This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

just blaze everyone

pics

this page is full of 'let me take a pic of my stash and post in on wiki"

So? Get over it

cannabis after a hard day

Recently in a newspaper it was claimed that smoking pot after a hard days work, interupted the brain coming down, so to speak. And normal stress and other stuff was not properly released, and caused to back up hence causing crazyness . Any truth??

Complete nonsense, actually. I saw that too. Non-smokers are full of theories about the harms of cannabis, and most are crap. -SM 07:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Amen, I gotta say- "interrupting the brain coming down" is a pretty silly attempt at inventing a danger. In any event, having a few drinks after a long day- while certainly perfectly safe in moderation- is quite objectively a more harmful course of action, seeing as alcohol use is many times more likely to result in physiological addiction and has links to all kinds of fantastic diseases (including multiple cancers)... yet alcohol use remains both legal and out of the news while stories like that one get printed.

..sigh. *endrant* --128.227.95.149 01:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Cannabis is a stimulant, like coffee, whereas alcohol is a depressant. Best to smoke the cannabis before and during work and then come down from both the work and the cannabis at the end of the day. Normally the strong coffee comes before and not after work and it should be the same with the large spliff/pipe etc, SqueakBox 15:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, cannabis is a depressent not a stimulant. -Portillo 2006-02-18 03:18:41

Actually, the actions of cannabis are more complex than simply "stimulant" or "depressant". For a view of this complexity, see this psychoactive drug chart. Or, of course, read the Cannabis (drug) article. -SM 08:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Canibis is neither a depressant or a stimulant. This is cuz it doesnt slow the brain down, nor does it cause the brain to speed up. Instead, marijuana simply attatches onto CB-1 receptors in the brain which causes you to get high. Stimulants, exstacy for example causes actuall brain activity to speed up. Depressants, alcohol for example cause the brains functions to slow down. I doubt that any of that has anythin to so with stress and how it is released.

Gateway drug

"Although deaths from Marijuana are unknown, pot is known as a "gateway" drug, leading people into "harder" drugs."

Prometheuspan 01:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC) That line of reasoning comes out of state department propaganda. By that line of reasoning, "sugar" is a "gateway drug." Its a fallacious line of reasoning. Prometheuspan 01:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like someone to seriously reconsider the above statement made in the article. I have heard different accounts but i have not been able to come to a definite conclusion through verifiable sources. Could someone please verify the above statement. Thank you.

From an anon user: Yes, many people label pot as a gateway drug, but this is simply because tobacco and alcohol (the true gateway drugs) are not traditionally regarded as "drugs"... Caffeine, ritalin, and adderal are arguably gateway drugs because they build tolerance for stimulants (usually at a young age, when people are first exposed to caffeine, or first perscribed ritalin or adderal).... i may edit something along these lines into the wikipedia page...

Please do edit. I saw a programme a while back that said tobacco is the real gateway drug, and it made a lot of sense to me (former tobacco addict for 17 years, quit now for almost 12). The illegality of cannabis does give it a gateway effect that may be its illegality not the drug itself but we have no way of knowing because there are no places where it is fully legal. Claims that it is a gateway drug should be treated as POV, which means that while they can be included in the article other opposing POV's, such as that tobacco and alcohol are primary gateway drugs, and the gateway ios caused by exposure to other illegal drugs while purchasing cannabis, should also be included, SqueakBox 23:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I Think that just because people who end up doing heroin or smoking crack usually smoked pot at some point in their life before that doesn't mean that if pot didn't exist they wouldnt have done heroin or crack. People who have that capacity have it. its not triggered by using pot.--Matt D 05:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous scientific studies out there that dispel the myth that marijuana is a "gateway drug." There is no causal connection between the use of marijuana and other drugs. --Muugokszhiion 07:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SqueakBox, the primary reason cannabis usage may lead to other drugs is the illegality of it, the simple fact that in terms of the strength of it's effects, how harmful it is, etc. lies squarely on the same side of the line as caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol, while the law pushes it to the other side of the line, with cocaine, heroine, etc. That is the true gateway. I believe the legalization of recreational cannabis use would result in a marked decrease in levels of harder drug use, if maintained over a full generation. Dansiman 05:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Editorial and meta-discussion

How about a "Cultural Influences" section?

Ummm... no.

New Study! : Pot not a cancer risk

The previous link listed on the subject is no longer available. I have took it off the board. BigMar992 17:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Prometheuspan 01:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Good, because as much as i favor cannibis, there is a cancer risk, especially for habitual users, and especially for users that smoke rather than eat or vaporize. There is also a protective effect for low level users. Prometheuspan 01:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Bud pic

The bud pic may well have been home grown, but homegrown means something else, certainly not the bud in the picture, so I have moved the homegrown ref as it is not common usage. Are we sure the bud is well cured. More importantly, would it look any diferent where it well or badly cured? If not the comment should be removed, SqueakBox 16:54, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

The bud certainly appears to be well cured, it wouldn't look nearly as good had it not been.

Rearranging Cannabis/Hemp articles

In the Health issues and the effects of cannabis article there is a request for merging it with this article. However, I can not find a discussion on this. Where should I look for that? Or has there even been a discussion?

The reason I bring this up is that I just wrote a proposal in Talk:Hemp#Two_articles_or_one.3F for rearranging the articles on Hemp/Cannabis, partly to remove the persistent assumption that these are different things (they're not). DirkvdM 07:53, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Well cured buds are generally of a lighter colour than un-cured buds. The best buds are generally a lime-green in colour. Also, the resin glands are generally more pronounced on well-cured bud.

Completed split of original cannabis article

This article could be split 2 ways. One for the plant biologically, and the other for the affect of cannabis on human culture. Squiquifox 23:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, split into Cannabis sativa, Cannabis_(drug), and Cannabis_(law). Split Cannabis_(drug) into more subsections if needed. Cacycle 01:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I will split it into Cannabis sativa and Cannabis_(drug), and make cannabis a disambiguation page with connections to both articles. Squiquifox 17:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The split has now taken place, and needs a little tidying up, whicjh I will do some of. Please do not undo the work I did. Squiquifox 17:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I moved the "Legal issues of cannabis" article to Cannabis (law). --Howrealisreal 03:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with this move, it suggests that there's a law called "cannabis". "Legal issues of cannabis" is fine. Rhobite 03:40, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Er shouldn't there be different sativa and indica pages?

No. What ius the difference between the 2. Whatever it is it is minor and unknown to the majority of people, including users. Who ever heard of someone only using sativa or refusing to use indica, etc? --SqueakBox 15:51, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think the point is that they're two different species, by the same token Chimps and humans should be the same article... ok, so perhaps it's not quite like that, but still... --StarkRG 06:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to split spiritual usage info

I think we ought to split off Cannabis (entheogen) or Cannabis (spiritual use) from the main article. Whig 16:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Btw, I do think this may balance out the article quite a bit, because it will remove a lot of material which some might consider "pro-" to a more appropriate place. Recreational use/ingestion methods/physiological and psychological effects remain here, with the content and links to Rasta use and so forth being moved. Whig 16:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The spiritual section is not long enough for an article, and separating it from this article would affect the POV balance adversely, IMO, SqueakBox 16:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Weren't you just complaining the article seemed too pro-? Whig 21:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. I was complaining the external lin ks advocacy section was too pro; I think the article is pretty balanced, which is why the advocacy section looks bad to be overwhelmingly containing pro articles, SqueakBox 21:39, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Even so, the spiritual use section could be extended quite a bit with respect to early Christian use of cannabis. See, for instance, [1]. Adding such material to the present article would tend to skew things quite a bit, and detract largely from the discussion of physiological and psychological effects of cannabis. Whig 21:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. This just doesn't make any sense. This article is about Cannabis as it is used to alter consciousness. Entheogens fall under that catagory. --Benna 01:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Benna, SqueakBox 02:13, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with this split. We don't need an article about spiritual use right now. Rhobite 02:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted the last anon for several reasons; the link does not work; the way this alleged info was stuck at the beginning of the section made it seems very POV, SqueakBox 01:40, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

"The astonishing resemblance between the Semitic 'kanbos' and the Scythian 'cannabis' leads me to suppose that the Scythian word was of Semitic origin. These etymological discussions run parallel to arguments drawn from history. Someone changed that to leads to the assumption, probably not noticing that it's a quote. Which may be caused by the fact that there's no 'unquote', but I'm not sure where to place that. DirkvdM July 1, 2005 08:19 (UTC)

Classification as entheogen

After reading the entheogen article, I am pretty sure that cannabis does not satisfy the heuristics normally applied to entheogens. It has been used in religious ceremonies, but there are not widespread reports of cannabis users having divine revelations, visions, or experiences of a god-like presence while under the influence. Classifying cannabis as an entheogen dilutes the meaning of the term. 210.165.233.136 8 July 2005 08:51 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 01:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC) I can provide detailed Shamanic protocols for Cannibis should that become something theres a place for. Just because you don't know of it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Cannibis has the longest known recorded history of continous use and cultivation of any plant known. Prometheuspan 01:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense -SM

Rastafari? --Benna 23:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, and amongst others, SqueakBox 23:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Anslinger quotes

I have doubts about the two Anslinger quotes which were in the article.

