresting Quadrapelegics, MS patients, and AIDS patients might sound like a noble cause to some, but to me it sounds like the wrong thing to do: Just On Face Value Alone. For that reason any literature or sentiments against sick people getting Cannabis is all propaganda that is meant to misguide people from the truth.

I will be placing links I find appropriate when I find them, and I will be adding content to this article.

You can help Place the books in the Library; but you can't Erase Them

Get Up Stand Up

--The Pot Snob 04:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Pot snob, please read Wikipedia is not a soapbox. 71.204.49.76 (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3. Harm Reduction

The article says, "Studies have shown that vaporizers can dramatically reduce or even eliminate the release of irritants and toxic compounds."

Unfortunately the article does not mention any refinements or improvements in the technology of smoking utensils, some of which can also dramatically reduce irritants and toxicity, but which are dramatically less expensive than any vaporizers available today.

A narrow-screened-crater utensil (one-hitter, mini-toke) made out of a quarter-inch-i.d. socket wrench, barbed hose nipple, etc. with long, long hose attached offers LSMFT (life-saving minimum firing temperature), minimal loss of medicinal value, minimal carbon monoxide dosage. Many patients who for one reason or another are not going to spend the money for a vaporizer ought to be encouraged to try this route.

Concerning burning temperature, it has been known for decades that a typical commercial cigaret when being lit burns at 1500 degrees F (860 C)-- seven inches from your trachea! A research project which ought to be sensational when published would simply test various diameters of craters in pipes, chillums, bongs, etc, down to 1/4" (the best) for burning temperature achieved during a prolonged toke when the user is drawing air as slowly as possible. When the comparative results are known, the cigaret and "joint" as we know them will drop out of history forever. Yet (we may have to remind our congresspersons of this) to date the U. S. Government persists in providing legal cannabis to a few select patients in the form of... cigarets.

I believe that an encyclopedia has the duty to provide patients or users with the best harm reduction information. Give this some consideration and find a way to make it fit into the article.

Tokerdesigner 21:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources (not propaganda) for such information, it would be worthy of inclusion somewhere. Pairadox 00:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

We will have sources as soon as our discussion here succeeds in propelling a properly equipped medical lab to do the needed burning temperature comparison test between the above-described quarter-inch crater, wider bowls, "joints" and cigarets.64.107.0.178 23:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I will gladly find information (not propoganda) regarding the use of Vaporizers instead of paper joints, and perhaps the amount of chemicals added to the smoke when paper is smoked with it. What an excellent way to also question the quality of data coming from the US government. I will probably have to get these studies from our more liberal friends across the pond. None the less it will definitely improve the quality of information in this encyclopedia.

--The Pot Snob 20:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medical Cannabis Summary needs to be re-written - it is US centric and faulty

I think the introduction to this article is completely unacceptable for a global encyclopedia.

The second line of the article should not mention the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 or the United States at all. Mentioning its illegality in the United States tells us nothing about the many medical uses of cannabis. Medical Cannabis is not that controversial out of the USA, and that does not need to be in the summary.

The second line of the 3rd paragraph should not mention the US pharmacopia, that needs to be included later on, and mentioning anything about the US, in this area makes this a completely US centric article.

In fact, most of the information given by the US government regarding this issue is being reviewed because of lawsuits filed regarding data quality.

Having a picture of a historical US marijuana extract is also not acceptable as a first image. Perhaps a more recent image of medical patients in California using the substance in a cannabis club, or ancient chinese script, something either more recent, or further back in time.

This is a link to one of the challenges brought on by the ASA regarding data quality about Medical Cannabis: Information Quality Challenge

It is essential we present an unbiased view of medical cannabis so that kids in school studying the subject, and people wanting tolearn more about it can do so. I doubt people come here trying to learn that marijuana was illegal, or that it has no medical value according to the United States.

People come here to learn about the medicinal benefits of cannabis, and not the United States history on the subject. All that info at the top can be included in the United States section, and not effect the main article.

