Talk:Cannabis/Archive1

marketplace
Who needs a sales pitch if you're buyin'? --Kels 15:54, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'll take a couple of ounces, supply has just plain dried up around here!!! Trashbat 15:56, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Sorry gents, you're about seven years too late to be buying from me. Just an occasional customer these days :) --Robledo 16:02, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm not a gent, I'm Canadian! --Kels 16:03, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * hehehehe And I'm about *counts fingers* errr, many years too old to be smoking it. Not that it stops me! Trashbat 16:09, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I heard Jamaican red gum is popular in Canada, or was many years ago. Poison, part of the rock/sex/drug counterculture that leads to destruction.  Heart  ♥  Gold tx 01:06, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm a mental health nurse and work with people who experience psychosis (short and long-term) as a result of smoking marijuana. I can dig up the evidence and research that says it sends you loco-crazy-insaneinthemembranes. M. Spica the Hiver In Friendship & Co-Operation
 * I, when young and foolish, used to partake of the occasional herbal jazz cigarette, and I am living proof that... well, oh shit, which cause am I living proof of? Dang! human be in 20:09, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

hallucinations
I always wondered about that whole hallucination thing. I had about a year there when I used quite a lot of hashish, and proper weed occasionally since then (not in a few years, though), and I've known way heavier users than me, but the only time I've ever heard about hallucinations is in write-ups like this one. Distorted sense of time? Hell, yes. Mood effects? Sure, all the time. Hunger? Well, never go grocery shopping when you're stoned, leave it at that. But hallucinations, no. I don't even know any real people who have reported that. Anyone here got any insight? --Kels 07:07, 28 June 2007 (CDT)
 * It's definitely been reported, and it is classified as a hallucinogen, but i think that is because it doesn't fit neatly into any other group. I really think Mar. and hash stand on their own, and hallucinogenesis is a very minor property.--PalMD-yada yada 07:19, 28 June 2007 (CDT)
 * To further confuse the issue, in many places, some drugs are classified legally, as opposed to medically or chemically. Isn't LSD a "narcotic" in the US? human be in 11:48, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

fat bongs and other user "experiences"
Fat bongs used to give me the most beautiful kaleidoscopes when I closed my eyes. Sent my brain nuts: image after image would flash up at the most dizzying speed until after a while they all merged into this glorious, seething whole of shapes and colours. Used to have this nonsense word that would jabber away at the same time (japehelperbelcemensina - no shit ;) as a kind of mad counterpoint to the visuals.

Also once had this wonderful 10 mins of being-on-the-moon-type weightlessness and a not-so-wonderful 5-10 mins of lying on someone's sofa feeling like I was falling down a mineshaft (Hendrix played on the background, uncaring). Nowt compared to acid (or mushies or 2CB or even ket), of course, but (mostly) fun nonetheless. --Robledo 19:47, 28 June 2007 (CDT)


 * I never hallucinated from it, not once. Even after getting absolutely fucked off a half dozen bowls, and accidentally eating a handful of space cakes. The experience never intensified into hallucinations, it merely lasted MUCH MUCH longer.


 * My own experience is one of increased pattern matching ability - I tend to glimpse the mathematical fabric of reality itself, as echoed in fractal patterns of interconnectivity between everything. Watching Discovery Channel while goofed is the trippiest experience imaginable.


 * I've experienced big, big hallucinations from smoking it on two occasions. Both times I was already very drunk, and I know a lot of people say you shouldn't mix alcohol with hash. Having never tried mushrooms or LSD I can't say how it compares to those. I can't remember too much about the whole experience beyond geometric shapes and something about comprehending the universe. Oh - and I was in Amsterdam both times, so it was all legal! Rpeh 10:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Argument for legalization
It is physically impossible to smoke enough marijuana to fuck yourself up as badly as being sent to prison for 15 years will. --Gulik 20:11, 28 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Following on from Gulik's snarky point, it is possible to construct an argument for legalisation/decriminalisation or depenalisation of cannabis owing to it's non-lethality. Here is some evidence that cannabis has no 'lethal dose' (LD-50):

http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/MEDICAL/YOUNG/young4.html

On page 4, sections 55/56 it states:

4. Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality.


 * - 56 -

5. This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world. Estimates suggest that from twenty million to fifty million Americans routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death.

6. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.

7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.

8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.

9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity."