"Reefer makes darkies feel equal to white men" - this quote is everywhere but it's never cited properly. The year is alternately given as 1929, 1930, or 1943. It seems unlikely that Anslinger would use the term "darkie" in congressional testimony, even in the pre-civil rights days. The lack of any source or proper citation convinced me to remove the quote.
"Gentlemen, it will make your wives want to have sex with a Black man!" - I'm almost certain that Anslinger didn't say this. It's too hysterical, and it's again unlikely that he'd use the word "sex" in congressional testimony. Also, every Google hit for this phrase is a Wikipedia mirror. Rhobite 00:59, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

A different anonymous person says - the awful things Anslinger said are quite well documented, so removal is not really justifiable.

See Harry Anslinger. Thanks. --Howrealisreal 15:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If those two quotes are well-documented, then it should be easy for you to provide a reputable source for the quotes, such as a newspaper article or a well-known book. I tried, and all I found were drug legalization sites which posted many variations of this quote, giving several different years, no citations of their sources, and no specifics of when Anslinger made these claims. Rhobite 00:14, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I founded the DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy. I believe I have more information on Anslinger online than probably anyone else in the world, including his congressional testimony for the Marihuana Tax Act and some of his books. I have researched these and other "quotes" by Anslinger myself and I have asked many of the major historians on the subject. The consensus of the historians is that these quotes are not to be found in any of Anslinger's speeches or writings. In fact, they are all of the opinion (as I am) that the quotes don't even sound like something Anslinger would say. He said a lot of silly things in his life, but he probably didn't say these things. Interested readers can find the full text of his testimony for the MTA at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/taxact.htm Clifford Schaffer cschaffer@socal.rr.com

Preparation and consumption

Oral consumption

A different anonymous person also says - I strongly disagree with the suggestion that more cannabis is needed when this method is used. On the contrary. I have found that 5g of good quality hashish is sufficient when cooked in a certain way to enjoy a very pleasant experience 32 times. Part of the reason for this is the potentiation of the drug during the process of dissolving it in butter, a certain amount of cooking is helpful.

Shouldn't the term Space Cake be mentioned in this section somehow? DodgeK 19:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that consuming marijuana in large amounts orally instead of smoking it isn't necessarily needed to get high, but the high is different under most circumstances, often being mellower and lasting longer. --Quid 19:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Smoking

Whether or not there's any causal relationship between emphysema or cancer is sort of irrelevant; I don't think you're going to find ANY medical professionals who will state that smoking (of anything, cannabis or not) is going to be harmless to the lungs in the long term.

Unless someone can give scientific evidence to the contrary, I'm replacing the lung damage bullet.—chris.lawson (talk) 4 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)

It is not necessary that cannabis smoking be proven not to cause lung damage, if there is no conclusive evidence of lung damage actually occurring. By analogy, should we add a bullet point that cannabis causes (or perhaps treats) diabetes because it might have an effect on sugar metabolism? In the absence of an established causal relationship, untested hypotheses do not belong as bullets. Whig 4 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)

It's so blindingly obvious that inhaling burning material is damaging and harmful that you're not going to find much research stating the obvious. Of course smoking (anything) is bad for you. Is there evidence that smoking cannabis is not bad for you? If there is, you can take that bullet point out, but there's very little reason to think cannabis would be any different from tobacco in this respect.—chris.lawson (talk) 6 July 2005 01:47 (UTC)

If it is so blindingly obvious that inhaling burning material is damaging and harmful it doesn't need research it is definitely blindingly obvious enough not to need to be mentioned in wikipedia either. There are reasons to think cannabis has a very dfifferent effect on the lungs than tobacco, SqueakBox July 6, 2005 03:41 (UTC)

Yes, there's that of course, but how can Chris Lawson demand proof that something is not the case. Such reasoning is so mediaeval it sends shivers down my spine. We've already had the enlightenment, science rules now, sorry Chris. DirkvdM July 6, 2005 08:34 (UTC)

Oh come on, you know that's not how it is. There is ample evidence that smoke in general is bad for the lungs. Perhaps no one has done a study specifically from marjijuana smoke, but we can reasonably infer that it is unhealthy. You must realize that nothing is ever proven in science, but only demostrated over and over again until it becomes widely accepted. It is widely accepted that the smoking of any substance is unhealthy. This is a reasonable position. It might be nice to have some research done on marijuana smoke, perticularly if there is reason to believe that there might be a surprising outcome. Therefore, what I think is meant by people saying we should prove the negative, is that because there is a general consensus that smoking is unhealthy, a study must be conducted specifically with cannabis to show that is is not, to counter what is widely accepted as the result of more general evidence. Besides, there is some evidence that marijuana itself is harmful.[2] I, too, think that the dangers of marijuana are overblown, but this perticular danger is real, and should not be overlooked. --Benna 6 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)

You're getting a few things mixed up. Firstly, I reacted to the idea that something needs to be disproven to be able to claim it's not true. That's the other way around. Secondly, it's true that nothing is ever proven in science (barring mathematics), but a scientific 'demonstration' would be an experiment (not over and over again, just one good experiment that can be repeated and if several repeats show the same result then it is accepted). Insofar possible. And there's the rub. You'd have to expose a group to marijuana over an long period of time and compare that to a control group, ceterus paribus. And since you can't do this in a lab (preferably with twins) ceterus will never be paribus. All you can do is make it plausible, and this requires an extensive epidemiological research. And given the amount of people who smoke marijuana this would on the one hand be very desirable, but on the other hand possible. Take all those hippies who have lived healthy macrobiotic lives and such, and are therefore fairly homogenic. Some of them will have smoked a lot of marijuana and some will not have (out of principle). And this has gone on for decades now. Have they been tested and copmpared in any research? Also, whether or not something is widely accepted is totally irrelevant. I know from experience that it is widely accepted that smoking tobacco will cripple you physically. Well, I've smoked tobacco (and marijuana for that matter) for 25 years now (plus 'no sports'!) and I'm fitter than your average teenager. Because ceterus is not paribus in my case. I do a lot of cycling and walking (no car) and I climb stairs several times per day. Normal everyday stuff, but the average public (and even medical people I've found) have been so indoctrinated that they don't take that into account. I'll stop ranting now .... :) . DirkvdM July 6, 2005 18:50 (UTC)

Scratching is bad for the skin, you know? The question isn't really whether smoke is an irritant and such, but whether the damage of ordinary cannabis smoking are such as are harmful in a long-term and substantial way. This is more than a common belief question, it really does require a showing of some specific harm, particularly in light of the common belief connecting cannabis smoking with emphysema and lung cancer which has increasingly been found incorrect in scientifically controlled studies. Whig 6 July 2005 11:25 (UTC)

The answer is that Human lungs have adapted to smoke inhalation over millenia of campfire use, and that small quantities of marijuana smoke are now being shown to have a protective effect against cancer on the lungs. However, as with a lot of things, the real important factor here is how much and how often. 209.129.49.65 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, the abstract which Benna cites to is by Tashkin, the UCLA researcher who recently recanted and said that cannabis smoking negatively correlates with lung cancer after undertaking a thorough study which was funded by NIDA with the express expectation of proving a positive correlation. Whig 6 July 2005 11:42 (UTC)

Only excessive scratching in the same place is bad for the skin, SqueakBox July 6, 2005 15:12 (UTC)

Yeah, that was basically my point. Though, strictly speaking, if you scratch your skin even a little bit, you're going to kill some skin cells, but they heal and no long-term or substantial harm is done. Likewise, smoke can irritate the lungs, but that doesn't mean it does long-term or substantial harm unless the smoke inhalation is excessive, or unless the materials in the particular smoke are harmful (i.e., carcinogenic). This may be the case with tobacco, but may not be the case with cannabis. Whig 6 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)

In this respect it should be pointed out that an average tobacco smoker will smoke about 15 cigarettes, which comes down to more than 10 grams smoked, whereas an average marijuana smoker will smoke less than one gram per day. DirkvdM July 6, 2005 18:50 (UTC)

Also, in regard to Benna's point that research on cannabis smoke ought to be done if it might prove a surprising outcome, indeed that is precisely what Tashkin did, and he expressly stated that the outcome was surprisingly contrary to what he'd expected. Undoubtedly this result was disappointing to his funding source (NIDA, the National Institute on Drug Abuse) which would surely have wanted to strengthen support for the hypothesized carcinogenicity of cannabis, and Tashkin had been their reliable ally on the correlation claim until the studies were corrected for concomitant tobacco use, etc. Whig 6 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

By the way, is there a difference between smoking marijuana and hasjisj? What did Tashkin research? DirkvdM July 6, 2005 18:50 (UTC)

If you would please link me to that research I'll be happy to drop my claim (assuming it says what you say it does). --Benna 6 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)

As currently cited in the article, [3].

