Talk:Cannabis/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

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))

Lying to Teens about Marijuana does more harm than good.

I think it's wrong for society to lie to teenagers about smoking marijuana. I find it frustrating when I hear ads from places like "Partnership for a Drug Free America" running commercials against Pot that just aren't true. I don't like it when people warn teens about using "Marijuana and Cocaine" when Pot is almost harmless and Cocaine is a dangerous drug. When people lie to teens about Marijuana then teens assume they are lying about other drugs too and I think they are more likely to do drugs they shouldn't do. So I think it's time to come clean and tell the truth. If teens are going to do drugs, they should have truthful and accurate information. So I have decided to tell it like it is. Best decisions are made when the real facts are presented.

For those parents who are reading this in horror, I am not trying to get kids to smoke Pot. What I am doing here is trying to tell them the truth, and tell you the truth about a widely misunderstood substance. This is an opportunity for everyone to have a better understanding of reality. If you can't handle reality, stop reading this web page. There are plenty of other web sites that will tell you what you want to hear. This is not one of them.

How bad is Marijuana Really?

As compared to most drugs, Pot is the least dangerous. Pot is not an addictive drug. For those who claim it is, anything is theoretically addictive, and there are some people who can become addicted to spring water. So to put it in perspective, Pot is less addictive than coffee. I have become addicted to coffee myself and have broken the habit. You get mild headaches for a few days. I have never had any symptoms for withdrawal from Pot.

Pot will cause some short term memory loss. It's harder to remember a 10 digit phone number. Beer causes the same memory loss as Pot. The effect is temporary and wears off completely. Pot has no long term affects on the brain. I have been smoking Pot for the last 25 years and I still test as a genius on IQ tests. My mental abilities have increased over the years.

Pot will give you the Munchies. You may eat more than you would normally. If you are on a diet, you should factor this in when deciding to smoke Pot. It could cause you to gain weight.

Pot is a sexual stimulant. It removes a persons inhibitions. You are more likely to agree to have sex when you are stoned. You are also more likely to not use birth control while stoned. Sometimes people get others stoned to try to get them to have sex when they normally wouldn't. If you are getting stoned with members of the opposite sex, be aware of this and realize that it can have this effect on you. If anyone asks if you smoke Pot, Just say No!

Never drive while doing any drugs or alcohol, or many prescription drugs for that matter. Alcohol causes you to wreck your car. Pot has a much lesser effect on driving than alcohol, but it has some effect. You are more likely to pull out in front of someone or run a red light than lose control of the vehicle. Pot might also cause you to get lost. Don't drive while stoned.

Smoking Pot increases your risk of cancer. But most people smoke very little Pot. If you use Pot moderately you don't have anything to worry about. Moderate means a joint every few days.

Pot will give you dry mouth. Have something to drink when smoking Pot.

The most dangerous thing about Pot is getting caught with it. You can go to jail. People get very weird about Pot and you can get in a lot of trouble over it. So if anyone asks if you've been smoking Pot, Just Say No!

Benefits of Marijuana

Marijuana is the safest of all drugs. It is far safer to smoke a joint than to have a beer. Pot is the drug of choice for people who want to get high, but be responsible in getting high. There are people who do no drugs at all, and that's fine. But for those of you who want to get high and be responsible, Pot is a very good choice.

Marijuana make most people more relaxed. It relieves the clutter and tension after a hard days work or school. It mellows you out and makes you more relaxed. It heightens the imagination and improves creativity. If you have a problem with anger, Pot is usually a good drug to reduce it.

Marijuana has other medical benefits. It helps reduce problems with glaucoma. If you have cancer, it reduces nausea from chemotherapy. I had a close friend who died of cancer. His doctor prescribed Pot even though it wasn't legal. I gave him some and it allowed him to eat food again. This was three weeks before he died. I think the Pot gave him another week of quality life.

