Talk:Hashish/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Hashish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Opening comments

A far better and more informative page can be found at : www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/hash010.htm

All this ridiculous talk of 'soft' vs. 'hard' hash. Don't you guys realise that quality is not actually proportional to its 'softness', and the area where the hash originates neither dictates (absolutely) the quality, colour nor consistency. There are general guidelines for this, but it's not absolute. There are certainly more types of hash than 'soft', 'hard', and 'kiff' (which is almost always unavailable in its true form outside of Morrocco) - it's like saying there are two types of beer: lager and ale or blonde and bock (which would be a massive injustice to beer). And some kinds of soap are closer to pollen than others (which is hardly surprising considering that the base ingredients come from the same place) - this article is one of the worst I have seen on wikipedia yet. And my comments suggesting alterations were deleted previously.

It is not certain that the Hashishiyin were named after the hashish they smoked(although it certainly is very likely). See the Wiki for "assasin" for more information.

Black hash, which is generally produced in Nepal, Afghanistan, and India, generally produces a more relaxing, mellow effect. Blonde hash, often from Morocco and the Netherlands, tends to produce more active and cerebral highs.

"Wonderful Country" eh? Heh. That's not NPOV, but i love it. ^_^

...THC is THC. This sounds like stoner lore. -- 24.57.37.145 17:38, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

......Not so... just like indica and sativa can produce different types of highs, hash made in different areas probably could as well...

No probably about here, SqueakBox 14:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

- chaged assertation that soap bar is called so because it is cut with soap. sorry, no. its the far more simple explanation that it comes in soap shaped blocks :)

--Edzillion 14:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

THC is THC, however, cannabis contains a number of psychoactive constituents. While THC is the most plentiful and undoubtedly most active, it is not at all the only factor in determining the experienced effects. The ratio of cannabinoids is affected both by genetics and by variations in the growing, harvesting, and processing of the cannabis. These variations translate into variations in the effects.

Exerpted from the Cannabis article:

"More scientific study is necessary to gain a complete understanding of the cannabinoid system. We do know that high relative concentrations of these chemicals significantly modifies the effects of the plant. THC is associated with an energetic, cerebral high, while CBD is associated with a relaxed, more drowsy high. CBN is not fully understood at this point, but high concentrations usually have hallucinogenic effects."

However, it is my understanding that landrace cannabis is more or less a thing of the past, and that the region specific information is no longer acurate (if it ever was, I don't know), and should probably be re-written.

Opening paragraph

Have removed non NPOV and unsourced material from the first paragraph. Where is the source for hashish being mildly physically addictive? Squiquifox 19:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Have put back the information you removed. This is the only place that mentions the effects of hash, and it seems important to me. Why would it not be NPOV? --Fred chessplayer 02:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me to be verging on gibberish, and with the POV that hash gives great ideas that cannot be grounded in reality. It may not give great ideas, and if it does they may be put into reality. Can you source what you have written? I will leave up to mind-altering affects, and delete the rest, which may be your POV but that doesn't make it true. Mellow is doper slang so I changed it to relax.--SqueakBox 21:58, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

- - Hey guys. I was expecting to be able to see links about all the different types of hash around the world - you know, lebanese, moroccan, nepalese, etc etc. They are all produced differently, have different chemical constituents, taste and smell differently, often have different effects, different prices, are available in different places, and vary widely between place of produce, and even between different regions. Instead I find a bit about Kiff, something that is admittedly interesting in cannabis terms, and then 'hard' and 'soft' hash. Well sorry, but hard and soft doesn't mean a thing - its just a description of its maleability (not even its consistency - which is usually a better way to check quality) and doesn't denote a country or region of origin, or anything else for that matter.

For example, Turkish hash is always extremely brittle, but is extremely high quality in some cases. Its very hard to come by incidentally. In a similar manner, much of the 'red seal' soft black hash that used to find its way onto the market in the UK was extremely low quality and came from pakistan (sometimes india - softened up with coconut and palm oils amongst others); yet similar consistency Charas (especially if it is dark green in a tube shape - usually not found outside of the region of produce in India) is some of the best hash in the world. Another example, Morocco produces something like 80% of Europes cannabis, and some of this stuff is very high quality; Kiff is extremely unlikely to be exported outside of Morocco due to its bulk, yet can sometimes be obtained from travellers, etc. Yet Morocco also contributes to the production of Soap Bar (which is a bit of a joke in Morocco) and is often a mix of the lowest grade to export to Spain (from the farms that also produce ZeroZero), and then remixed with henna and other adultarults to be sold to the domestic Spanish and other European markets by professional criminals.