Looks good but is there a journal article I can read? --Benna 7 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)

Tashkin researched marijuana, but not hashish. Hash can have other particulate matter in it, but the effects on the lungs should probably be the same. It might actually be better, because less hashish needs to be smoked for the desired effect due to its high potency. Perhaps another thing to consider in this smoking argument is the likelihood that Tashkin had to use the low-potency NIDA marijuana for his tests; it is generally agreed that the high grade sinsemilla one can get on the street is more potent than what NIDA supplies to scientists (see studies by MAPS). If NIDA is trying to demonstrate a correlation between marijuana and lung cancer, NIDA could only benefit from supplying low-grade marijuana (to increase the ratio of harmful tar to cannabinoids, supporting their claim). Considering how NIDA has behaved in past studies by MAPS and other organizations, this seems to me a likely scenario. The truth is hard to find with things like this. --Muugokszhiion 7 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)

No, in this case Tashkin did a statistical survey, he did not administer cannabis:

"The Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance program provided Tashkin's team with the names of 1,209 L.A. residents aged 59 or younger with cancer (611 lung, 403 oral/pharyngeal, 90 laryngeal, 108 esophageal). Interviewers collected extensive lifetime histories of marijuana, tobacco, alcohol and other drug use, and data on diet, occupational exposures, family history of cancer, and various 'socio-demographic factors.' Exposure to marijuana was measured in joint years (joints per day x 365). Controls were found based on age, gender and neighborhood. Among them, 46% had never used marijuana, 31% had used less than one joint year, 12% had used 10-30 j-yrs, 2% had used 30-60 j-yrs, and 3% had used for more than 60 j-yrs. Tashkin controlled for tobacco use and calculated the relative risk of marijuana use resulting in lung and upper airwaves cancers. All the odds ratios turned out to be less than one (one being equal to the control group's chances)!"

In an attempt to clarify some of the above concerns, here is info from a variety of scientific journal articles and reviews regarding the studied risks of marijuana use.

A hospital-based case–control study, including 173 cases and 176 control subjects by Zhang et al. (1999) showed 2.6-fold increase in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) risk for use of marijuana (95% CI 5 1.1-6.6), with dose-response trends observed for both frequency (times per day) and duration (years) of marijuana use.[4]
- Criticism: low prevalence of marijuana use among the blood donor control subjects in the study, who may have had healthier lifestyle behaviors than the general population.[5]
A population-based case–control study of 407 carcinomas in situ and SCC cases of the oral cavity and 615 control subjects by Rosenblatt et al. (2004) revealed no association with marijuana use [odds ratio (OR) 5 0.9, 95% CI 5 0.6-1.3] and no dose-response trends for frequency (times per week) or duration (years) of marijuana use.[6]
- Criticism: low proportion of heavy or chronic marijuana users in their study population, which might indeed reduce the contrast if an additional assumption of higher risks among heavier users is made.[7]
A study of 52 transitional cell carcinoma patients by Chacko et al. (2006) showed a statistically significant (P = 0.008) greater use of marijuana. The cancer patients also demonstrated a significantly higher quantity of marijuana use in joint-years (P = 0.022). Significantly more (P = 0.012) cancer patients fell into the upper tertile (greater than 40 joint-years) of use than in the control group. The odds ratio for marijuana use and transitional cell carcinoma was 3.4. After multivariate adjustment for the other potential risk factors for transitional cell carcinoma, increasing joint-years of marijuana use remained statistically significantly associated with the presence of transitional cell carcinoma (P trend = 0.01).[8]
- Criticism: small sample size made up of VA patients
"Regular marijuana smoking produces a number of long-term pulmonary consequences, including chronic cough and sputum, histopathologic evidence of widespread airway inflammation and injury and immunohistochemical evidence of dysregulated growth of respiratory epithelial cells, that may be precursors to lung cancer. The THC in marijuana could contribute to some of these injurious changes through its ability to augment oxidative stress, cause mitochondrial dysfunction, and inhibit apoptosis. On the other hand, physiologic, clinical or epidemiologic evidence that marijuana smoking may lead to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or respiratory cancer is limited and inconsistent. Habitual use of marijuana is also associated with abnormalities in the structure and function of alveolar macrophages, including impairment in microbial phagocytosis and killing that is associated with defective production of immunostimulatory cytokines and nitric oxide, thereby potentially predisposing to pulmonary infection."[9]
"Cannabis abusers generally have poorer oral health than non-users, with an increased risk of dental caries and periodontal diseases. Cannabis smoke acts as a carcinogen and is associated with dysplastic changes and pre-malignant lesions within the oral mucosa. Users are also prone to oral infections, possibly due to the immunosuppressive effects. Dental treatment on patients intoxicated on cannabis can result in the patient experiencing acute anxiety, dysphoria and psychotic-like paranoiac thoughts. The use of local anaesthetic containing epinephrine may seriously prolong tachycardia already induced by an acute dose of cannabis. Oral health care providers should be aware of the diverse adverse effects of cannabis on general and oral health and incorporate questions about patients' patterns of use in the medical history."[10]
"While both tobacco and cannabis smoke have similar properties chemically, their pharmacological activities differ greatly...Both types of smoke contain carcinogens and particulate matter that promotes inflammatory immune responses that may enhance the carcinogenic effects of the smoke. However, cannabis typically down-regulates immunologically-generated free radical production..., THC inhibits the enzyme necessary to activate some of the carcinogens found in smoke. In contrast, tobacco smoke increases the likelihood of carcinogenesis by overcoming normal cellular checkpoint protective mechanisms through the activity of respiratory epithelial cell nicotine receptors...Nicotine promotes tumor angiogenesis whereas cannabis inhibits it...current knowledge does not suggest that cannabis smoke will have a carcinogenic potential comparable to that resulting from exposure to tobacco smoke."[11]

...I hope this helps a little. The literature is relatively thin and fraught with problems, including high rates co-consumption of marijuana with other damagaing substances (tobacco, alcohol, etc.) and low voluntary admission rates (in surveys)due to illegality and social stigma issues. This is a good review article: [12] Scientizzle 20:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Your assumption that because hash/grass is high in potency means people smoke less is flawed, SqueakBox July 7, 2005 18:08 (UTC)

The assumption is non-flawed: cannabis smokers can readily titrate their dosages to obtain desired effects, due to the swiftness of onset, etc. Given the current legal status, it is hard to do a good study of quantitative smoking of kind bud or hash vs. grass, but MAPS may have something on this. Whig 7 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)

Cannabis smokers don't just smoke for the effect. Many also smoke because they enjoy smoking, SqueakBox July 7, 2005 18:22 (UTC)

Individual usage patterns may vary, but the generalization holds. Whig 7 July 2005 18:36 (UTC)

I disagree. I have no source at all for what percentage but I bet it is more than 50%, SqueakBox July 7, 2005 18:41 (UTC)

Please feel free to find a source that suggests that quantity of cannabis consumption is generally invariant with potency. Even given that some people smoke for the pure enjoyment of the taste/whatever, it would be reasonable to expect that they would prefer lower potency material for that purpose, unless they wanted to be excessively high all the time and spend many times more money for the same quantity. It does not conform to common sense at the very least. Whig 7 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)

