Talk:Cannabis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects Click on [show] for further details
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
This article is part of the WikiProject on Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, set up to organize and expand entries on Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants as well as related subjects according to chemical type, effects, organic carriers, and cultural/historical uses. Please feel free to participate by editing this article and visiting the project page.

Cannabis is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Archives Archive index Archive 01 Archive 02 Archive 03 Archive 04 Archive 05 Archive 06 Archive 07

Contents 1 False Advertising 2 Proposed Merge from Cannabis sativa 3 Spam 4 Pharmaceutical lucre 5 species 6 New Editor Joins the Fray 7 Delete Wild Cannabis section? 8 Cannabis speciation and cannabis evolution deniers do a u-turn

[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? 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)

[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)