So OK, I've ranted on now, but compared to some of the other pages on Wikipedia this page is shit. Its not about whether its pro-drugs or not (e.g. on the wine page people talk about celebrated types, and bouquets); cannabis is an aquired taste and should be treated in the same way as a good wine or beer or car. We should have a page that reflects this and gives proper information about this on wikipedia. At a recent cannabis fair I went to I noticed that one company is now providing in-depth chemical analysis kits for cannabis that can detect different levels of THC, CBD, CBN etc etc, and I'm sure there are sites up on the net (there were even 5 years ago) that give information about trends in the chemical constituencies of hash from different regions, etc. There is one page on the following site that can be ripped (you have my permission, but don't email cos I don't collect them any more) and bits/sections pulled and used on wikipedia - http://www.pcworks.demon.co.uk, enter the site, and follow the links to "types of hash and weed"; I can't at present remove the annoying 'back to entrance' protection I added to the page some 4 or 5 years ago)... So, sorry to slag this page off, and doubly sorry to not have the time to do something about it). Take it easy, ZeroZero. ***

Sentence proposal

I request to have the sentence "Hash gives the user many great ideas which unfortunately can not be realized because of the limits of the physical universe" reinserted. Even if you don't agree, doesn't mean it is untrue. --Fred chessplayer 05:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think chessplayer should source his claims before coming here with his proposal, as I asked him to already. Where does it state that hashish gives great ideas? Preferably quotes that aren't just user anecdotes. Where does it state these ideas cannot be realised because of the limits of the physical universe? What exactly does chessplayer mean by this statement. There are serious problems with the limits of the physical universe bit. What does he mean by limitations of the physical universe? Can he prove that hashish smokers have ideas that are inherently impossible due to the physical nature of the universe? as he claims. Can he give an example of one. Is he sure Hash smokers fail to get there dreams together because of the nature of the universe or are there other reasons. Like laziness? Or poverty? Can he prove his claim that hashish users cannot realise there dreams? No. He cannot prove they don't realise their dreams, let alone that they can't. When he explains what he means by the limits of the physical universe he may be able to compose a better sentence. Until then he should leave things be. we are not here to debate the truth, and even less what chessplayer thinks is the truth. We are here to write a factual and balanced encyclopedia article about hashish. I strongly do not want some speculative, vague and unsourced statement in this article..--SqueakBox 20:31, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think you should know that wikipedia is also a space for explaining common believes. This means writing what a large group of people believe, feel or think hash is or does. If people smoke hash because they feel it gives them great ideas, this should be mentioned. And if it is hold in belief (as I've heard expressed by former hash smokers) that the only good idea hash gives actually is to light another pipe, this is of enough interest to mention.

And concerning Limits of the physical universe, it is a very fine poetical phrase. :)

If it is common in some places that people inhale hash smoke on heated blades, this should be mentioned. Do you know that this does not occur?

Furthermore, if many people belive something concerning the addictivity, this should be mentioned. Sure hashish may not be physically addictive -- after looking several hours on the net, the only source I could find that could give vague support for this was the quote below. But since people are likely curious about this, it should be mentioned.

So these are my reasons for why the material you have removed should infact be reinserted. --Fred chessplayer 10:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am sure people do smoke it with hot knives, and I have re placed that in, but after the pipes and joints bit. The lack of the word joints was glaring. The sentence looked as if people only smoke hashish in pipes and hot knives (as they are called in the UK).

I strongly question your statement that a lot of people believe that hashish (a) gives great ideas, and (b) those ideas are then unachievable. I agree about the statement being very poetic, but an encyclopedia is not the place for that (at least when we are not dealing with poets. I would like you to source that at least a substantial minority of people believe your statement (doper anecdotes will do, but not just people you know; ie something I can read) I too have known lots of hash smokers, in the UK, and none of them believed what you say. I think there is strong evidence that hashish is not physically addictive. Having been physically addicted to a drug (tobacco) I think I can safely say that hashish is not physically addictive, though I am sure it is psychologically addictive. Even the much more psychologically addictive cocaine and crack are not considered psychologically. Anyway, please do try to both source your sentence and re-write the sentence here. I appreciate the efforts you are making, and I hope we can find a compromise we both like; I will try and do a little work myself to resolve this. --SqueakBox 15:46, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Have added Many people claim that using it gives them great insights. I much prefer the word insights. part of the problem with your statement is that the insights many claim to get from hash are not not ideas that would either be or not be manifestable in physical reality anyway; e.g. insights into the way things are. --SqueakBox 16:12, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

As you can see by my quietness, I have no objections about how it is now. I have found two printed works in this subject. The books are Baudelair's Artifical Paradise (first printed 1860) and the autobiography of "Mezz" Mezzrow, Really the blues (1950's?). I may edit this post later to check the exact names and dates. They are somewhat older, pre the mescalin and LSD time. My guess is that once those substances became more popular, the use of Hash for getting "insight" (or "mind opening effects") decreased.

It may also be that Hash is still used to get insights in some (juvenile) groups in Europe and USA (and perhaps more so during the 70's) because they are not, like LSD and others drugs, considered heavy drugs. --Fred chessplayer 12:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Abuse & Dependence

Even heavy marijuana users do not become physically dependent; there does not appear to be significant craving associated with marijuana (Kuhn, 1998).

There have been reports of psychological dependence.