People's smoking habits don't conform to common sense. Some people do prefer weaker gear because they can keep smoking it. A quarter of pollen hash may contain 3 times the amount of smoke of a quarter of soap which is something different, but many people will keep smoking high potencty gear because they like smoking, and the body rapidly adjusts so it is as easy to smoke an eighth of high potency skunk as an eighth of normal bud weed. The 3rd and 4th joint probably have a minimal effect but that doesn't stop people smoking it, SqueakBox July 7, 2005 19:37 (UTC)

I think there is ample statistical evidence that the majority of pot smokers do not smoke all the time. Seeing just the Tashkin study above, "Among them, 46% had never used marijuana, 31% had used less than one joint year, 12% had used 10-30 j-yrs, 2% had used 30-60 j-yrs, and 3% had used for more than 60 j-yrs." So while I won't dispute that some heavy smokers might indeed consume invariantly with the potency of their material, the generalization applies because most people who do smoke, do so occasionally, and presumably with some thought to the economic costs of smoking more than the amount needed to achieve their desired effects. Whig 8 July 2005 06:38 (UTC)

"All the time"? I myself advocate no more often than about once every 3 days. That doesn't keep me from being an outrageous hypocrit and smoking some months once or twice a day most days. That is still not all the time. There are people who smoke as much just to overcome their tolerance in a single session as what i smoke in a whole month. "all the time" is a pretty vague construct here. Quantity is in many senses much more relevant than frequency.

I am with DirkvdM 110%. Show us proof that it is bad or a cancer causing agent and, you will get a cookie! smoke on my friend! you people are judgmental and i am sure you guys over eat or drink, or some other flaw. NO MAN OR WOMAN IS FLAWLESS!!

Soap

Squeakbox mentions above that soap is "something different" and I wonder if we're addressing this in the article at all right now. As I understand it (having never encountered soap personally) it is a mixture of cannabis extract with binding materials to create a solid that can be cut to dosage units. This "soap" could contain any kind of adulterants, and the health consequences and other effects may be considerably different from usage of unadulterated cannabis as bud, leaf, hash oil, etc. Whig 8 July 2005 07:08 (UTC)

Here's a source I googled: [13] Whig 8 July 2005 07:16 (UTC)

Soap bar is popular in the United Kingdom - it's been celebrated by the Welsh rap collective, Goldie Lookin' Chain --Dilaudid 8 July 2005 10:09 (UTC)

Hot Knives?

Has anyone ever heard of the "hot knives" method mentioned? I'm guessing it's not at all common. Sounds like a specific means of vaporizing. Maybe vaporizing should be explained. --Friday 28 June 2005 06:23 (UTC)

As far as I know, the "hot knives" method is primarily used with hash. I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure its much closer to smoking or burning than vaporizing. Vaporization is heating up the cannabis to the tempreture at which THC evaporates (I believe 200C if I remember right). --Benna 28 June 2005 07:00 (UTC)

"Hot knives" or "spotting" is pretty common. It is most normally executed with marajuana resin. --Howrealisreal 28 June 2005 12:21 (UTC)

You heat up one or two knives, one will do. You place a tiny bit of hash (not grass) on one of the knives and press it against the other knife to create the smoke. A plastic bottle with the bottom cut off is already held by the mouth so the bottle can catch the smoke in one large cough inducing gulp. This is not vaporisation. It is fairly obscure but it was reasonably popular amongst bored users in the UK 20-25 years ago, and may still be so, though I have heard (through sources like tv, not personal experience) that buckets are much more popular. Don't ask me to explain how a bucket works because I can't, SqueakBox June 28, 2005 14:14 (UTC)

Spotting buds with hot knives is still extremely popular in New Zealand.

Note: Hot Knives *can* be used with buds, hash, AND resin. It's still used by a lot of people too.

I added a number under the 'smoking' section giving a brief explanation of it. i can tell you it's not uncommon at all among regular pot smokers, and it can be done using any form of cannabis. i personally have done it many times, always using small amounts of bud, never hash.

WezlyTwin

We call it blasting around here, and we use it for more than just hash. We use pure grass with it, it's much easier on your supply than rolling a joint.

Knifing is far too obscure to be included in this article. Besides the fact that few people do it, it is extremely unhealthful, as most knives today are coated with chemicals that are unfit for human inhalation. Not only that it is very inefficient, as there is no direct pathway for the smoke to the mouth.

Cultivation

someone removed the red link to Cannabis cultivation, then someone else put it back. So I created the article. Now someone else has put a merge notice on the new article (which I reverted). What exactly is it that people want. I go for a separate article myself, SqueakBox 16:34, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Since cannabis_(drug) is mostly about the psychological and physiological effects of cannabis, I think that you might as well keep the extra article. The cannabis_(drug) page is already large as it is, and talking about cultivation would be slightly out of place. I think the cannabis cultivation page is a good idea. As long as it can eventually be made into a decent article with some substance, then I'm all for it. --Muugokszhiion 15:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also hemp and hashish cultivation can be treated there, SqueakBox 15:57, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

ta-da! Avriette 00:55, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Effects

Dry Mouth

Just a quick one. Why is "Dry mouth" under "Situationally desirable effects"?

It is a sign of good gear. If it isn't desirable have a sip of water, SqueakBox 21:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

That seems silly to me. Just because it is a sign of good bud doesn't mean its something to be desired. Ideally one would get good bud that didn't cause dry mouth. This should be listed under negative. --Benna 03:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Benna and (presumably) the anon who asked the question in the first place. Dry mouth is not desirable for any reason other than its indication of quality, and there are other indications that would serve equally well were dry mouth not a factor.--chris.lawson 03:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to make a judgement that cotton mouth is pleasant or unpleasant. It is almost certainly both, and depends on the individual. I don't believe that it is possible to source either that it is universally positive or universally negative, so we should not put it in either category, SqueakBox 21:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Xerostomia (dry mouth) is medically recognized as a bad thing and is similar the sensation of being thirsty, and thirst is a physiologically negative thing. You would find very few people who enjoy the sensation. --Benna 21:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Xerostomia does not say it is an undesirable affect, so you still have not sourced this claim, SqueakBox 21:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

That's actually exactly what it says, or is

Xerostomia can cause difficulty in speech and eating. It also leads to halitosis and a dramatic rise in the number of cavities, as the protective effect of saliva is no longer present, and can make the mucosa of the mouth more vulnerable to infection.

not clear enough for you?--chris.lawson 22:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

What Xerostomia describes is a series of effects. It does not, nor should it, make value judgements about those effects. What was implied here, INMO, is that people found the effects of cotton mouth unpleasant, whereas many users of cannabis, and of other drugs, find this effect pleasant even if it does them harm. I could give a list of all the unpleasant effects of tobacco but that would not mean that all people find tobacco smoke unpleasant, even though some, such as myself, do indeed find tobacco smoke highly unpleasant, and yet it clearly causes lung cancer, halitosis, etc. If I go to that article clainming tobacco smoke is unpleasant I will told that is just my POV. Is that clearer? As for the earlier bud comments, dry mouth is also an effect of good quiality hashish and good quality cannabis leaf. Cannabisd strains without the dry mouth affect, even if possible, would not necessarily, IMO, be desirable, SqueakBox 23:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You are comparing apples to oranges here. A more appropriate comparison might be to go to the tobacco article and claim that lung cancer is unpleasant. Would that also be considered POV? Dansiman 17:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Dry mouth can be a good thing when you have Hydrophobia. It is one of the medical uses for Cannabis that was documented in the eighteen hundreds. I don't have time to look it up for you right now. GOOGLE.

paranoia and stress reduction?

obviously the effects of marijuana differ for different folks and depends on their frame of mind, but to simply list mental affects and list both paranoia and stress reduction is contradictory which makes the article seem unprofessional and sloppy. At best the article seems biased pro-marijuana when it lists as a bullet point 'Increased appreciation of humor, music, and other art'. I would recommend a critics and proponents approach here which acknowledges that people do use it for those reasons, but i wouldn't pretend to present them as bullet-pointed facts.