Marijuana is also safer, more effective, and has less side effects than many prescription antidepressants. Shortly after my divorce when I learned that I got a judgement for more that 100% of everything I owned, my doctor put me on Pamalor, a common antidepressant. Pamalor turned me into a zombie and made me practically impotent. I merely existed and felt nothing, had no motivation, couldn't accomplish anything, and became basically useless. After two weeks of that I got off it. Getting stoned and laid a couple time a week had a much better result. I was alert, motivated, effective, sharp, got better sleep, happy, and alive. Not all antidepressants have this same effect. However, these drugs are overperscribed and in many cases I think that an occasional joint is a better alternative to antidepressant drugs.

Marijuana is especially good for those with high stress lifestyles. The brain has a tendency to lock on to a problem and your mind gets into a mental loop where you can't stop thinking about work or some other problem. Pot can help you break the cycle and see the problem from a different perspective, or allow your mind to move on and rest allowing you to enjoy life so that you can recover and have a fresh perspective for the next day.

Marijuana can make you Smarter

Marijuana enhances certain mental abilities. Although it cuts into short term memory, it reallocates mental resources allowing you to become more imaginative and to come up with new solutions to problems that you wouldn't normally think of when you're not stoned. Much of my creative writing starts from things I though of while smoking Pot. For example, my web page on Teen Cigarette Smoking is a very effective web page that has resulted in thousands of kids decided to not smoke cigarettes. I wrote most of it while I was stoned. And I came up with the concepts as to why it would work as a result of smoking Pot. My smoking Pot has resulted in a decrease in teem smoking. When used correctly and responsibly, Pot can actually increase your ability to find new and innovative solutions to problems.

There are hundreds of web sites targeted at discouraging kids from smoking cigarettes and they all have the same message, "Smoking causes Cancer and will kill you." There's nothing wrong with that message and I'm sure that it reaches a lot of teens. However, a huge number of teens still smoke and it's not because they haven't got the cancer message. Traditional thinking results in repeating the message more times. The idea being is that if these kids actually understood the health issue, they would quit smoking. This kind of reasoning is an example of what is known as "thinking inside the box".

Marijuana helps you think "outside the box". This concept of thinking "out of the box" is an ability sought after by corporations who want to hire people with new an innovative ideas and actually invent a better mousetrap. However, by having drug testing policies the corporations are actually excluding the very people who they seek to hire. I believe that if some of these corporate policy makers were to smoke some Pot themselves, they would realize that Pot, when used responsibly, actually enhances a persons ability to make strategic decisions.

Going back to my anti-smoking page and thinking outside the box, I want to now describe the mental processes behind developing this web page while smoking Pot. While I was stoned I wondered why anyone would want to start smoking cigarettes. Although cancer and addiction were reason enough for me to not smoke, obviously there were a lot of people who are not like me. If everyone thought like I do, no one would smoke. I considered the idea that perhaps there were people who didn't know about cancer and addiction and quickly dismissed that. It seem pretty obvious that everyone has got that message. Therefore, I reasoned that to continue to repeat the same argument isn't going to gain ground among those who have already rejected it. It was logical that in order to gain ground, I needed to come up with other reasons to not smoke than those that everyone already knows.

People who think "in the box" would conclude that cancer and death are the strongest arguments and that if that doesn't work then other issues wouldn't be important. But what these in the box thinkers don't realize is that they are coloring things from their perspective. They are for the most part non-smokers who have bought the cancer and death argument and wrongly assumes that everyone else thinks like they do. But smokers see things differently. Most smokers don't even know why they started smoking because they can't remember a rational process that caused them to decide to start to smoke. That's because most people smoke because of instinctive forces which are more powerful in humans than we would like to admit. People are herd animals, and the instinct to be part of the herd is more powerful than reasoning. And those who advertise tobacco product know this all too well.

My approach on my anti-smoking web page was to address the social and lifestyle issues involved in smoking. To expose how the tobacco companies are manipulating your mind and taking advantage of you. My web page creates mental defenses in the mind of the reader so that in the future when the reader is being seduced by tobacco, that their brains are programmed to recognize the seduction and to branch to a mental process that causes outrage that they are being manipulated and results in them not deciding to smoke. In addition, I made strong argument about the smokers lifestyle that add many new strong arguments as to why to not smoke in addition to cancer and death. The problem with cancer and death is that those are long term arguments and many young people don't respond to it. My additional arguments are short term effects that will start immediately and are more relevant to young people.