The DSM-IV (1994) does include the diagnoses of cannabis abuse and cannabis dependence. Dependence is characterized by compulsive use (generally without physiological dependence); use is continued despite knowledge of physical problems or psychological problems associated with that use. Cannabis abuse refers to difficulties with performance at work or school, legal or marital problems associated with cannabis use.

http://www.toad.net/~arcturus/dd/marijuan.htm Drug Module: Marijuana/Cannabis --Fred chessplayer 21:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic

In the last sentence of the last paragraph in History:
"People there say that the land where hash has been planted will lose all its minerals and can then only be used for hash or wheat."
If the lands will lose its minerals after hash has been planted there, why can it only be used for hash? This sentence makes no sense.
About the process described for making kif and hash, it should be noted that this method is mainly used in industrial manifacturing and that there are several other methods for extracting the trichomes and making hash.
In the Manifacturing chapter:
"This is done using a big knife and a wooden table."
I would describe this as a POV as a wooden table is not a requirement for trimming the plants. Any kind of table should do.

Opiax 15:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article is a mess because it has not been written in wiki style. I have done something to remedy this, --SqueakBox 15:47, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

disambiguation link

I disagree with the edit by Rebrane, who linked cannabis to cannabis sativa, thus bypassing the disambiguation page. Usually, a disambiguation page is meant just for disambiguation, but in this case it is more than that, it is also a clarification of what the plant can be, other than just a source for a drug, and the reference in the text is to the plant. Another solution would be to leave this change as it is and add a link to the disambiguation page. But see also my Proposal to rearrange the Cannabis articles in the talk page of the hemp article (below the line - not a logical place, but it started there). DirkvdM 09:22, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

I noted the removal of some material

I did a check while adding a new image, and noted that on May 6 these two paragraphs were removed by an anonymous user from the bottom of section "manufacturing":

[start]

There are two products that come from kif. First kif is a tiny green powder that is sometimes mixed with tobacco and smoked in Sibsi pipes. After the cannabis is harvested, it is grouped into stacks of 20 to 30 plants and is left to dry for a month in a dry environment, typically an underground room covered with plastic. To make kif, the plants are cleaned of all dirt and only the white little crystals holding at the edge of each leaf are kept using a knife. This cleaning process takes time and requires precision, as the kif crystals are very small.

To make hash, the stacks of kif are placed within two very thin tissues on top of a container. The tissues are hit so that the pollen falls into the container. What falls in is put into a plastic bag and warmed with friction against a jean (most of the time) until the powder becomes solid. It is in this process of hitting that quality of hash is determined. The more the kif is hit, the more pollen falls in the container, the more quantity the producer gets, the less quality the consumer smokes, so the producer decides on how much he wants to get from his stacks. There are different qualities from the same initial stacks. The ZeroZero (or Tbissla as Moroccan call it), the very best quality of hash, is made with one single hit on every stack, so the producer will pass all the stacks, hit once, drop them on the other side, collect the first quality choice, then repeat the process to get the second quality, etc.

[end]

Even if I don't really understand the text, they seem to be notable enough to include.

--Fred-Chess 05:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It should probably go in kief though arguably as it is how-to-do it shouldn't go anywhere, SqueakBox 16:02, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hash picture

Should we use the closeup from http://www.dea.gov/pubs/abuse/7-pot.htm ? Percolator 20:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm good idea, but the page you give have a low quality image. I took the original and cropped it instead. --Fred-Chess 21:29, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

My edits

Here in DK and also in Germany, it's consequently spelled "kiff". The Germans even use it as a verb when referring to smoking cannabis in general. Zum kiffen. The part about hi-quality Morrocan I know from personal experience. At least here in Copenhagen you can find some that's rock hard and more potent than your average, soft black Afghani. (Twisturbed Tachyon 01:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)) Different author - I disagree about Moroccan, and Turkish. The best I had came supposedly from the king of Afghanistan's private garden. ( This was in 1967 -68 ). It had every good pleasant quality and not one bad one. I got busted by the CID in Darmstadt and was told by them that some of what was called hash had chemicals added. I believe that is true because I once had some white Turkish that was like plugging your head into a rampant paranoid machine. The Moroccan was hard gray and the Turkish was light brown. Paki and Afghan were dark brown to black, with Paki green inside and Afghani brown inside. Nepal finger looked similar to Afghani but took you a lot higher, and seemed to be a more clear headed high. The people there use it for butter - reference an article in National Geographics, which might explain some of the spiritual experiences and beliefs of monks in that general area. Indian temple balls were light brown with small white pieces of something in them. I had some from Kashmir also that was red. I had kif from Capetown, South Africa that was high energy and not pleasant. I think the best was from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Never bad, and was gathered the traditional way by walking thru the fields wearing leather aprons. The soil has to be accountable for the quality. I quit after the Army, mainly because weed was different ( too giggly ), and the price was too high. The best I ever heard of was black Dakkar.

Honey oil vs. Hashish

So, what's the relation between Honey oil and Hashish? Sounds like the same thing to me (or is the difference the solvents used in manufacture of Honey Oil?). 71.36.49.118 00:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I had never heard of honey oil. I propose we merge it into hashish, SqueakBox 01:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have merged both Honey Oil and Soap bar, and actually this now looks like a decent article for the first time, SqueakBox 16:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well made honey oil has no solid component. The tricomes on the plant are wax structures holding an oil. Hash contains the wax and the oil. Honey oil is just the oil. I would put this in the article but I know this from original research... <GRIN> --HighInBC 05:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments on sentence?

From first section "There are many who disagree, and this has since been determined to be Anti-Cannabis Propaganda with little or no basis in fact. "

what does "this" refer to? And how can it be Anti-Cannabis Propaganda when it was first mentioned in 1857 by a hashish-smoker?