The list expresses the idea that being high is a very subjective experience, and it varies from person to person. To me, this article is a breath of fresh air in a climate polarized by negative government propaganda and inaccurate, outdated pro-drug websites. I and several others here have problems with pro/con lists, and I don't think that would be a good solution. I do agree that paragraph form is usually better than a bullet list. Maybe the physical effects work as a list, but describing the much more subjective mental effects would be done best in paragraphs. Rhobite 04:22, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

There's another contradiction in that list, namely between caution and loss of inhibition. The paranoia you mention is named together with anxiety, which may lead to paranoia, and this is in tune with the findings mentioned in Health issues and the effects of cannabis about smoking and driving, namely that smokers, as opposed to drinkers, are more aware of their changed state of mind and therefore drive more carefully. But that in turn is in contradiction with the phenomenon that first time users are sometimes not even aware that they are stoned (even though everyone else notices it).

Marijuana tends to amplify whatever primary mental attitudes were allready in play prior to smoking. 209.129.49.65 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

But all that is covered by the reservation that is mentioned above this list that the effects depend on various factors, of which the person and the circumstances. And as I just mentioned, the effects are also different for first time users. And that is one of those odd things about marihuana that set it apart from other drugs. Like it says, the effects usually include some of the effects mentioned. That makes the list ok, I'd say. DirkvdM 19:22, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Marijuana::: PHYSICAL DEPENDENCE?

What does that mean that people don't become "physically dependent" on marijuana? If there is a great craving for it (and addiction), and if there is severe depression and anxiety after withdrawal, then how would it not be "physical dependence???" Are you making a distinction between "mentally dependent" and "physically dependent??"

Those are not typical symptoms of marijuana withdrawal. Most people who stop smoking don't experience severe depression, anxiety, or physical cravings. Rhobite 16:25, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Because they are not typical doesn't mean they don't happen. Some heavy users do experience cravings when they stop, as well as depression and anxiety. However, I don't think there are different types of craving (physical or mental) - I think there's only one type of craving (a sensation). That may be caused by either a physiological or psychological condition, but a craving is still just a feeling. This is just a talk page so I'm not making any citation other than my personal experience with smoking 2-4 grams a day of Northern California Kind for years and then stopping. I'll also cite the fact that there are enough apparently dependent users looking for help quitting that a whole twelve-step program just about marijuana has evolved. Their website has a page that talks about detoxifying from heavy marijuana use. Beanluc 20:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Physical addiction is like what you get from heroin. Your body physically, not just psychologically, needs it to function. You will through up and hallucinate without your fix. Weed addiction is nothing like this.

We're talking about "severe depression", "anxiety" and "cravings". I'm saying that these are just feelings which don't have anything to do with whether or not there's a physical dependence. I agree: marijuana withdrawal is not like opiate withdrawal, but, there are withdrawal symptoms for some users who have smoked enough. This can make it hard for marijuana addicts to quit. Sometimes the inability to stop is due to the withdrawal symptoms, even if it's not a substance which creates the type of physical symptoms you're talking about, Benna. For example, I think we all recognize that alcohol and nicotine can addict people, but not all the addicts who try to quit those substances wind up vomiting, hallucinating and trembling. To answer the question posed by 24.147.103.62, this is the distinction between "mentally dependent" and "physically dependent". Some addictions create both of those, other addictions only have the mental part. It's still addiction. Beanluc 18:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The great majority of people who experience the marijuana syndrome do so because they temporarily can't get hold of cannabis (due to the criminilisation of supply). Anyone who truly wants to give it up is not going to find any marijuana syndrome will stop them, whereas it is going through the dreadful withdrawal symptoms that prevent millions of tobacco smokers from giving up tobacco. Also, I think you need to source your claims that a marijuana withdrawal syndrome is this:when your body needs it to function properly, resulting in physical withdrawal symptoms like nausea, pain, shaking, and even severe reactions like strokes or heart attacks. I for one won't believe you without evidence from sources, and even then we need to keep the positive dream affect, and maybe add that for some people abstaining from marijuana is a refreshing experience, SqueakBox 18:16, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what point you mean to make, but, saying that withdawal syndrome is due to unavailability is not correct. The symptoms are due to stopping ~~smoking~~ using. One may stop, or try to stop, for a variety of reasons. Lack of a supply is only one possibility. I'd re-state it like this, in order to make the statement true: "The totality of people who experience marijuana withdrawal syndrome do so because they stop ~~smoking~~ using it". Beanluc 18:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Of course such syndrome, if it occurs, does so because of a lack of cannabis (BTW not all cannabis users smoke cannabis, so we cannot use your sentence as is). If someone experiences said syndrome because they cannot obtain cannabis, of course the unavailability of cannabis is a direct cause of the alleged marijuana syndrome. I repeat, the great majority of people who stop using cannabis temporarily do so because of lack of supply, and therefore the syndrome they experience will be a reflection of this. To want to give up cannabis, temporarily or permanently, on the other hand, implies a mtivation to do so, which will create a different experince. I would like to see some source for this alleged syndrome, even just a source for its alleged existence, SqueakBox 18:46, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

A link is in my comment above, below Rhobite's. Furthermore, you must have seen the main article section on "Tolerance, withdrawal and dreams". You yourself even said "people who experience the marijuana syndrome do so because they temporarily can't get hold of cannabis" All those sources allege the existence of the syndrome.
My point, you must see, is that the (alleged) syndrome can (allegedly) occur no matter what the cause of the abstinence is. Do you deny that, or do you continue to say that laws are the only possible cause of withdrawal? Beanluc 19:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Beanluc, I'm not sure that you understand what severe depression is. It's not feeling a little sad, or a little tired. It's closer to a complete inability to do anything at all. Most people who quit smoking (even heavy users) do not experience this symptom, so it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. Rhobite 20:57, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I don't presume to know whether you use cannabis or not. But: While you personally may have confidence in your own willpower/ability to avoid using marijuana if you want, your blanket statement about what "anyone who wants to give it up" will experience is un-informed. If you're not an addict, then my hat's off to you. However - understand the nature of addiction (to marijuana or any other thing), whether it's physical or not: Addicted users of tobacco and other substances very frequently "relapse" (use again and act "hooked" again) even after they're done with the symptoms of detox/withdrawal.
How does that fit with your claim that the dreadful withdrawal symptoms... prevent someone from quitting some substance?
I agree with you: a withdrawal syndrome is not going to keep somebody who really wants to quit marijuana or any other substance from ultimately quitting and staying off it, although it can be difficult to put up with the symptoms. But the thing that prevents addicts (as opposed to "normal", non-addicted users) from succeeding is the mental condition: No matter how motivated, no matter how bad they really want to be off of it, their addicted minds prevent them from being able to choose not to use the substance.
So, I just want to be sure this discussion has another person's experience in it so that there's balance. It's just a talk page, not an encyclopedia article. But if what's discussed here helps with decisions about what's relevant for the article, then I hope that the neutral point of view comes out of my dilution of your personal opinions about what some heavy marijuana users might or might not experience when they stop. Beanluc 19:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I know all about tobacco addiction, although it was years ago now. Not only is my personal experience not relevant but the laws against cannabis demand that I cannot talk about such things here at wikipedia. I am not against saying there is some kind of syndrome, but I don't agree with your list of symptoms, and strongly oppose a physical withdrawal syndrome, something I certainly did experience with tobacco. i think the article is good because of the conflicts between the pro and anti brigade, and this is one of the very few articles where I bring bits of my POV here, partly as a counterbalance to the anti camp. i am also very happy to engage in this discussion here. Some people want to give up cannabis and find they can't is believable (I have read such claims), though my experience of othersn in the UK was that the majority of cigarette smokers wanted to stop, and the majority of cannabis smokers did not. cannabis forums would seem to confirm this. I am not saying people only stop because of the law, just that this is likely to happen in the majority of cases of temporary abstinence. I actually think cannabis can help people give up addictions to crack, alcohol, tobacco, etc, but that is too much of minority view to place in the article, though from there to implying it is an addictive drug is a big step, and I am not really happy with cannabis as a drug of addiction, hence describing positive effects of a withdrawal syndrome such as increased dreaming, SqueakBox 20:44, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe mentioning the whole supply situation in an illegal market would be appropriate, talking about Soap bar, etc, SqueakBox 20:44, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Try this from Talk:Hashish --SqueakBox 23:52, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Abuse & Dependence

Even heavy marijuana users do not become physically dependent; there does not appear to be significant craving associated with marijuana (Kuhn, 1998).

There have been reports of psychological dependence.