Am I saying that my web page is better than the addiction, cancer, and death web pages? No. I think those reach most people. But my Pot inspired web page reaches a significant number of additional teens that the cancer and death pages don't reach. My point in this and I hope you as the reader have understood it, is that Pot inspires this kind of analytical thinking that results in being able to think outside the box and to come up with new approaches to problem solving that compliment traditional solutions. I hope that I have made it clear by example that Pot, when used correctly and responsibly, has a mind enhancing effect. But I want to stress to all you read this that any drug, legal or not, prescription or not, from coffee to LSD, should only be used correctly and responsibly.

Marijuana can make you Dumber

Pot affects everyone differently. Just because Pot has some beneficial effects on me doesn't mean that it will do the same for you. Everyone is different and drugs affect different people in different ways. Obviously, if you have tried Marijuana and it had a bad effect on you, don't continue to use it.

Marijuana use has been associated with turning teens into mental zombies who lose all motivation. They claim that it makes it so that all you want to do is lay around and get high, that you will become like Cheech 'n Chong. There is a real correlation with lazy dopers and Pot but I'm not sure if the Pot makes you a lazy doper or if you are a lazy doper type first and are therefore attracted to Pot. Some people experience fear and paranoia while high on Pot. Some people get headaches. Marijuana does compromise certain mental abilities on a short term basis. You don't want to smoke a joint before taking a test. Therefore, if Pot is messing up your life, or you don't have the self control to use it moderately and appropriately, don't use Pot.

Drug Abuse is a Bad Idea

Marijuana is a drug to be used, not abused. Just because Pot isn't addictive doesn't mean that you should get stoned every day. It doesn't mean that it's totally safe. It doesn't mean that you should go out and start smoking Pot. And just because it makes me more mentally effective under some circumstances doesn't mean that it's going to have the same effect on you. There are a lot of people who experiences the opposite effect and if your one of those, Pot isn't for you. Pot affects different people in different ways and if Pot is having a detrimental effect on you, you should not smoke it.

Drugs of all kinds have varying degrees of danger. You have to be mature and responsible when experimenting with any drug. You should never do a drug that you don't know what the effects are. And drugs should be used in moderation and under the right circumstances. You should never do any drug while driving a car, especially alcohol. If you are a teenager, one beer can make you wreck your car.

Many drugs out there are highly addictive. The most addictive drug that kills more people than any other drug is Tobacco. This drug is to be avoided at all costs. The addiction to Tobacco is much harder to break if you get hooked at a young age. Besides cancer and death, Tobacco will totally change your lifestyle. Your whole life will revolve around scheduling when and where you'll be able to smoke next.

LSD is not an addictive drug but it is very mind altering. It can be viewed as having similar characteristics as Pot by much more powerful. Mushrooms, Mescaline, and Peyote are also in the non-addictive psychedelic class of drugs. They are similar to the neurotransmitters in the brain and are more mind altering than any other drug. The experience can have a profound effect on you and should be used only with extreme caution. Once you become addicted, you can't just quit. You become a slave to the drug. Your life revolves around getting it. This includes cigarettes.

Cocaine and Crack are extremely addictive. So is Methamphedamine. These drugs are very dangerous in that they are stimulants and require larger doses to produce the same effects. Heroine and Morphine are opiates and are also very addictive. Valium and Alcohol are depressants and are also addictive. Addiction to depressants take a lot longer that addiction to stimulants and opiates. Cocaine and Heroine can hook you from the first dose. Even coffee is addictive. I've had to break that habit a few times myself.

I personally avoid all addictive drugs except Alcohol. I like to drink some Beer and Wine, but I don't like to get drunk. Other people have a different reaction to Alcohol than I do and enjoy getting drunk. Those who enjoy it are more likely to become alcoholic than those who don't. Addiction makes you a slave to the drug and controls your life. I never met an addict that was glad they got addicted. If the people who are hooked wish they weren't, what would you want to start?