Fred-Chess 04:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Baudelaire wasn't the first, only the first we cite with confidence in the West. The sentence may be saying that the "many who disagree" might be "Anti-Cannabis Propagandists". The editor seems to suggest that Anti-Cannabis Propaganda should have its own article. I'll be happy to review it when he's done. As for the sentence, it has tone problems more than fact problems. There is a body of people who for cultural and romantic reasons are attached to the idea, and a body of people who for cultural and religious reasons resist the idea. There is more on it at Hashshashin. -SM 04:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Honey oil, while I've only heard the term few times, seems to be a slang term for hashish oil. Hashish is a concentrated, compressed for of nearly pure THC from the cannabis plant, while hashish oil or honey oil is a liquid form of THC that is extract through a solvent. My second guess is that honey oil refers to a type of hashish oil with a specific solevnt to extract the THC, while hashish oil is more broad and general. Nevertheless, hashish and hashish oil are different.--NessTormented 07:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Effects of the drug

There seems to be very little analysis of the mental and physical short- and long-term effects of hash use.... Parudox 20:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That is because it is treated at Health issues and the effects of cannabis, Cannabis (drug) also treats this issue. It does seem that hashish has got out of sync with the other cannabis articles, probablky because it is so rare in the US, and this is still a very US centred project, but all the basic generic cannabis stuff that is equal for marijuana and hashish (which are the same thing like wine and beer are both alcohol), SqueakBox 21:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The effects of hash(without impurities) is identical, but stronger than canabis as far as it's intoxicating effects go. Hash smokers consume less smoke than canabis smokers for the same amount of active ingredient, however hash may contain impurities making the smoke more harmfull. For the purposes of this article the health effects should relate to clean hash, with a small note about the dangers of impure hash. HighInBC 18:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

IS IT ADDICTING?. No mention of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

cleanup tag

the article could really use its tone being tightened up and the colloquialisms removed or defined rigorously (wiktionary, perhaps). it just reads like a conversation with a stoner, rather than an article in an encyclopedia. ... aa:talk 07:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks SqueakBox for removing the cleanup tag requiring a reason why it was added. Avriette: it's just unlikely ever to be fixed if no reason is given on talk page.
I still think the article won't be cleaned up and the tag won't do any help. How should I clean up stoner-jumbo? Perhaps {{attention}} would be a more expedient tag. or {{expert}}. See more tags on Wikipedia:Template messages.
Fred-Chess 11:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
A big problem is the different types of hash have different names in different places, no 'official' source is available to make it more deterministic. Perhaps the names of the types of hash should be limited general terms refering to the content and/or qualities of the hash, with a list of slang terms that can refer to it. Hippy Hash is really just the crystals knocked off the bud, and Soap Bar is just a local slang for hash that has been cut with undesirable material. I am going to do a major rewrite of these sections using more general terms in the next week or so. I also intend to eventually move Honey Oil into a Canabis Oil article. Honey oil is a term used to describe the highest quality of oil and is not used to describe lower quality oils. Also canabis oil is not hash, the key difference is hash contains both the wax crystals and the oil, whereas oil should not contain wax if made properly. That is to say that hash contains the active ingredients of cannabis, but oil is the active ingredients of canabis. HighInBC 18:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have made major changes to the Hippy Hash section, it is now the more general term Kief, please review and comment for me. HighInBC 19:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that the article needs organisation. It is suffering from the effect of too many disparate editors without anyone keeping an overall eye on it so there is no logical order, facts are just spewn about any old how. The clean-up tag is normally used to wikify articles written by people or a person mostly without much experience of the wikipedia. This article clearly doesn't need a clean-up in that sense; but Avriette is right it isn't a good article. Strikes me these kind of articles (sduffering from disorganisation) should be given a different type of tag. I will certainly try to do something but only over the next month or two. BTW there is no article on marijuana which is a redirect to Cannabis (drug). I personally think the solution lies in integrating this article into Cannabis (drug) or having a separate marijuana article, ie some kind of major overhaul effecting more than one article, SqueakBox 16:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This article does need alot of attention, I think rewriting each section with a unified style, and removing dubious facts will take it a long way towards being acceptable. I do not think it should be merged with canabis, as hash is a derivitive of canabis. It would be like merging cheese with milk, or port with wine. The next thing I intend to do is rework the 'soap bar' section to a 'Hash with impurities' section. HighInBC 21:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
It occurs to me that you may have meant integrating 'marijuana' with 'cannabis', the two are one and the same, 'marijuana' is just a spanish term for it(primarily mexican I believe.). HighInBC 21:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up maybe two or three things which were plain colloquial or unreliable. There phrase 'some reports say' etc with no referencing is just clumsy. I'm afraid I don't really know more on the subject to help - apart from the grammar!

