Talk:Cannabis and time perception

Issues

Some sources have a disease-oriented systemic bias. For example, Atakan et al., 2012 (like many medical sources) treats the use of cannabis to alter time perception as a mental illness, ignoring the fact that the literature shows that creative professionals use psychoactive drugs to purposely alter time perception in order to augment their skills. Furthermore, the use of psychoactive substances throughout human history to alter consciousness is a cultural norm, not a deviant behavior. In western society, the use of caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and prescription drugs is accepted and considered normal. It appears that some authors are misapplying the disease-oriented model of medicine in a selective manner to some drugs while ignoring its cultural use as well as its benefits. Contrary to the claims of some authors, the alteration of human consciousness may be a normal part of everyday living. Viriditas (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wills (1998:273) reports that Perez-Reyes et al., 1991 found that the use of indometacin prevented the alteration of time perception during cannabis usage[1]
- William et al., 2004 report the same with CBD[2]
Wearden et al. (2014) show that cannabis users report that time passes more slowly for them. This was reported higher than any other drug.[3]
The first sentence in this article is directly contradictory with the rest of the article. Either the one reference provided is not itself authoritative or the rest of the evidence presented in this article is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmyfowlkes (talk • contribs) 20:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don’t see the problem you describe. Would you care to quote the material that you find problematic so we can avoid ambiguity? Looking again, I think your problem is with the “inconsistent results” versus the reporting. However, there is a world of difference between the self-reporting of perceptual time distortion and understanding the scientific mechanism. I think that’s where you got confused. Viriditas (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cannabis and time perception. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170429000225/http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C777874%2C00.html to http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C777874%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New links added by a user

A new user added these links:[4]

There’s good information here that can be added to the article, but it needs to be done carefully per our policies and guidelines. Moving here for discussion. Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I’m unable to access the NCBI article due to the link. Perhaps the user would like to check the link and update the correct one. CBD-natural and Leafly aren’t high quality sources reliable enough for this topic, however, the information they contain has links to high quality sources that could be used instead. Viriditas (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]