Teens usually have a stronger tendency to follow the crowd than adults do. You may find yourself in a situation where everyone else is doing a drug that you don't want to do. You find yourself tempted because you don't want to go to the trouble to not go along. What you may not realize is that it's kool to say that you just don't want to do whatever everyone else is doing, and not make a big deal out of it. Usually the others will just say OK and it's no big deal. In other words, you really can "Just say No." If you don't want to do a drug, don't do it. If someone gets pushy about it, tell them to fuck off!

It's your Life! Be Responsible!

Most people will bullshit you about the truth about drugs. I have been honest about it here. In fact I'm being honest at great personal risk because there are a lot of people out there who would persecute me personally for saying the things I'm saying here. But what I'm saying is the truth and I'm standing by it. I'm sure that the government, particularly the moralists would like to classify this page as "harmful to minors" under their new censorship laws, would like to see me shut down and probably jailed. This page not harmful to minors, it's helpful to minors. Telling minors lies about drugs is harmful to minors.

What I want to make clear to you who read this is that people make choices in their lives that affect who they are and who they will become. If you make the right choices you are more likely to have a better life than if you make the wrong choices. Although you can make all the right choices and still be killed in a car accident because someone else ran a red light. But if you are smart about what you do then the odds are in your favor. The most important thing a Teenager needs to learn is how to say NO and mean it.

These choices are yours alone and it's your responsibility to make good choices and make your life meaningful. You may have had a hard beginning and you may have to work hard climbing up the ladder of life to become successful. But ultimately you become who you decide to become and you can choose to be better than what you are raised to be. The choices you make are ultimately yours and you have to be responsible and take your choices seriously. If you smoke cigarettes, you will become a smoker. If you get pregnant, you will become a parent. If you get hooked on Meth, you will become a drug addict. It's your choice and if you choose to fuck up your life, it's your fault. But if you want to become great then you can be great, even if you come from unfortunate conditions. And the difference between those who become great and those who don't is that great people take control of their lives, take responsibility for their decisions, and through pure force of will, looking into the future, and through self discipline, lift themselves up and achieve greatness. And every one of you who read this can do the same thing. It's your life. If you screw it up, you've screwed it up. It's your fault.

There was this kid born to a single mother. His father died in a car accident a few months before he was born. The lived in a trailer in a small hick town in the south. His mother went to nursing school and left him to his grandmother for a few years. Then his mother married a drunk and had another kid. The father would often get drunk and get violent. The younger brother grew up and became a Cocaine addict. But this kid decided that he was going to rise above his upbringing as a poor southern white trash stepson of a drunk and make something of himself. He worked hard and got good grades in school and in 1962 his class went on a trip to Washington where he shook hands with President Kennedy. At that moment that poor kid from Arkansas decided that some day he was going to be President of the United States, and he went out and did it. If this kid could become President, surely you can decide to grow up and not get hooked on drugs. It's your life, and you can be what you want to be.

Why Marijuana should be Legal

Legalizing Marijuana would be a benefit to society. We as a nation would be improved by it. There are several reasons I make this claim. Although Pot has it's problems, it's benefits for outweigh it's consequences.

If Pot were legal, many people would switch from alcohol to Pot. I think that a lot of Alcohol abuse come from the fact that it is the only legal drug and therefore is overused. Alcohol is highly addictive, physically and psychologically destructive, and is a severe drag on society. I think that if Pot were legal that many people would switch to Pot and be much better off. I think one side effect of legalizing Pot would be a major reduction in the abuse of Alcohol and that the number of traffic deaths would drop dramatically. The only reason Pot isn't legal is because there are a lot of people making money because it's not legal.

Another reason is to save the huge cost in tax dollars wasted in prohibiting Pot and enforcing drug laws that have no benefit to society. If Pot were legal you immediately eliminate the illegal Pot market and get rid of crime associated with Pot money. You could also release from jail all those convicted from Pot related offenses and cut the costs of having to build new prisons to incarcerate normal people. Because of mandatory drug sentencing laws, many states have to release violent offenders to make room for Pot smokers. That's stupid!