Merge Kief here? Request for comments

I noticed the article Kief, does anyone think it should be merged into Hashish and then redirected? I mentioned it on the Kief talk page, but only one person responded, so please check that out to see what response I got. HighInBC 18:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

*Perhaps another direction we could go would be to seperate each type of hash into a subpage, but consistency is important. HighInBC 19:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I would very much like to see this article merged and redirected here, SqueakBox 14:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that kief should be merged into hash. If someone goes to wikipedia for information on kief (which they type into the search box) and they get a page on hash (which has to be smoked differently) it could be confusing. They are two distinct topics and I believe they both deserve their own article. Triddle 18:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain the key distinction between the two? How are they smoked differently? HighInBC 18:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can. First, by definition, hash is comprised of the compressed trichomes collected from the leaves and flowers of a mature, flowering Cannabis plant. Kief is the first form, then after pressing and heating, it becomes hash. Hash is also created other ways (but may not be hash by strict definition, only colloquially). Second, hash is a hard substance that has to be brought up to a high temp before it smokes well (the first hit isn't nearly as good as the second and dirrect flame is applied to the hash). If you took this approach with kief, you would destroy it all and waste a good portion of it. Kief is green and very powdery, hash is brown and hard. There is no way to confuse the two. Triddle 19:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles for water, steam, and ice. With logic like this, ice and steam should be merged into water. Ice is nothing more than frozen water.... why does water have an article for three its three different phases, yet kief should be merged into hash?

Interesting arguement, though the kief I smoke is not green. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? HighInBC 17:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge, since they're totally different. At least here, kief is very small pieces of weed, while hash is just compressed trichomes. Hash you smoke or use knifing, while you sprinkle kief on top of a bowl. --Rory0 96 21:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I as well disagree with the merge. Kief is a word for the hairs of the cannabis plant, or used as slang for the finely ground and screened THC, since the hairs are usually the part of dried buds with the highest concentration of THC. Kief, however, is simply the trichomes, or hairs, on the cannabis plant. Hashish is, or should be, of a nearly pure THC content. Kief, however, can be quite simply, ground or unground, the hairs of the cannabis plant, which might possibly be similar to hash, but are different in the content of THC. Simply put, hash is pure THC, while kief is the potent hairs of the bud. The two are not the same.--NessTormented 07:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree also. I presently live in Morocco, where both kif (spelling as you wish) and hashish are generally available. They are quite distinct. Kif resembles finely ground American-style cannabis, as if it were put through a Cuisinart, and the latter is a homogenous, powdery solid as illustrated above. (For what it's worth, "low-quality" does not really do justice.. The posted picture appears to be of some crap that only tourists would buy..) Both the mode of consumption and the typical consumer are also both quite different. Kif is chiefly smoked by old men in caftans from slender pipes called sebsi, hashish by exotic degenerates like myself, rolled into cigarettes. Please post with any questions--Mashford 00:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Think about it this way...merging kief and hashish would be like merging Bauxite and Aluminum....one is the essential ingredient of the other, but they are definitely distinct. Although this distinction may seem confusing to the layperson, both articles do a fair job of differentiating the two, so it isn't too hard to tell the difference. Dave 00:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Screw it. Removing the merge tag. Post me with any hate mail. --Mashford 20:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge Finger hash here

I suggest Finger hash be merged here since its basically a two line article. Tutmosis 13:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Very strong yes, unnecessary disparate articles weaken the wikipedia, SqueakBox 14:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, this seems entirely covered in the 'Kief' section of this article. It only needs a redirect. HighInBC 15:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless a good arguement is made on the finger hash talk page by tommorow I am going to redirect it here. I have already added the pertinent information to this article[1]. HighInBC 17:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have merged finger hash into hashish. HighInBC 19:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI: "Finger Hash" as you call it is actually called "Charas." What you have described as "finger hash" is actually a type of hash. There are many different types of hash. Charas(India) Cultivation: Cannabis is cultivated nearly everywhere around India. Production: In India the types of Hashish are produced by carefully rubbing the female buds between the hands. The resin is rolled in Hash-Balls, before shipment it's pressed in the usual slabs. Color: Black on the outside, dark greenish/brown inside. Smell: Spicy to very spicy. Distinctive aroma. Taste: Very spicy, somewhat harsh on the throat but definitively less so than Afghani. Consistency: Very soft, can be kneaded easily like Afghani. Sometimes quite powdery though always dense. Effect: Very stony and physical high. Cerebral. Potency: Potent to very potent. Like Nepali, Charas is almost always good smoke. (10-26% THC) Availability: Very rare, from time to time very small quantities become available. Most Hash of this kind is imported by private travellers to India. As expected the price is very high, in the range of Nepali. Charas is usually sold as a 'finger', which is a sausage shaped piece of hash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.99.16 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Glorifying Drugs

This article glorifies the use of drugs and will probably have a harmful effect on the lives of many people, especially impressionable young people. It is my hope that anyone who thinks that hashish can be used for fun or temporary elation will find, before it has its fatal effect, that drug use is not as benign as the media and film industry have made it seem.Lestrade 14:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Fatal effect?

"Lethal dose

It is generally considered to be impossible to achieve a lethal overdose by smoking cannabis."