The DSM-IV (1994) does include the diagnoses of cannabis abuse and cannabis dependence. Dependence is characterized by compulsive use (generally without physiological dependence); use is continued despite knowledge of physical problems or psychological problems associated with that use. Cannabis abuse refers to difficulties with performance at work or school, legal or marital problems associated with cannabis use.

http://www.toad.net/~arcturus/dd/marijuan.htm Drug Module: Marijuana/Cannabis

I added some more concrete information about Marijuana tolerance and physical dependence. I used a textbook from last year entitled Drugs, An Introduction, 5th ed. by Howard Abadinsky (ISBN 0534615155). I used this book in my criminal justice drug policy class, and for my independent study for biology seminar about marijuana history, sociology, and pharmacology. I sourced the DEA about "the physical dependence of marijuana [being] largely unknown." --Howrealisreal 16:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, fine. But do you have any experience of drugs, rather than books that may have been written by biased persons for repressive purposes? The thing my parea all noticed around 1970 was that the more experience of weed you have, the less of it you need to get high. As for physical dependence, I believe it to be a fiction.

Yes, but we cannot use our personal experiences, nor are we looking for the truth. As an encyclopedia we need to source our work. Whether an editor has taken drugs really has nothing to do with anything going on here, --SqueakBox 21:25, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I think you are right about marijuana's physical dependence being questionable. I justify my additions, especially the quote that I took from the DEA, because I feel that of course the DEA is going to be rather conservative in their views of drug use/abuse and to have them admit that dependence "is largely unknown," I think illustrates just how much lack of valid factual information is out there. --Howrealisreal 22:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Considering cannabis is legal in the Netherlands, which means there is a lack of taboo on the subject, wouldn't there be some objective Dutch research on this matter that can be found somewhere? Anyway, I've always been thought that one can't become physically dependant on cannabis, unlike sigarettes (Yes, they teach that in Dutch high schools). Mentally, sure, physically no. But I agree one would need a objective source before changing the article.

Cannabis may be decriminalised but it is by no stretch of the imagination legal in the Netherlands as the supply side is illegal. it is more of a turning a blind eye policy, so i don't imagine the research is better there than elsewhere. i suspect ALL scientific research into cannabis is affected by its illegality everywhere, --SqueakBox 19:21, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Right, right... stupid of me, I'm Dutch myself. I keep forgetting it's not really legal.DodgeK 21:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

It is my understanding that there is no real objective scientific research out there (even outside of the United States) that clearly shows the existance or extent of a physical dependence to marijuana. I know the NIDA has been trying to make this connection for a long time now but I don't think any of their methodology is worthy of being referenced in this article. For this reason, or until new studies have been brought to wikipedia's attention, I would think that there is no harm in leaving the article the way it is now, that states that physical dependence is unknown. --Howrealisreal 00:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed,

To answer the original question, there is a difference between physical and psychological dependence, and it has nothing to do with the ontological status of the physical or mental worlds. psychological dependence is the "i need it to function" feeling, using it as a crutch, being much happier going through life stoned. Physical dependence covers physical manifestations of dependence; when your body needs it to function properly, resulting in physical withdrawal symptoms like nausea, pain, shaking, and even severe reactions like strokes or heart attacks. the material or mental nature of the world is not at stake here. --Heah (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Tobacco is physical addiction-a physical awful feeling the body gets when deprived of nicotine. Cannabis addiction isn't like that at all, so it is no surprise that no such link has been found even in the very polarised world which is modern cannabis research (because of the laws against it), --SqueakBox 01:36, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think a good thing to think about here is other kinds of addiction that are not drugs. Things like gambling or sex addiction. These people obviously don't go into any real physical withdrawl during treatment. They may develop "physical withdrawl symptoms" because of stress that anyone could get when something that he/she sees as a comfort or a nessecary ingrained part of his/her life is cut out. Maybe that's what we're talking about. The body does not develop a need for THC. The closest thing to withdrawl one could experience is merely the body getting used to a chemical being absent that it's used to happening. The same thing happens, say, to a woman who comes off a generic birth control pill after a few years. I don't know of many/any addictive birth control pills, but her body would still do a few kooky things while adjusting to not getting those extra chemicals it's used to having so often. anonymous--68.11.145.140 00:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you. While I am pretty comfortable without my internet connection if I go away for a couple of days if while at home I lose my internet connection or my electricity connection (which occurs all too frequently) I go into a state of tense, apathetic depression that could certainly be seen as withdrawal symptoms to an addiction, SqueakBox 00:39, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

My friend smoked MJ regulary before he went to sleep. When he stopped he had a hard time falling asleep.

That isn't physical addiction which is something totally different. If he wasn't doing anything to replace the getting stoned he probably needed to (read a book etc), SqueakBox 23:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

People can become psychologically addicted to anything they enjoy, including an activity. My friend smoked marijuana daily (purchasing at one point up to a kilogram of hashish weekly) for over 25 years (from his high school years,) and then was put on work probation after being fired and rehired due to an incident involving a failure to properly notify his employer of his injuries and subsequent leave of absence. The terms of the one year probation included random drug screening. The day he was notified this, his response was simply to QUIT. No withdrawals, no depression, just a cessation of smoking cannabis. Surely, if there were such a thing as physical dependence, it would have presented itself in this case? Plutoniumboss

They dont call blackberries crackberries for no reason.What a tragic tale of law enforcement (or the abuse of law enforcement) you bring here, and a firm reminder that cannabis users even more than other people need to keep on the straight anfd narrow, SqueakBox 23:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Long-term effects on social well-being

This section is ridiculously one sided and overstated. I'm removing it. ----Benna 04:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I fully support this removal. What a load of opinianated untruth, --SqueakBox 20:46, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Long term vandalism here. This is really terible that nobody noticed such offensive trash, --SqueakBox 22:59, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Long Term Effects on mind and brain

Just made some changes to this - in more than one place there were questions about causality and correlation, so I've tried to cut this to one place, and include the way they have been addressed in much of the recent research. I've linked in the original papers by Caspi which are surprisingly readable and cover a lot of these questions. I've also slightly revised the tone - I hope that "growing body of medical evidence" doesn't seem POV. Additionally I've added a link to a site which disputes the medical evidence.--Dilaudid 1 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)

i changed the reference to 'small numbers' to 'small sample size', as i assume this is what it referred to, and needed to be expressed more clearly. if i was wrong, please change it back (or to something which better expresses the idea). or just rewrite the whole paragraph, since it's rather poorly written and confusing.

The change to small sample size was a good call. Could you elaborate on your claim that the paragraph is "rather poorly written and confusing", since I wrote it (after carefully reading the study in question), and it seems clear to me. -SM 13:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The only part of that paragraph I find confusing is the phrase "cohort nature of the study". Can that be elaborated or clarified? Grimm

long term effects

I removed some amateurish and tendentious stuff in the section on long term effects. For example, that specious analogy about inferring causation from use of Cannabis Sativa for glaucoma and aids is so simplistic or intellectually dishonest as to actually suggests some adverse effects of intellectual function (like an impaired high schooler's defense of his Cannabis Sativa smoking). Any analogy chooses similarities and excludes differences (or it would be an identity) but if the excluded differences are important, the analogy is not convincing. The obvious differences between inferring causal contribution of pot to glaucoma and aids because sufferers might treat them with Cannabis Sativa, inferring a causal contribution of to mental illness include (1) the order of events, (2) the conscious intention to use it as treatment for the recognized disease, and (3) the existence of other data to suggest Cannabis Sativa can contribute to development or severity or expression of various mental illnesses or impairments. The aids-glaucoma analogy as a way of refuting a causal contribution of Cannabis Sativa to mental illness is just dumb.

Second, psychiatry does not reject "the validiity of spiritual experience" or equate it with psychosis. A psychiatrist's diagnosis and definition of psychosis is based on other criteria entirely. Did Tom Cruise drop by to contribute his opinion? alteripse 8 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)

Carcinogenic/Anticarcinogenic Effects?