Pot has many other uses. Before the lumber industry lobbied Congress to make Pot illegal, Marijuana (known as Hemp) was the primary source of fiber for the production of paper. The United States Constitution is printed on Pot. With today's technologies this fiber can be processed into construction materials that would replace wood products saving our forests and lowering the costs of construction while producing byproducts useful in making fuels to run cars and generate electricity. Hemp is a very hearty plant and would be a good cash crop for our nation's farmers.

Who opposes legalizing Marijuana and why

There are many types of people who oppose legalizing Marijuana for a variety of reasons. Many of these groups have some very strange reasons and selfish interests. Many are just ignorant of the facts. Here's some of the opposition:

The Uninformed - People who believe the misinformation that Pot is harmful to society.

The Government - Pot has been illegal for so long that no politicians have the political courage to tell the truth about Pot. The ones that do tell the truth are defeated by their opponents that paint them as a druggie. Many of these anti-drug politicians are funded by the Alcohol lobby.

Religion - Anything fun is sin and of the Devil. Churches might lose members as people figure out that God can't be that stupid.

Moralizers - The morally superior who enjoy looking down their noses at the less fortunate and get a sadistic thrill in putting people in jail.

People who do no Drugs - These people who don't drink, don't smoke, in some cases don't even drink coffee. They just don't understand why anyone would want to smoke anything or do any drug. From their perspective the world would be better off if no one did anything.

The Alcohol Lobby - Legalizing Pot would seriously cut into the sales of Beer. Pot would become the recreational drug of choice because it is safer than Beer.

The Tobacco Lobby - Pot has the ability in some people to help them break the addiction of nicotine. Pot smoking could actually reduce the number of tobacco addicts.

Law Enforcement - There are a lot of people who make a living fighting Pot who would have to go get a real job if Pot were legalized. Police departments get a lot of funding to fight Marijuana and those funds could be returned to the taxpayer if Pot were made legal. Cops would have to chase robbers, rapists, and murderers.

Government Agencies - Using unconstitutional civil forfeiture laws the government has been able to use the presence of Pot to steal billions of dollars of private property from the People. Drug laws have been an excuse to circumvent our constitutional right and justify wire tap laws, the erosion of protection from illegal searches, key recovery encryption, and domestic spying. If you take a politically unpopular position like this one I'm taking now, the government can plant drugs on you and put you away.

Pot Dealers - If Pot were legalized then people making money off of selling Pot illegally would be out of business. Pot prices would drop to $10 a bale. Crime relating to illegal Pot money would vanish.

Wood Industry - Hemp would become the primary source of fiber for paper products as well as a new source for building materials. We wouldn't have to cut down every big tree in the world.

Private Prisons - If Pot were legalized the private prison industry would be hurt. They would no longer jail Pot smokers. It could free up space for violent criminals.

Trial Lawyers - Normal people caught with a joint spend billions each year on lawyers to get them off of criminal charges after getting caught with a joint. Lawyers get rich off of the Marijuana laws. If Marijuana were legal this money could be spent sending your kids to college.

Mental Hospitals - There's a big industry treating people for problems they don't have. If you have insurance, you're crazy until the insurance coverage runs out. If you smoke Pot then you have mental problems. If Pot were legal some of these people would have to get real jobs. We should start treating people who are addicted to 12 step programs.

Republicans - Pot helps you see reality the way it really is. It's harder to con a Pot smoker on political issues. Once you get stoned it's harder to want to hate Liberals, Queers, Blacks, Pregnant Teens, Draft Dodgers, President Clinton, Feminists, Lesbians, Pot Smokers, and other people the Republicans want you to hate. When you're stoned it's harder to like Newt Gingrich, John Ashcroft, the KKK, the Christian Coalition, Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan, Reverend Sun Myung Moon, People who beat Gay's to Death, People who blow up Abortion Clinics, and the morally superior in general.

Political Cowards - Politicians like to pose with police as somebody who is "against drugs" promising to lock up all the pot smokers and throw away the key. These people need an artificial issue to be against so they don't have to face real issues like how to protect the public from crooked lawyers and crooked judges. Political cowards cross all party lines when it comes to pot and includes President Clinton.