Perhaps you have new findings? 25-Mar-06

I think you are misunderstanding Lestrade, and that he may be referring to the allegedly fatal psychological effects it allegedly can have on quality of life, SqueakBox 19:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Please give a clear example of what you mean Lestrade, and as for the harmful effects of this drug, please give citations. There is alot of missinformation about this drug, keep that in mind. HighInBC 21:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to Lestrades comment about the "Fatal effect" of hashish is (hopefully) ment as commentary on how this substance has made the masses feud against their own in a fiery passion of prejudice. But if you're actually serious... I challenge you to find ONE report of a fatal overdose of hashish (or Marijuana) that was completely unrelated to a different substance. I'll be very suspicious if you're successful, because there has never actually been one report of a fatality from any form of THC. Urbanus

Urbanus, when you say, commentary on how this substance has made the masses feud against their own in a fiery passion of prejudice, do you mean cannabis prohibition generally, or perhaps just the mentally destabilizing effects it has on its rabid, non-using opponents? Lestrade, how do you come by this knowledge of its fatal effects? -SM 03:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT censored for minors, nor for anyone, Lestrade. We're writing an encyclopaedia, not watching out for the public health. --Rory0 96 21:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course in Holland the public health demands cannabis cafes, SqueakBox 22:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

...as it does in San Franscisco. -SM 22:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe Lestrade meant "tragic" not "fatal". THere are no definite fatalities because of hashish, but there are plenty of tragedies. REgardless, that comment has no bearing on the content of this article. In the case of cannabis, I believe young people should be presented with accurate, truthful information, and make their own decisions. Most of the outcry against cannabis comes from the misconceptions that surround it. Dave 00:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Lestrade, you lie. I've been using the stuff off and on this last 35 years and I have only died a few times. The Real Walrus 19:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Excessive use of cannabis (normally skunk, I doubt resin) has been linked to schizophrenia. Normally when users start at a very young age or have a family history of mental illnesses.

There is medical sources that have investigated this in great detail, I’ll have a search for them but I’m not sure resin is a major cause of mental illness. – will stick my findings on most cannabis related pages.--Dab182 16:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Glorifying Drugs

This is concerning the "glorification" of drugs.

There is no lethal dose known for cannabis, hashish, or any THC counter-part including Marinol.

Stephen Sidney, M.D., associate director for clinical research at Kaiser Permanente, writes in an editorial published 9/20/03 in the British Medical Journal (Vol. 327, pp. 635-635):

"No acute lethal overdoses of cannabis are known, in contrast to several of its illegal (for example, cocaine) and legal (for example, alcohol, aspirin, acetaminophen) counterparts." (9/20/03) BMJ

Joycelyn Elders, M.D., former U.S. Surgeon General, wrote in a 3/26/04 editorial published in Rhode Island's Providence Journal:

"Unlike many of the drugs we prescribe every day, marijuana has never been proven to cause a fatal overdose." (3/26/04) DP

Denis Petro, M.D., in his 1997 paper "Pharmacology and Toxicity of Cannabis", published in the book "Cannabis in Medical Practice - A Legal, Historical and Pharmacological Overview of the Therapeutic Use of Marijuana", Dr. Petro wrote on Page 62:

"The estimated lethal human dose of intravenous Marinol is 30 mg/kg (2100 mg/70 kg). Using this estimation of lethal dose, the equivalent inhaled THC would represent the smoking of 240 cannabis cigarettes with total systemic absorption of the average 8.8 mg of THC in each cigarette.

Since absorption is much less than 100 percent, the amount of smoked marijuana required to reach lethality is on the order of one to two thousand cigarettes.

The physical impossibility of a fatal overdose using smoked cannabis is obvious." (1997) DP

Bill Zimmerman, Executive Director of Americans for Medical Rights, told MedMJpro/con:

"Marijuana has been used as a medicinal herb for thousands of years, going back to ancient civilizations in Egypt, India and Africa. In all that time, up to and including the present day, there has never been a report of a fatality directly due to the consumption of marijuana.

In contrast, over 1,000 people die annually in the US from an overdose of our most common non-prescription drug, aspirin. In addition, many thousands of deaths result from the legal prescription drugs.

After hearing two year's worth of evidence on the presumed dangers of marijuana, DEA Judge Francis L. Young said this: "marijuana is the safest therapeutically active substance known to man ... safer than many foods we commonly consume." (11/15/01) BZ

Judge Francis L. Young wrote in his 1988 decision:

"Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage 50% of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity...

At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means in order to induce death, a 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 0.9 grams. A smoker would have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about 15 minutes to induce a lethal response. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity."

Judge Young also stated in that ruling:

"A commonly used over-the-counter product like aspirin has a therapeutic ratio of around 1:20. Two aspirins are the recommended dose for adult patients. Twenty times this dose, forty aspirins, may cause a lethal reaction in some patients and will almost certainly cause gross injury to the digestive system...

By contrast, marijuana's therapeutic ratio... is impossible to quantify because it is so high." (9/6/88) FLY

Time Magazine stated in a Nov. 4, 2002 cover story:

"No one has ever died of THC [marijuana] poisoning, mostly because a 160-lb. person would have to smoke roughly 900 joints in a sitting to reach a lethal dose." (11/4/02) TM

David Borden, Executive Director of The Drug Reform Coordination Network, wrote MedMJpro/con:

"Death by overdose isn’t the only danger that drugs present, but it is one important measure.