It would make a useful addition to the article, and would allow for pointing out that whilst socially acceptable and legal drugs such as alcohol and nicotine are in fact toxic, and lead to a great number of deaths each year (with obvious citations to relevent studies), toxicity itself is arguably not the sole justification for prohibition. Something like that any way. I'll work on an actual attempt at an edit and see what you guys make of it. Therealnessy (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

apologies for the formatting issues, not sure how they got there, new to this Therealnessy (talk)
 * Fixed em for ya. (Usually, altering another editor's talk page posts is bad behavior, but I think this time it didn't hurt.) Leading spaces clobber the layout. Also, kindly remember to sign every time. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * thanks and sorry, should I have indented my contribution, or are you saying my contribution is 'bad-behaviour'? I was just trying to add some weight to what Gurlik said. Therealnessy (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem with you responding to Gulik's ancient point. It was my edit to your stuff that could have been seen as bad behavior. Don't worry, be happy. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. But, ancient or not, I think there was a point in there somewhere. I will flesh it out when I have the time, cheers Therealnessy (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Marijuana Legalized
Colorado and Washington have just legalized and regulated cannabis use. http://blog.norml.org/2012/11/07/washington-voters-legalize-marijuana/ delysid 13:00, 07 November 2012 (CDT)

Overly optimistic?
Not to be a downer, but I feel that this page is overly positive. It seems to discount the reality that some people actually get aggressive after smoking. The page also ignores the reality that around 1/3 of people who smoke become agitated, rather than calm, and experience increased anxiety. The page makes it seem that "negative" side effects only occur with heavy, long-term usage when that simply isn't true. I know that the article has a somewhat humorous tone to it but I think that should be added. Thoughts? Ayzmo (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

While I myself am not a fan of pot, I think you should provide your sources. If you can show some study that backs up what you say, then I agree it should be added.ZeroIsLogic (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I can go get the sources from Wikipedia if you want. I just removed part of a sentence saying that it was practically impossible to start a fight while stoned. Though I think the page should be fixed I don't have much desire to do so. Ayzmo (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Get the sources. If they check out, I'll see what I can do to get it added. ZeroIsLogic (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * couldn't an appeal to subjective/individual differences settle this? I mean, not everyone who drinks alcohol gets violent, so alcohol isn't inherently an 'aggressive drug'; in the same way, cannabis isn't inherently a pacifier.Therealnessy (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that doesn't settle it. You need a study on the causative effects to tell what cannabis does and what the extent of it is. Nullahnung (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * well that would be easier if scientific research hadn't been retarded by prohibition, but will try and find something. saying it's 'overly positive' and spouting uncited 'statistics' isnt helpful.  a study which points towards some actual facts/studies might be useful to balance out what seems to be quite a prejudiced articleTherealnessy (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Lack of scientific data
Due to prohibition by retards, scientific studies of the effects of cannabis have been retarded by prohibition. Therealnessy (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the name of the article
While this article still has some ways to go, the summary correctly makes a point differentiating the incorrect derogatory slang term "marijuana" from its latin name "cannabis". However, the actual page remains named "marijuana". I suggest we alter the page title to reflect what we actually underscore in the very same article, and set the term marijuana to simply redirect to cannabis (the actual article remaining the same). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I moved the page to Cannabis sativa Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sweet move! The avenger RW deserves. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not just cannabis? The term sativa isn't used or explained anywhere in the article.   18:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried and failed to do so; as the redirect at Cannabis would have to be deleted first. Cannabis sativa however is the most commonly used plant (a less commonly used species being Cannabis indica) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While I understand that it bugged, I think we should adress that. Sativa, Indica and even Ruderalis (in the autofeminized strains) are actively grown, smoked, and part of the whole thang. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess we'd need an admin to do that, wouldn't we? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually don't know - I guess I'll learn how this all works now, then. But yeah, maybe we could rustle one out of the bushes and attempt to sort of poke it in the right direction with some manner of direction-suggestional prying rod? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This page should be renamed
This page should be "Cannabis" since it's not specifically about Cannabis sativa. Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indica are two closely-related species (or possibly varieties) that interbreed readily. Both species are in commercial use. Bongolian (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Please do so. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree too mister, honest! I'm helping! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I helped too! Alec Sanderson (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Bias much? I agree, however Cannabis sativa is actually Cannabis indica. Cannabis indica is actually Cannabis afghanistanica, or Cannabis kafiristanica. Cannabis sativa is ordinary hemp. Dr T (talk)
 * That's does not agree with the botanical consensus. Bongolian (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)