Others - These groups could also be hurt by legalizing Pot. Car body shops would get less alcohol related wrecks to fix. Hospitals would get less alcohol related business as would alcohol treatment centers and funeral homes. It could hurt cemeteries and tombstone makers as well.

Important People for Legalizing Marijuana

There have been several people who have come out in favor of legalizing marijuana in the last year or so. These people have shown courage in the face of this artificial drug hysteria.

Governor Jesse Ventura of Minnesota - Governor Ventura, the first governor elected by the Reform Party, is the famous ex-wrestler/Navy Seal who is known for telling it like it is.

Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico - The Republican governor has come out in favor of legalizing pot. This is an especially brave move for a Republican as the Republican Party has been especially abusive of Marijuana users.

Hugh Downs - ABC News 20/20 co-anchor and respected journalist for more than 60 years retired. On his last show he was asked if he had any opinions of his own that he'd like to express. He responded the marijuana should be legalized.

Oppressing Pot Smokers is the Real Crime

The time has come where We the People have to stand up to the government and tell them that we are no longer going to put up with the jailing and oppression of pot smokers and this artificial war on drugs. They teach you that there are three branches of government by in fact there are four branches. The fourth branch of government is the people. The time has come for reasonable people to rise up against the government and to force them to justify the reason for oppressing pot smokers and drug addicts. People in America have been to complacent for to long and the time has come to stand up and get in their faces and demand satisfaction.

Myths about Marijuana

The most common myth is that "Marijuana Leads to Harder Drugs." Critics say the medical marijuana movement promotes drug abuse and criminal behavior by ushering young people into what one judge has called "the kindergarten of the drug industry". They call Pot the "gateway drug" and say that once you do Pot that you will need to move on to harder drugs like LSD, Heroine, and Cocaine to get the same "thrill". Sounds good, but it just isn't so. Marijuana does not lead to harder drugs!

Actually, if there is anything that's a gateway drug, it's nicotine. Tobacco is the first drug that kids use. It's illegal for kids and, unlike Pot, it's addictive. Once a kid is hooked on nicotine they have joined the ranks of drug addicts. As an addict already it's easier for them to move on to other addictive drugs like Alcohol, Cocaine, Crack, Meth, and Heroine.

Marijuana on the other hand is the choice of the responsible drug user. A person who wants to get high on something that isn't addictive and doesn't have any long term health effects for the moderate user would likely choose to smoke Pot. This is the drug of choice for those who don't want to be on the path of drug addiction.

Another common myth is, "there is no official proof to back the contention that marijuana can help ease symptoms of AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis and other serious diseases." But the reason there is no proof is that the government is actively avoiding the funding of medical research into medical uses of Marijuana because they are afraid that they will indeed discover what doctors already know and it would undermine the laws criminalizing Marijuana and lead to legalization. If you want to read something amusing, read the study from National Institute of Health. Here's pages and pages documenting the results of doing nothing to research the medical benefits of smoking Pot. I've never seen such a long paper documenting what the government hasn't investigated or tested. If the government weren't afraid of legalizing Pot they would test it. The fact that the government won't do medical tests on Pot proves that they don't want to know the truth.

What's more outrageous is the claims that the government makes about Marijuana when they refuse to make any medical or scientific tests. They claim that smoked Marijuana damages the brain, heart, lungs and immune system, but they don't know that. There have been some tests done indicating that Marijuana can cause lung cancer, even more so than cigarettes. But those test don't take into account that the usage isn't 100th as much as cigarette smokers. If the government wants to make medical claims about Pot they should test it and look at the scientific data. I challenge the government to do the research and then we'll talk about reality.

Twisting Logic

I find it amazing how the anti-pot organizations twist logic to try to justify their positions that pot is a dangerous drug. And these people wonder why teenagers don't take their message seriously. Teens just aren't that stupid. And when you try to pull stupid logic tricks on teens they resent it and ignore you. If they are going to accuse us of being brain damaged, the sure aren't setting a very good example of what "normal" is supposed to be. Here some examples of tortured logic: "90% of drug addicts smoked Marijuana first. Therefore, smoking Marijuana leads to harder drugs."