In fact, a study conducted by Kaiser Permanente from 1979-1985 with a follow-up in 1991 found no correlation between marijuana use and death, evidence that even heavy marijuana use for decades does not appear to be associated with major health risks, whereas heavy alcohol users will develop cirrhosis and other potentially fatal conditions." (2/14/02) DB

Hashish can in fact be used for fun or temporary elation and has no "fatal effect" what so ever. It is also fair to say it is more benign than soda pop.

Why isn't hashish merged with marijuana?

Why doesn't it? I mean that it comes from the same plant (the Cannabis plant) so why don't they make a Cannabis plant page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.210.217.220 (talk • contribs) .

They're two different products, though. Cornbread and popcorn both come from the corn plant, but they definitely don't share an article. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zetawoof, it is like wheat vs bread. HighInBC 02:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The same discussion was made on the cocaine page (about crack and cocaine) – they chose to keep them together because they are of very similar chemical properties – All weed is THC related--Dab182 16:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the connection between crack vs cocaine and marjuana vs hashish. Should milk and butter be merged? HighInBC 17:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

They both part of the Cannabaceae family. Use Portal:Cannabis as the main entry door for more details. -- Szvest 21:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hashis isn't pary of any family, it is made from cannabis. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Who removed my earlier comments?

This article used to contain a paragraph about eating hashish, which does not hurt your lungs, and it has vanished. I can't be bothered to find out what twerp did it, but I'll put it back sooner or later. The Real Walrus 19:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from name calling. On a wiki things get changed all the time. The only edit I found resembling yours was this one[2], which is a little inaccurate in that it is no the only way to make finger hash. Please feel free to return what is missing. HighInBC 20:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, though twerp is mild compared with what I actually thought. Frankly though, I can't be bothered putting the original bit back, as somebody (see, polite!) will just stick a "citation needed" tag on every sentence. Cheers! The Real Walrus 08:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Butane hash oil and Hash oil

Both of the subjects are already covered in this article. Chondrite 00:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The more merges the better, SqueakBox 00:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Also propose merge from Bubble hash Chondrite 21:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree, also keif. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree regarding kief as well, although I also see that a proposal to merge has been opposed on that talk page. Chondrite 22:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

True but that was a while back, I will mention this discussion there. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd approve a merge of bubble hash, it's not properly integrated into the suites of articles, it attracts editors who seldom edit anything else, mostly to add claims of 'breach of patent' and other such unencyclopedic edits, though the redirect will have to be watched after the merge. --Alf ^melmac 22:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone with a reader needs to fix it. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.144.10.201 (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Map

I think we should have one of CL8's maps and that it includes bothte traditional hash belt (Morocco to North India) and Europe. Currently it contains information about places like sub saharan africa, south east asia and the |Americas that have very little hash and then by having another map of Europe it makes the article appear as if Europe is more important than the countries in the traditional hash belt, SqueakBox 17:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

So please dont just add it again. Bring your concerns tot he talk page, its what it is here for. A Europe only map violates WP:NPOV and exacerbates a current problem, see below, SqueakBox 17:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But a map of the hash belt plus Europe would be better than the world map we have now, SqueakBox 17:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

This is here until we get rid of the unnecessary Euro centrism. It reads as if we are Europe and they are north Africa, Asia, etc, an unacceptable attitude, SqueakBox 22:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of localized beliefs will be pruned out as we increase our threshold of verifiability for this article. Much is said here, with very few citations, the NPOV issue is a symptom of this. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't provide citations for much that I've added to this article either. However, I did live in Morocco, running a garage. We (attempted) to fix the vehicles of locals, Americans from the base, and a number of travelling dope-heads. Very early on, one of them described to me in detail his trip to Ketama, and showed me the product, with the clear imprint of the muslin still showing. Others talked about "the scene" they'd left behind in Amsterdam and everything they looked forwards to when they got back there. Since (in many cases), my efforts to get them running again were not going to work all that well (lack of parts!), I encouraged them to talk. If I'd listened more carefully, I could have written a book on the subject, and you guys would be quoting me in this article! Incidentally, I thought the article was extraordinarily US-centric, and I've modified some of it. TomRawlinson 18:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, SqueakBox 23:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to the globalize tag as this seems to more accurately reflect the problem, and there isnt righjt now a dispute, SqueakBox 17:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I added {{fact}} tags to every sentence in the first paragraph of history, it looks alot more are needed throughout the article. This is my attempt to raise the verifiability standards of this article. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

section discipline

I have tried to move paragraphs around to better fit the sections. Before there was info on usage, manufacture, and regional stuff all spread out through the entire article (and it is only slightly better now). Moving the paragraphs around has exposed a lot of redundancy especially in the regional section, many paragraphs in there should probably be rewritten and their concepts merged. If I obliterated your favorite sentence or messed something up please feel free to fix it. -Diletante 21:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I split the regional section into production and consumption and got rid of some redundancy. There may be a more logical way to structure this section -- Diletante 23:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

FMCD in quality section

someone should write a paragraph about full melt clear dome or FMCD which is a popular acronymn on cannabis cultivation message boards. it would be great to get a picture too --Diletante 21:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hashish and Kief

This article now states the following

"Kief (various spellings, including kif, keef, etc.) is perhaps the simplest form of hash. It can be found by taking a bud covered in trichomes and brushing it. The dust that falls off is kief."

