Talk:Cannabis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cannabis article.
Article policies
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Wikipedia CD Selection Cannabis is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL images. However, if you can improve the article, please do so!
Archive
Archives



Contents

[edit] False Advertising

As you can see the current article now steals content from others and attributes them to one source who is across the page. I think this kind of advetising is explicity anti-cannabis and anti-wikipedia. It should be reported and will be. (Simonapro 11:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC))

I am not sure to what exactly you refer. Please furnish more details, such as what is explicitly anti cannabis and anti wikipedia, so we can discuss the problem, SqueakBox 16:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you report it to us? WEED IS THE BEST FUCKIN THING EVER BESIDES PUSSY!!!!!!!We are the ones editing it, so any details you can give us would help. What are we advertising? How is this anti-canabis or anti-wikipedia. We need more information to understand what you are saying. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
HighInBC as I said I no longer listen to your critic that has no input. Sources are being removed and replaced by biased sources that never made the statements then statements are altered to reflect the source. It was blatantly done to futher provoke an uncivil dispute. IMO the article is now mostly only varified by a single source and the breeding section is incomplete and mistaken in relation to methods of pollination. The editor is without merit as they insist on their own biased POV. As you can see the article is edited by one person. One person has edited the whole thing. (Simonapro 16:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC))
Please put any resentments you have to one side, it wont get anyone on your side, indeed it makes it likely people will just ignore you. Either edit the article or bring specific concerns about content (ie not about editors) to this talk page. I am still lost as to what you are on about, SqueakBox 16:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I will continue to comment here, you may choose not to listen to me, but that does not invalidate my opinion. Can you give specific examples? Something I can check? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a shot in the dark, but are you perhaps refering to the ideas you have argued in Talk:Cannabis/Archive 4, Talk:Cannabis/Archive 5, Talk:Cannabis/Archive 6, and Talk:Cannabis/Archive 7(and most of this talk page)? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Merge from Cannabis sativa

It has been proposed [1] that Cannabis sativa be merged into Cannabis, because "These articles are both about plant biology, etc. This article states this is the only species in the genus, with several subspecies".

I previously proposed the same merge for the same reason: there's little to say about the only species of a monotypic genus that does not also apply to the genus itself. However, Cannabis currently has readable prose of approximately 25K. Expansion is needed for the existing "Description", "Taxonomy", and "Geographical distribution" sections. An "Economic importance" section covering historical and modern aspects would improve the article. The current "Aspects of production and use" section should be changed from a list to prose (using WP:Summary style to summarize the detail articles linked). So it seems likely that Cannabis will soon grow enough that it will need be split to conform to the article size guidelines. It seems logical to move some of the biological information to the species article.

Additionally, the consensus of a recent AfD discussion was to merge the (rather lengthy) List of cannabis strains article into Cannabis sativa. None of the information in List of cannabis strains was verified, so nothing actually got added to the species article. However, there are verifiable Cannabis cultivars (both drug and non-drug) that meet notabiity guidelines, and we can expect that the species article will expand to describe these cultivars.

Chondrite 20:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you foresee this article doubling in size? This article has already been split up into Cannabis (drug) and Hemp where before it was one. Essentially it is becoming more common and accepted to have somewhat longer articles when necessary. Cannabis may not be as popular a subject as George W. Bush, which is 100KB and does need to be shortened a bit, but there is only so much splitting up that can be done. The technical considerations for size limits become less and less of a problem as time goes on and even now it's only 50+KB where an article is recommended to consider splitting. A doubling of article size is quite substantial. Actually what I think should happen is that this Cannabis be changed to use Wikipedia:Summary style, somewhat like the Cannabis sativa article currently is. Few people come to this article looking only for the taxonomy of the plant, I would gather that most are actually looking for the drug, and then the hemp, and then the plant physiology. So, the way to do this is have an overview that is appropriate to the size of a single page, and then have each sub-topic refer to the "Main article" on Cannabis (drug), Hemp, and Cannabis sativa, which is currently done backwardsly in the Cannabis sativa article. —Centrx→talk • 20:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Cannabis should become a summary-style article. I also think that the article, even in summary style, will easily double in size. As many subtopics have already been spun out to detail articles (but should be summarized in this article), the article currently devotes a somewhat disproportionate amount of space to recently developed subtopics of taxonomy, reproduction, and etymology. The article should be rebalanced, but as I am currently researching areas for planned expansion, I suggest waiting a bit to rebalance. Also, I have been reviewing the category organization and have proposed a reorganization at Category talk:Cannabis. Chondrite 22:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Cannabis should be merged with Cannabis sativa because it is merely a plant, not a drug.