Wow! This is really brilliant. Based on that reasoning, 99% of drug addicts attended church before becoming a drug addict. Therefore going to church leads to harder drugs. What else did over 90% of drug addicts do first? Over 90% of drug addicts smoked a cigarette, most still do. They drank alcohol, most still do. How about watched television, voted for a Democrat, had a pet, had sex, owned a bicycle, chewed gum, participated in sports, celebrated Halloween, had a religious experience, took something that didn't belong to them, voted for a Republican, told a lie, wondered if they might be homosexual, or ate too much white sugar. Using the same reasoning, all these activities must also lead to harder drugs.

"There are over 400 chemicals in the marijuana plant."

There are over 400 chemicals in every plant. There are over 700 chemicals added to American cigarettes.

"When a user begins to feel that he or she needs to take the drug to feel well, that person is said to be dependent or addicted to the drug.

I suppose I'm addicted to aspirin. When I get a headache, I need aspirin to feel well. Everything that feels good is addictive and there's a 12 step program out there for every one of them. And if you don't believe it, you're in DENIAL! Since they know that Pot isn't addictive, they try to redefine the word "addiction" and try to make Pot fit the new definition. The fact that the need to twist the definition indicates that they know that Pot doesn't fit the traditional definition of addiction.

Drug addiction occurs when the drug affects the body in a way that causes the body to become dependent on the drug and causes a negative reaction when the drug is removed. Marijuana, LSD, and magic mushrooms are examples of non-addictive drugs. Cocaine, Heroine, Methamphedamine, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Caffeine are examples of addictive drugs. Telling lies about what drugs are addictive is not going to help solve the drug problem.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

There was an article that was a list of strains. That article went through AfD with a Merge decision. Such decisions are reversible (in my opinion, a merge decision is Keep with advice to merge). It would seem to me that there is enough information on strains of cannabis sativa (or are there any other drug species?) to warrant an article on strains, which would include a list and information about each notable strain. It's possible that short stubs on strains could be merged to this.

The problem is meeting reliable source guidelines. What would be considered a "reliable source" for the purpose of verification and determining the notability of a strain or of a name in use? There are a few magazines which have been published, and perhaps someone has copies or can get access to them; so far, I haven't found on-line archives of those magazines, in general, though I did get the latest issue of one. Any published magazine with an editorial process should qualify, in general. There are also drug information web sites, and at least one, http://stopthedrugwar.org, has a clear editorial staff, [3]. I'd say that this could qualify as a source; anything controversial from the web site should be attributed, as they are an advocacy organization. They operate a library of drug information, http://www.druglibrary.org/, which I'd likewise consider, absent further evidence, a reasonably reliable source, again with the consideration about possible bias. Other possible sources of information as to, at least, the existence of strains, could be the web sites of companies that sell seeds. Again, caution would be in order. --Abd (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Various strains of Cannabis" section is totally biased toward listing only drug strains. It should be moved to the Cannabis (drug) page, where it belongs. GeorgeLTirebiter (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm from Seattle and that I have experienced the G-13 on a number of different levels. The guy who described it in the earlier discussion if it was real was very wrong about the appearance of the buds. They are very easy to tell, bright green, almost fluorescent, not very dense almost haze like, and it was very white due to the buildup of crystals on the buds themselves. I had a friend who had gotten a plant from the Univ. of WA that they threw out, he recovered it and nursed it back to health and was able to clone it. I wouldn't say that it's 28% THC that is a urban legend, but it is definately one of the most potent strains out there. I can tell if it's the G-13 or not, it has a piny smell with a sweet finish. If you wanna know the real truth and future of marijuana production check out the Jack Herer strain, it really does exist too, you just to have some friends who know Jack.

I just wrote an article about the Green Crack strain. Can someone post it on the main page please?Cannababy

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thats why it's called weed. Cause it is/was seen as a weed by farmers and stuff. 78.32.234.209 (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Insect pests?

Mention if there are any insects etc. that attack the plant. Mention if there are any pesticides needed. Jidanni (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I'm fairly certain that japanese beatles have a keen fondness for the leaves of cannabis plants. I agree with this guy. Could anyone add this in? Metalhead 1994.