If anyone agree with me let me know, I am willing to draw up and conceive a new introduction with the help of my fellow peers. Let me know if you think this is a good idea to help improve the Data Quality being disseminated to all people in all times.

--The Pot Snob 20:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Your concern about "US_centric" coverage taken to heart. However due to US economic-- and military-- power worldwide, many countries imitate US cannabis policies. In turn, US (especially federal) cannabis policies are influenced by the inordinate power of the tobacco overdose marketing industry, which does not want cannabis use, especially the interest of many users in miniature dosage methods and utensils, to impact on the masses of overdose cigaret addicts whose overdose spending (pack a day = over $2000/year) supports industry profits.

A comparative statistic which should be of interest to readers of this article: U.S. cigaret deaths widely reported at 440,000/year; worldwide cigaret deaths reported by WHO (2003) as 5.3 million/year. Why does U.S. with 5% of world population have 9% of world cigaret deaths? R.J. Reynolds website complains that U.S. smokers pay $36 bil./year in tobacco taxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokerdesigner (talk • contribs) 16:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That is perhaps the nicest way I have seen to skirt around the medical cannabis issue YET! Lets not talk about the original subject, lets bring up tobacco smoking statistics.

This is a medical cannabis article, and it needs to focus on the medicinal benefits of cannabis and not US foreign policy. I am going to invite some editors from the cannabis(drug) article to explain that there is a specific section for these American legal issues. This article needs major revisions and I expect more feedback from people, before I go make any changes.

Thanks,

--The Pot Snob 00:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with The Pot Snob.

  1. "Marijuana Tax Act of 1937" should be in a United States section.
  2. An image of "medical patients in California using the substance in a cannabis club" seems most appropriate.
  3. "Tobacco" should be in another section
  4. A medical cannabis article should focus on the medicinal benefits of cannabis.

Anonymous person 1 01:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Anonymous

With that, I will begin changing the beginning of this article to mention only the medcical benefits of cannabis, and not the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act. I have waited months, and have gotten very little response from the community, if no one is in disagreement, I am going to change this article.

--The Pot Snob 08:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potentially interesting

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7098340.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorftrottel (talk • contribs) 23:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cannabis legality world map

The world map picture doesn't really apply in this medical article since there are different laws on medical cannabis and for drug use. Ie. recently in Finland the medical use has been legalized for patients with special permission, still the drug usage is strictly forbidden. Solutions? Anyone interested in making a medical cannabis legality world map? --Sapeli (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legality in U.S.

The graphic showing color-coded legality, while interesting, is totally incorrect regarding legality of the drug in the U.S.

Distributing, growing, and possessing marijuana is illegal everywhere within the United States under federal law. Under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, valid federal laws trump contrary state or local laws. As such, state and local laws purportedly legalizing medical marijuana have no impact on the federal prohibition. Per recent Supreme Court precedent, there is no legitimacy to arguments that these federal laws are somehow invalid in the face of state laws. As such, it is simply incorrect to state or imply that medical marijuana is somehow "legal" in, e.g., California. It is not.

Although enforcement of the federal prohibition is far from ubiquitous, it is dangerous for individuals to assume that State laws offer any meaningful protection from federal prosecution. Many medical marijuana advocates in California, for instance, are quite open about their possession, use, and even distribution. Depending on their level of involvement, these individuals may be risking substantial jail time under federal law, including federal criminal RICO. From what I have seen, misconceptions about the federal prohibition have prompted significant imprudent behavior on the part of advocates. I would hate to see Wikipedia promoting those misconceptions.

The graphic should be changed, maybe with an additional color category indicating "legal in this U.S. state, but still prohibited under U.S. federal law."24.219.30.222 (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-notable?

1. Kevin L. Wisneski - Libertarian Democrat politician, educator and theologian.

Either this person should have an article of his own, or he should be removed from the article. Right now he's a red link. Vandalism? Llamabr (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

He's already gone. WLU (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

The most recent image removal from this page was an improvement.mike (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)