I agree with Chondrite, this one isnt going to happen because of the general policy on plants, SqueakBox 18:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't see why the length is a problem. The subheaders divide the sections, making it easier to scroll down to your topic of interest. If this is an issue, I propose we institute a Wikipedia ADD edition. Thomconn 03:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It is standard in Wikiproject plants to treat species and genera in separate articles and this should be no exception. Whether or not the article should be split into a medical and drug section is another matter, but the merge in question should be a non-issue as it goes against the project's conventions. Since the topic hasn't been discussed in a while I am going to go ahead and remove the tag. If anyone has a good reason why this article should break policy, please replace it and continue the discussion. : ) Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 20:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I should add that species with a questionable status at species level are normally treated in a separate article unless there is overwhelming scientific consensus for one view or another (e.g. Acer barbatum, Cephalotaxus koreana, etc.) . In this case I think that botanists still disagree enough to merit separate articles for the proposed species, though of course it should be noted in those articles that there is disagreement. There is enough to talk about in those articles, such as the morphological characteristics, the differing distribution, different chemical makeup, etc. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 20:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
And just to show there still is debate, see the following quotation from the (recently published) Flora of North America (vol. 3):

"The taxonomy of Cannabis sativa , a polymorphic species, has been debated in scientific and legal forums. The name C . sativa subsp. indica (Lamarck) E. Small & Cronquist has been applied to plants with a mean leaf content of the psychotomimetic (hallucinatory) delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol of at least 0.3%; those with a lesser content fall under C . sativa subsp. sativa . When separate species are recognized, the name C . indica Lamarck has generally been applied to variants with high levels of the intoxicant chemical, whereas the name C . sativa Linnaeus, interpreted in a restricted sense, has generally been applied to plants selected for their yield of bast fibers in the stems. (The latter generally have taller, hollow stems with longer internodes and less branching than races selected for drug content.)"

And from the Flora of China:

"Cannabis ruderalis Janischewsky, from Russia, is considered by some to be a distinct species from C. sativa."

So even though the consensus leans towards a monotypic genus, I think we should continue the current treatment considering the continued disagreement. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 20:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam

Canibus has absolutely no place inn this article and should be reverted if he appears again as his name is not cannabis its canibus, SqueakBox 19:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ya, that is a pretty sound interpretation of things. I would revert that on site. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Pharmaceutical lucre

There's a lot of research available on the CB receptors -- that means, pharmaceutical companies are carving up one of the best holistic medicinals as we speak. Patents are springing up all over the world as more riddles were solved by the genome and metabolome projects. I started reading biomed articles while writing scifi -- this is so much better than anything I could have conjured: Pharmaceutical lucre--Renice 15:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm unable to work on the cannabis pages... sorry. --Renice 15:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The high is from a metabolite hitting a reward receptor. When we fill all the receptors, we get an idea of what a state of grace is. It's not the real thing, but it's a way to learn how to be enlightened. Try tea. --Renice 19:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The munchies are a tool to teach us how to 'give thanks' for food (metabolites) -- we must appreciate it molecule by molecule, then the substances we take in will heal us, and not harm us (St John!). --Renice 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It is possible to abuse it -- Use it meditatively, as a learning tool, otherwise you are exciting reward endocannabinoids needlessly and diverting CBs from uses in the immune system and the manufacture of cells. --Renice 21:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis Oral Consumption

It contradicts itself. It says C. is enough water soluble to make "activated tea".. then it says generally C. isn't water soluble. Also the Oral Consumption refers both to marijuana and hash and at times it's not understood what method of oral consumption should be used for each and/or for both. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.177.206.186 (talk) 07:16, 12th February 2007 (UTC)

Finally ethical professionals are standing up: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/01/opinion/edgrinspoon.php

"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." -- Lester Grinspoon, an emeritus professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, is the coauthor of "Marijuana, the Forbidden Medicine."