Spider Mites ?

Yes, I can give anecdotal evidence to attest to that.--Metalhead94 (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Gallery of images

Is it just me, or do all the pictures in the gallery look redundantly similar? 75.61.107.67 (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea the hemp photos look all the same. A few should probably be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalhead1994 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The cultivation and possession of Cannabis for recreational use is outlawed in most countries.

Is it too much to ask why Cannabis is outlawed in most countries and to very briefly explain this in the lead? Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you may add in their excuse for outlawing it as long as it is presented in a non-biased fashion, just be aware that it's legal status obviously has no bearing on its health effects.--Metalhead94 (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

U.S. founding fathers who cultivated cannabis

This section seems POVish, or at least of only tangential relevance. So these guys grew cannabis. So what? And must there be huge portraits of each of them? 75.87.109.190 (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Its also in conflict with global perspective; whats relevant with the US. founding fathers cultivating a crop common at the time? For me, being European, thats seems totally irrelevant. Steinberger (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The link to the Finnish wikipedia needs to be changed.

The link to the finnish wikipedia points to http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kannabis when in my opinion it would be better if it linked to an article that actually discusses the same thing without the drug aspect of the plant. the link to the article that should replace the existing link is: http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamppu Henkka 13:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

broken link

The "More Reading" link to "EMCDDA drugs profile: Cannabis (2007)" is a broken link that comes up as "The Page you requested: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/index.cfm?nnodeid=25484 , does not exist on this server," when you try and click on it. I recommend just deleting the link altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.141.116 (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have actually had G-13.. looked the same as the sub picture. Got it from the northwest aswell--BUDMAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.197.53 (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Warring Articles

We seem to have warring articles here (subterraneously reflecting the controversial nature of the topic?), for instance: Indian hemp, marijuana...--Jack Upland (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictures removed

I removed the pictures provided by User:Coaster420 because of the unreferenced nature. The Green Crack article is referenced only to blogs, and the picture of it isn't referenced to anything in this article. Try finding journal articles, newspaper articles, all sorts of other sources, before you add the pictures and the articles. Your own blogs won't do. If you need help, other editors will be glad to help you with searches, letting you know what type of references qualify (the usual, you can't use blogs to reference an article on a 7th grade essay, they don't work here either). --KP Botany (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Why Is there so much Talk over an article that isnt here?

Why Is there so much Talk over an article that isnt here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.24.219 (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This question should probably be on the page of the article that isn't here rather than on the talk page of this article. --KP Botany (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Error in taxonomy

I noticed an error in this document. At the end of the "Ongoing Research" paragraph, the final line says that most taxonomy websites classify cannabis as a single species, but then all of the sources in fact classify it as three seperate ones. This should be changed. 131.104.241.101 (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not true. One of those references (ITIS Report) only acknowledges the species C. sativa. Another (M.M.P.N.D.) regards C. indica and C. ruderalis as "approved synonyms" of the (presumed) single species, C. sativa. A number of websites (such as these) have not been updated for several years, and do not incorporate the most recent taxonomic investigation of Cannabis. There is no consensus among taxonomists with regard to the number of species, despite what some people say. GeorgeLTirebiter (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Origin preferably more specific

Cannabis originated from Kashmir, through Nepal, and Bhutan to Burma.

Other books also mention the Himalayas region. Most if not all agree that it originated from the far north of Kashmir that connects to China and was discovered by the Chinese.

Can somebody with the privilege's add this information to this page in some context to be more specific on it's origin.

More facts that seem missing will keep on coming Thank you. --BhainsRajput (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that only pot smokers support legalization

I would like an additional bit of info to be added to this page regarding the well-known fact that the only people who believe marijuana should be legalized are users of the stuff. Please let me know if this would be a problem and why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuggandsugg (talk • contribs) 01:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Where did you find that information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.1.61 (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have to find it. All non-smokers of marijuana are against legalization because they know it would destroy our society. Fuggandsugg (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats just your opinion. Dont try and claim thats its correct. Because its not. Pyro Stick ^{Haud Yer Wheesht!} 21:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)