I'm re-adding the sentence "Possible carcinogenic/anti-carcinogenic effects (conflicting reports)" which was recently removed from the Largely Physical section. I'm not quite sure why it was removed. It is true, though; there is conflicting evidence suggesting both effects are possible. However, it occurs to me that we are lacking in sources regarding [smoked] cannabis's carcinogenic or anti-carcinogenic effects. I am aware that there is relatively little research going into this in the medical community, so information may be limited, though there is some out there. However, it would be nice to have more sources if any could be found. --Muugokszhiion 3 July 2005 00:28 (UTC)

I have removed this. A bullet item is inappropriate for a claim which is self-contradicted, the "conflicting reports" should be contextualized in the body of the article where relevant. Whig 3 July 2005 11:48 (UTC)

Tobacco doesn't naturally contain these radioactive radium or polonium, it is a byproduct of fertilizer application and cultivation techniques. Cannabis could just as easily contain these elements, but to my knowledge it has not been studied. Therefore, we do not have the support to say cannabis lacks radioactive elements that tobacco contains. Therefore, I'm removing any statements that suggest this until someone can bring a study demonstrating otherwise. 211.128.87.100 05:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that marijuana has any radioactive ingredients. MJ also has a negative correlation with cancer. pestofarian 13:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a sentence in the PROS of smoking cannabis stating a positive reason from a scientific article. The problem is the animals were given 0, 125, 250, or 500 mg THC/kg bw in corn oil by gavage. Since it has nothing to do with cannabis itself and only about the THC, I suggest we remove this.Bragador 20:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Fatality

as far as "No fatal overdose due to cannabis use has ever been recorded in humans" perhaps some of this should be mentioned... --Morbid-o 20:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Looks very controversial and probably politically motivated. I don't believe we need to include it on the grounds it is too obscure, --SqueakBox 21:13, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The Sun ran an article on it that used to be here, but it's in the archives now, and from the link above, the conclusions may have been premature. --Morbid-o 18:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I've heard this statistic and believed it until I read about Bruce Lee. Look up the wikipedia entry about him and the cause of his death. -Anonymous

This is a single data point under uncontrolled conditions and unscientific. It is known that for laboratory animals the LD50 is huge.Boothinator 15:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Another reference to deaths misattributed to marijuana: [14] --Thoric 06:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Thoric.....plus, whomever put that section together about the 'death' did so poorly. Mention of the possible (and probably) invalid scientific study should directly follow the accused 'death'. Very misleading and one sided on-thought. BigMar992 01:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that a substantial weight of hashish dropped from a sufficient height on a "user" can prove fatal. Equally, if propelled with sufficient volicity at appropriate range, the ballistic impact of very small amounts of the drug, appropropriately targetted on vital organs, could result in fatality.

Effects compared to tobacco

142.179.194.203 just removed a paragraph about cigarette smoking. I completely agree with him that this paragraph should not be in an article on cannabis. There is no reason to associate cannabis with tobacco, SqueakBox 17:34, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I am also going to remove a paragraph about cigarette smoking. The paragraph is out of place in this article. Rocky 21:13, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

You actually removed the same paragraph that I had removed. Someone replaced it. It is completely irelevant; please put it in the tobacco article, as this is an article on cannabis, SqueakBox 21:22, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

It is a bit relevant since the majority of cannabis is smoked with tobacco.

To technically overdose on THC, one would have to smoke 90-100 marijuana blunts in the timespan of about 1-2 hours. I'd like to see someone actually try and accomplish that. ---- Koto

Amongst tobacco smokers it is common in Europe to mix tobacco and cannabis but not in the Americas and elsewhere. By no means all cannabis smokers are rash or foolish enough to indulge in tobacco smoking, SqueakBox 04:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Sperm Count

"However, cannabis is believed to lower sperm production"

I think it would be a good idea to cite a source for this if it is going to stay it.

didn't see this but i just reverted. From what i've read it lowers the number of "nurse cells" the sperm attach to before being let loose, but no correlating decrease in sperm count has been found. Something like that definitely must be cited; if an authoritative citation of a non-flawed study can be provided please go ahead and put it back in; until then, "cannabis is beleived to lower sperm count" doesn't add anything to the article, unless it is put in a collection of "myths" about cannabis ;) --Heah 07:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm adding "Marijuana has negative effect on sperm mobility" rather than "Decreases Sperm Count" to the article. Here are two sources, the first of which is more conclusive:

BBC - Pot damages sperm::

Marijuana may affect sperm negatively

--jczerwinski 2006-02-24 14:55 (MST)

Confusatron

In the "largely physical" section:

"Reduced nausea, especially from chemotherapy though can cause nausea in inexperienced users, and can exacerbate nausea (although a minority of users may experience an increase in nausea)."

Isn't that redundant and a little confusing? The end of it says to me, "it can make nausea worse (although for a minority of users it can make nausea worse)". Did the writer perhaps intend to say alleviate or mitigate instead of exacerbate? I would change this myself, but it's unclear to me what the writer intended to say, and I don't want to make inaccurate edits. Either way I think the wording is confusing and it should be rephrased... feel free to delete this comment if it gets changed. --Muugokszhiion 23:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Depression

In the "largely mental" section, "depressant" is listed as an effect.

The meaning here is ambiguous, and the link redirects to a disambiguation page, which doesn't help. Does this mean that cannabis causes depression or that cannabis is a depressant drug? There are major differences between the two. While it may be true that cannabis can act as a mild CNS depressant (after the primary stimulatory effects have subsided), a causal link between cannabis use and depression--at least to my knowledge--has not been reliably demonstrated.

Also, I think the Wikipedia depressant page would inaccurately classify cannabis as a GABA receptor agonist by definition. Consider this excerpt from the depressant page:

"A depressant is a chemical agent that diminishes a body function or activity. The term is used in particular with regard to the central nervous system (CNS). In that case these chemicals are known as neurotransmitters. Depressants intended to act on the CNS do so by increasing the activity of a particular neurotransmitter known as gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)."

I believe, though I'm not 100% positive (so please correct me if I'm wrong!) that cannabinoids have no affinity for GABA receptor sites. If that is indeed the case, then linking cannabis to the depressant page would also be inaccurate. Classic CNS depressants like diazepam and alcohol, which act on GABA receptors, are very different from cannabis (CB1 receptors), and linking them could cause confusion. Again, if I am incorrect, please let me know, and give your opinion. --Muugokszhiion 00:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is absolutely correct, cannabis has no affinity for GABA receptors and this has been cited as the reason a fatal "overdose" of cannabis is considered to be impossible. The cannabinoid system is completely independent of the CNS functions that control, i.e., respiration and other vitals. Whereas any true depressant can cause death by this mechanism. Whig 02:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Psychosis?

This was recently added to effects:

Not everyone believes that spiritual experiences are real, nor can they be scientifically proven. Hence, if a cannabis user expressed a fixed belief in having a direct experience of higher consciousness (such as the Rastafari do), he or she might be considered by some psychologists or psychiatrists to have psychosis.

I'm not sure that it is entirly accurate to call these experiences psychosis per se (from the psycholigists points of view). What do you all think? Benna 07:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

That definition is wide enough to cover any religion as well. Psychosis is defined as a break with reality (the term "psychotic break" is illustrative). I don't think it's appropriate to debate whether a behavior as loosely defined as that fits the term "psychotic". Avriette 09:34, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

NO psychiatrist or psychologist would make a diagnosis of psychosis on the basis of a "spiritual experience", no matter how subjective, strange, or hallucinatory. The diagnosis of psychosis is based on such a disordered perception of reality, especially reality related to social function and expectations that the thought problem is causing clinically significant problems for a person, such as being a danger to himself or others or being unable to hold a job or take care of himself. When the person starts thinking god is telling him to kill people, you can assume he is psychotic (if not Muslim [15]). alteripse 12:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