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

[edit] species

Shouldn't we delete the first section (species) of the article? all the informations could be placed in the third section (taxonomy), don't you think so? Ajor 15:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Editor Joins the Fray

I'm new to Wiki editing so please forgive my indiscretions. My first faux pas was to jump in and make changes to the first couple of paragraphs without consulting the other editors. These changes include: 1) reassigning Cannabis to the order Urticales; 2) providing correct authority citations for the various taxa; 3) eliminating C. sativa subsp. sativa as a synonym of C. ruderalis; 4) changing the presumed indigenous range of Cannabis so that it is consistent with current scientific evidence; 5) eliminating extraneous information, such as the fact that Cannabis is a dicot (it's sort of like pointing out that humans are vertebrates); 6) providing a more accurate description of the progression in leaflet number along the main stem (it is not always true that there is one leaflet per leaf at the first node, three at the second node, and five at the third node); 7) eliminating slang, such as the statement that female marijuana inflorescences are called "buds;" 8) general editing for increased accuracy and clarity;

As a general comment, citations for indisputable facts are unnecessary, and the relevance of several of the citations to the corresponding information seems marginal.

I would be happy to discuss the changes I made to the text with other editors. GeorgeLTirebiter 14:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I previously posted more proposed changes to the Cannabis article but nobody seemed to notice, so I deleted them and went ahead and made the changes. I know that deleting previous postings is not good wiki practice, and neither is doing extensive editing without consulting other editors. However, I didn't see much point in keeping the proposed edits on this page since nobody commented on them anyway, and they were taking up a lot of space. I hope everyone is happy with my edits. If not, let me know and we can talk about it. GeorgeLTirebiter 15:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete Wild Cannabis section?

I propose deleting the Wild cannabis subsection and moving what little factual information there is to the Cannabis sativa page.

The first sentence is simply not true. "Wild" (or feral) C. sativa subsp. indica (which Small & Cronquist assigned to variety kafiristanica, and Vavilov assigned to C. indica var. kafiristanica) also grows in India, Nepal, Pakistan, China, and elsewhere.

The second sentence might be partially true, but needs a reference. Perhaps feral C. sativa subsp. sativa (which Small and Cronquist assigned to variety spontanea) grows to a height of 20 feet in the United States? Reference?

What is a "flower branch?" An inflorescence?

Wild or feral C. sativa subsp. sativa var. spontanea (= C. ruderalis) in Europe and central Asia is usually short and unbranched, although it does have "airy" (elongated) inflorescences ("buds").

Show me a picture of "wild" Cannabis sativa subsp. indica that matches the given description (and I'll show you one that doesn't!) GeorgeLTirebiter 16:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cannabis speciation and cannabis evolution deniers do a u-turn

How is it possible, after the record of debate in this article's discussion, that the proposal that "Cannabis had speciated (evolved)" , which was initially present in this article in 2006, and was actively disputed and finally dismissed as spurious by some, is now present in the article again, with the full backing of those who dismissed it as spurious. Please explain this. (120minutes 15:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

I don't know if it has "the full backing" of those who dismissed it as spurious, but anyone who thinks that Hillig's doctoral dissertation and his publications in professional journals that directly address the taxonomic issue are "spurious" does not understand the process of peer review. Would four professors (one of whom is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and another a Harvard-trained taxonomist) put their reputations on the line and sign off on a dissertation if it was bogus? That does not necessarily mean that they accept that speciation has occurred, but you can rest assured that they accept that the arguments that Hillig makes are valid. This wiki article does not claim that speciation has occurred, but it attempts to present both sides of the argument with a NPOV. Maybe after further consideration, the nay-sayers see the light? GeorgeLTirebiter 20:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference under etymology to Ezekiel 5:22

I may have simply read this wrong, so forgive me. I have just looked it up and there is no Ezekiel 5:22 in the Bible. Is this what the post was refering to? 131.111.8.99 19:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC) P Cookson 20:06pm

There is somehting in the great book THE BIBLE that says we shall harvest all of God's fruit bearing plants....not to mention smoke it


And god said take the herd of the field god created all plants knowing their medicinal properties. why should we ban a plant god created, a plant that has many medicinal uses after all Alcohol does way more damage than weed ever has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.70.232 (talk) 07:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green tea?

I don't mean to sound like a complete skeptic, but could someone please provide a source for the assertion that:

'''Cannabis''' is a genus of [[Green tea]]s

Anynobody 08:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis as green tea as a form of vandalism makes more sense, thanks for fixing it. Anynobody 08:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment on Talk:Legal history of marijuana in the United States

The suguestion is to move Legal history of marijuana in the United States to 'Legal history of cannabis in the United States.' The dicussion has only involved four people, so more opinions are requested. Thank you. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 00:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bird species

I just read there is a bird species named 'cannabis'. I don't know anything more, so I won't add it to Wikipedia, but this means there should be an article on it and a referral to there at the top of this article. So if anyone else is in the mood for some trivia ... (a state of mind that might be achieved by smoking the bird's namesake :) ). DirkvdM 19:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fix reference

A funny fellow, has changed the title of a reference (2) on the cannabis from "Genetics of sex determination in flowering plants" to "Genetics of fucking determination in flowering plants". Apparently this has survived for a long time.

Can someone fix this (I am not allowed) 09:37 (GMT+1) 24 July 2007

I've removed it and put it back to what it was. Thanks. - Illusive Formula 06:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychosis

The Lancet this week has a systematic review of all studies linking cannabis to psychosis. While the association is less strong that previously suspected, there is still a link: doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61162-3  JFW | T@lk 15:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seeds

The following was removed from Cannabis (drugs), please add it here. 199.125.109.107 06:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis seeds (technically called achenes), which are not psychoactive, are high in protein and essential fatty acids, and are readily consumed by many species of birds. They are also consumed by humans, and are a key ingredient in certain traditional recipes in Europe, and elsewhere. In many countries, including the United States and Canada, possession of viable cannabis seeds is illegal.[1]

I think it notes mention that hemp seeds were used by the people of Asia, probably more so then Europe. I also think it is important to mention that only in recent US and Canadian history has hemp seed been illegal. Perhaps if it said,"In recent times" or "Recently", "Cannabis seeds have become illegal in countries such as the United States and Canada". Because for most of the US and canadian history, Hemp seed was the most used bird seed. We must present completely factual information, I think that last sentence does not say the whole truth.

Let me know if you agree

--The Pot Snob 21:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent Article : Perhaps a small change

Hey,

I love the article, you guys did an excellent job of staying objective. I thought it noteworthy though that at the end of the first paragraph, the discussion of the illegality in many countries stands out as not really being appropriate. If it must remain though, perhaps we should include that it goes often unenforced in many countried also. Many countries illegalized cannabis because they could not trade with the United States or get aid from the United Nations unless they did. So we ended up being able to say cannabis is illegal in almost every country, when really it often goes unenforced.

Mentioning the fact that in most countries its illegal, but the police don't proactively arrest people for cultivating or using it, is more factual.

If anyone agrees with this suggestion let me know.