It depends on the reported experience and the psychologist/psychiatrist, of course. If someone said they spoke with God, and were not dissuadable from that perception, and if there were observable behavior changes which appeared strange as a consequence, etc., they could be said to be "hearing voices" — a hallmark of psychosis. It really depends a lot on context, of course. A modern psych might very well diagnose Joan of Arc as psychotic. Note that I am not saying specifically schizophrenia, which is a whole larger set of symptoms which may include lack of affect, substantially lowered function, but this might also be an extreme along a continuum for some people. The DSM-IV does have a category for Psychosis NOS (not otherwise specified) which can be made to conform well with the reported effect especially of acute and long-term cannabis use for some people, while not necessarily being hallucinatory perception if we credit the possibility of valid but scientifically unmeasurable experiences. Whig 16:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the criteria for Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder the DSM-IV explicitly states, "Do not include hallucinations if the person has insight that they are substance induced."[16] Now even if someone using marijuana who has a spirtual experience believes it is somehow more real than everyday reality, he would almost certainly be aware that the marijuana caused it. I don't think it makes sense to look at NOS when there is an explicit diagnosis relating to substance induced pychosis. Benna 22:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You are certainly right that it depends on the psychiatrist and I am sure you can find some counterexample to any generalization. However, my point is still valid, that claiming that a subjective religious experience qualifies one for a diagnosis of psychosis simply ignores the principal reason a psychiatrist or a psychologist would even be considering a diagnosis: that diagnosably psychotic behavior is not just a perception of reality that varies from most of us, but that it is producing major problems for the person or the people around him, such as impairing his capacity for social relationships and gainful employment. No psychiatrist goes looking for people who hear god or smoke dope, but those people get taken to psychiatrists when those things are threatening every other worthwhile thing in their lives. Joan of Arc certainly might have met most of the criteria for a diagnosis but we simply don't know. alteripse 02:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder dx differentiates that the person acknowledges in some sense the "ungenuineness" of the experience, i.e., that they are "substance induced" and not real. A person who smoked pot and honestly believed that he/she talked with God, and continued to maintain the reality of that experience, would not be differentiated on simple account of the fact that cannabis had been consumed. Indeed, in some users, the experience may persist long after the acute effects wore off. As for the initial diagnosis, those experiencing this might undergo a crisis of some kind if they were unprepared, frightened or otherwise distressed at the encounter, leading them to either seek psychological help or be referred/committed. Whig 06:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that is usually what people mean when they say they have a spiritual experience while using marijuana. If it were, I would agree with you. The fact is, though, that the spirtual experience is usually more of a feeling. Someone might say that they experienced God. This same person would acknowledge that this experience is substance induced, but argue that it it is none the less useful in connecting with god. The way the article was worded previously, it sounded like this experience which I just described would be diagnosed as psychosis, and I don't think that it would. Few people who smoke marijauna claim to hear voices. For that reason, I see no reason to include any mention of the psychosis at all. Such a comment might make more sense in LSD, where the experience is still usually somewhat like I described, but it becomes more likely that someone would forget that they are substance induced. Benna 09:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I call BS, and reference the Rastafari as a complete disproof. Even if "few" people who smoke cannabis claim to "hear voices", it is also clear that "few" people who smoke cannabis are claimed to experience "psychosis." So, what's your point? The whole preceding section seems to be making the point that cannabis does correlate with such experiences, and classifies them as psychosis, but the purpose of the edit is to express the view that such experiences are not necessarily a form of mental "illness". To remove this is to take a particular POV that such experiences are per se invalid/psychosis. Whig 09:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear. What I really wish to do is make a distinction between "hearing voices" and "higher consciousness." I am willing to grant that psycholigists might make a diagnosis of psychosis for someone who hears voices, but this isn't the religious experience that most claim (including Rastafari). I would dispute that cannabis even causes people to hear voices. Those that do hear voices probobly have some other underlying disorder not related to cannabis, though perhaps cannabis exacerbates it. Because the vast majority of the religious experiences which are induced by cannabis are not the kind that could be reasonbly charectorized as psychosis (hearing voices), I think it is unreasonable to make that connection in the article. If you would like to state something about the possible exacerbatation of underlying mental disorders which results in more severe psychosis, thats fine with me, as long as you don't connnect it with religious experience. I don't buy the argument that not mentioning psychosis somehow assumes that the experience are psychosis. Benna 10:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Anti-emetic? You sure?

I bow to superior medical knowledge but if cannabis has anti-emetic effects why do I always feel sick after toking a bong?

The fact that Cannabis is an antiemetic is well established.[17][18][19][20][21] --Benna 01:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Tha fact that You ask is a indication about how important it is to educate about statistics AND how to draw conclusions. First of all: Even though it can be 99.99% that canabis is anti-emetic, it does not state that You are in the 99.99%(actually 1 in 10000 will not have this effect ON AVERAGE!). Second: Even if cannabis have a 100% anti-emetic effect it do not mean it can totally remove your sickness from toking(It might not be strong enough, or u might have used to little). Third: When You toke it will take a while for any effects from cannabis to set inn. Are you really sure you feel sick after 30-60 minutes?--PetterBudt 10:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You may be suffering carbon monoxide poisoning from the smoke, SqueakBox 14:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

medicinal and psychoactive

It seems to me that the phrase "medicinal and psychoactive" used in the article is somewhat redudently worded. Psychoactive does not necessarily mean non-medicinal. I think it should be reworded somehow to reflect that. Anyone have any ideas? --Benna 06:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It's true that psycoactive doesn't mean non-medicinal but it's also true that medicinal doesn't always mean psychoactive. Anti-biotics, anti-inflamitory agents, etc. are all medicinal without being psychoactive. Grimm

Cannabis hallucinations, due to excess cerebral lithium?

Found this gem from no less an authority than the Wacky Weed Smokers Digest, vol. 1, would love to find another source. Tracks with low incidence in population. Enjoy, -SM 07:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Multiple attempts neccessary?

It is a fairly common belief that users don't always get high their first or even second time trying marijuana. I was wondering if anyone had any scientific backing for this, or just some substantive information about it.--Igor 02:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Entirely my own opinion but I believe the reason first and second time smokers report not becoming high is simply because they aren't used to smoking. They may not know how to use the smoking implement, may not want to inhale too much (either for health reasons or because they are afraid of getting "too high"), or may not understand how to inhale the smoke. I've seen many inexperienced smokers try to take a drag from a pipe with the carb uncovered and think that they've gotten a hit or take only a small hit and hold it in their mouths for a few seconds rather than inhaling it, etc. I've also seen people not get high because they are unable to take large enough hits - they take small hits while others in the circle are still taking large ones and the marijuana is gone before they get a chance to smoke enough to get high. Grimm

Not so as tobacco smokers get the same phenomenon. It can occur on multiple occasions, not merely once or twice but once it has taken affect once it will then ever afterwards. For the article we would need some kind of source for the phenomena but it doesn't necessarily have to be scientific, SqueakBox 04:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I am a long time listener of loveline and drew pinsky (a doctor and addiction medicine specialist) has described this phenomenon on air. I don't recall the date at the moment so I can't quote but a paraphrase would go as follow, "The first couple of times people smoke they generally get a sort of a priming effect that isn't really understood and then around the third time they have a powerful effect which if it's euphoric usually leads to addiction. there was a paper recently published on the power of the pleasent experience in addiction." I realize this doesn't count as a source but hopefully it can point some people in the right direction. I too had the same effect, the first two times I smoked it had no effect and the third time it had a profound effect. I smoke cigarettes and the marijuana I smoked was a joint, so familiarity with the implement was not an issue. Although to specifically answer the primary question, I don't think multiple attempts are a necessity, but that it is common for there to be no effects the first few times. Vicarious 14:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Developing Resistance?

I read in a book about drugs that using marijuana heavily for a few years can lead to complete immunity, and the effect becomes entirely psychological. Is there any truth to this? If not, how extreme can the resistance become? 04:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds likes highly dubious misinformation to me. It would imply that an experienced smokers (those the psychologists insultingly call chronic users) couldn't tell ther difference between some potent cannabis and some less potent cannabis, which of course is not true at all, and I would say there is zerotruth to this statement, SqueakBox 05:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Short-Term Resistance?

I have personal experience where I will smoke a certain amount and then say 2 hours later, I will smoke the same amount again with the same method (i.e. pipe). I can never achieve the same level of 'high' that I endured from the first smoke session. The same desired effects are witnessed, but not at the same intencity level, so to speak. I am not sure if it is because I am comming down from the first high or what have you. My question; Does anyone know if there is a theory behind this phenomenon? BigMar992 17:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 01:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC) yes, simple neurochemistry. If your brain cells have allready fired their electrical and chemical "loads" they can't fire again, until they build up those chemicals and charges. This is back to what i was saying weeks ago about periodicity. the effect is about 3 days, thats how long it takes for all of your neurons to re-up. It takes about 7 days for thc to clear the system. Prometheuspan 01:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

My past experience with tobacco and alcohol was exactly the same and I suggest it is a phenomenon of all drugs and not just cannabis. It seems to me pretty obvious why it happens, the initial strong affect is because the body is unused to the substance but just in taking it becomes used to it, SqueakBox 17:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 01:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC) actually, in some ways, the reverse. The body uses up its ability to have a strong reaction. Its not "used" to it, its overwhelmed by it. A similar effect can be had with most drugs. Prometheuspan 01:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have used marijuana for 25 years and while the amount needed to gain the same benefits has increased I have never experienced any "immunity" to the effects. I have also noticed that a resistance to a specific variety is very common but by simply switching your source the resistance can be nullified.

DRY MOUTH...........a.k.a. PASTIES!