--The Pot Snob 21:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.225.121 (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Small edit

Other names used in popular culture

pot, weed, dope, sweet leaf, grass.

when rolled for smoking: reefer, joint, doobie, roach, Spliff

baba in North Eastern India

dagga (Afrikaans word) and durban poison in South Africa

Removed 'durban poison' and replaced it with 'zol'. Durban Poison is a type of weed such as skunk, northern lights, swazi etc. I'm not sure if the post could use more punctuation or not though - since some of the names might be considered proper nouns? I'm not sure, never was that great with writing / typing... Badasti 17:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the whole section as this is the article about the plant and not the drug, SqueakBox 17:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prune gallery of images

Someone added a gallery of four images. Nice shots of an industrial hemp, but they are quite similar. I suggest removing three, and either expanding the gallery with other photos (now or in the future), or moving the remaining picture into the article somewhere. I'd say keep photo #4, as it shows the leave pattern quite clearly, and shows the top of a plant in the background. Any opinions on what to keep (none, one, all four)? -Agyle 03:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taxonomy section

Its been a while since I had a look at this article, an I was surprised to see that the taxomony section had disappeared. Apparently was deleted by an anon [2] in May 07, but the edit was only partially reverted. Apologies for inserting any contentious material. --Salix alba (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge clean-up

I've added the talk page of the recently merged "Chocolate thai" to the archives (8). -Phyesalis (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the effect of drugs

the effect of drugs i used to be able to type over 1000 words a mins and know can bearly type 10 the doc said its cuz i never stop rollin joints. as you read this i am rolling a joint and soon about to smok it so exscuse me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajrajraj333 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strains

There are a lot more major strains of cannibis that could be added such as AK-47, Laughing Buddha, Big Bud, B2k, White Russian ect if you think this would be good to add but need reaserch done please contact me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Detan (talk • contribs) 18:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Style

Someone should probably fix the section that goes into immense detail about the life work of Karl W. Hillig. This website probably doesn't need a blow-by-blow account of the papers he has publised, or what he wrote in his thesis. We probably wouldn't need this even if he had won a Nobel Prize for it... 131.111.186.95 (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate Thai

I just wandered in and see there has been a bit of a revert war attached to Chocolate Thai. I am aware of the "Reliable Source" debate, but I deleted the text on an entirely different basis. (And deleted the text attached to BC Bud as well.) The information just plain doesn't belong there fouling up the nice clean LIST of varieties. Adding equivalent information for each an every variety would terribly gum-up the list. The deleted information belongs, if at all, on the specific variety page. Alsee (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I now see there was some earlier AfD on Chocolate Thai resulting in a Merge, which does not appear to have turned out very well. Cramming the info into the middle of the variety list was disruptive to the list itself. Merging it more cleanly in some other location in this article would be "better", but it's still badly out of place in this article. The fact that this particular variety was deemed less notable than other varieties such that it doesn't warrant its own page is a rather up-side-down reason for it to warrant, above other more notable varieties, unique coverage on the general Cannabis page.

I am not hostile to the information itself on Chocolate Thai, but if it doesn't warrant it's own page then I am at a loss for any reasonable home for it. Perhaps all of the varieties could be combined as subsections in one page? Most of the variety pages are ridiculously short anyway, and it would give this info a proper home. Alsee (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit boldly, just don't reduce the overall informational value of Wikipedia (if there is some relevant sourced, reliable information, make sure it doesn't get lost in the process). In other words: in my view any of the solutions is fine, but since you started the reconstruction, be quick to finish it :) Good luck. Pundit|utter 15:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect inflorescence?

The inflorescence is described as a raceme in one photo caption; I believe it is actually a spike. I may be wrong as I don't have my plant books with me at home, however I am quite sure the flowers are sessile. A small technicality, but all the same it might as well be right. Needs confirmation though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.1.66 (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hemp paper

Please put information that the first samples of US Contitution were made from cannabis paper. And the first samples of Bible also. And that before 1880 allmost all books and teach manuals were also made from hemp paper. Wormantson (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of male flowers

The pictures of male flowers does not show them in bloom, requesting a better one (I suck at wiki). 83.147.180.186 (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Worst pun ever, haha

"In the U.S. wild cannabis can grow wild in mid-west areas such as Kansas and Nebraska. This type is not valued for recreational use and is viewed as a weed by farmers."

(no, I'm not asking to change anything, just something funny I noticed) --nlitement [talk] 13:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)