I take exception to this entire paragraph and subsection regarding kief. Kief is not hashish at all. Hashish is processed in many ways and should not be confused with kief, collected trichromes. Kief does not have any of qualities one looks for in hash, in fact, it's not hashish in any way, other than being of Cannibas. Is there anyone else who feels that this subsection could/should be cut and a "see also" would suffice? There's enough disinformation regarding Cannibas, it would be great not to confuse Hash and Keif for readers. The paragraph itself kind of proves itself wrong when it says this

"Once collected, the dust may be smoked as-is or subjected to high pressure until compressed into a hard piece. This pressure-cooking can be accomplished by placing the kief between two coins in a vice."

Well that's obviously hash if it is processed with heat (which is omitted from this explanation) and pressure. Also, what does everyone think about this claim?

"An additional method of obtaining trichomes is to rub the bud against silk."

Sorry but not only is this poorly written, factually lacking and unreferenced, it's also just plain stoner sounding. I understand what it tries to say, silk screens and keif boxes and all that, but it is perhaps the best example of why this entire subsection should be cut. Tester er 04:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that kief is not hash. I think it would be disinformation if people didn't realize that they are essentially the same thing. Splitting hairs about when keif becomes hash is counterproductive IMO. The article should make clear that both hash and kif are composed of trichomes, that hash usually refers to trichs that have been stuck together, and kif usually refers to loose trichomes. I Agree that keif doesn't need a section here. instead it should be a see also, and it should be mentioned in the manufacturing processes section and maybe the intro. Diletante 17:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Question, ever heard of finger hash? Is it Keif? You yourself explained the difference between Hash and Keif well enough to draw a big distinction. Except for the "stuck together" part could be expanded into about a half dozen pages. Keif is not hash because has is processed marijuana, take bubble hash or ice hash for example, you take trim and flowers etc... and process it and you get hash, it's nothing anywhere near, particularly in it's smoking properties, keif. You'll never cough when you smoke pure keif, because there is no plant matter, in hash, there is always plant matter, no matter how blond. I think there is a misunderstanding. Keif doesn't become hash. 999 times out of a 1000 Keif stays keif until it is consumed. There's no reason or logic in making hash from keif. In fact, you don't make hash from keif. You make hash from freshly cured cannibas flowers, admittedly you make keif from the same source, but that is not reason enough to equate the two. Keif is keif, pure trichromes. Hash has many, many ingredients. BTW- if anyone can tell me how you make hash from keif, please do. I'm not looking for instructions, but I really doubt there is a known way of turning pure trichromes into hash, not that I have any idea in the world why one would want to. I'm gonna go pour some water in my beer ok? ;) Tester er 05:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Because commercial hash is often adulterated that doesn't mean hash "has many many ingredients." Kif could be adulterated just as easily by unscrupulous dealers, or it could have surplus plant matter. The word "processed" really has no meaning, kif is processed too. The "processing" of bubble hash is only a seperation of trichs and plant. The processing of kif is seperating trichs from plant. The only difference is that kif is dry and bubble hash is wet so it naturally sticks together. The way you turn trichomes into hash is you squeeze them together until they from a solid mass. The reason for doing this is it can be easier to handle a rock than powder. Think of it this way: kif = loose granola, hash= granola bar. Diletante 16:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine and Good

Though I entirely disagree with your granola analogy, I do agree with your logic in cutting the keif section out due to the mention in the manufacturing process. Note: Keif doesn't need to be manufactured, it just falls off. That's why in some regions, people often say "look at all the Keif on that bud" and they never say "look how hashy it is" or "my that bud has a lot of hash on it". Because people don't think of hash as keif or keif as hash, despite some similarities. Most commercial hash is dark brown or even black on the outside with dark khaki, mahogany interior. Of course the best "Hash" is lighter in color, containing more actual keif(often called Blond Hash). You have no idea what you are talking about. If you take crystals/keif and start clumping them together it becomes opaque. If you have ever manicured marijuana, the first buildup of resin is clear but as it aggregates it becomes dark. Keif is a bunch of resin crystals, extruded by trichomes. There is no manufacturing involved, no heating which fundamentally & chemically alters the substance entirely, virtually free of plant matter, or other ingredients providing a unique smoking experience and offering up a different user experience. The fact that hash must be heated to such high temps and that it does not smoke clean, in any way. You have no idea what you are talking about, and clearly have never worked with the stuff. Manufacturing differences are not only vast, but as I said before, Keif requires no manufacturing. Here is a better analogy (manufacturing - you sir are a moron.)

Hash = Granola Bar
Keif = a pile of oats

"Alternatively, the powder consisting of uncompressed, dry resin blobs produced by trichomes is often referred to as keif instead of hashish."

Of course we could go round and round about why keif is not powder but in fact crystalline in nature etc, etc... and there is this word "dry" to describe trichromes as if "wetness" is ever assumed. ;) All in all it is an improvement, but Keif is not Hash ! Tester er 03:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Kif, as smoked by djalaba wearing old men in morocco comprises painstakingly removed seed cases[very resinous]mixed with dark locally grown tobacco. Smoked in a sibsi, it is a completely different hit to hash made from the same plants but smoked by other means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.11.193 (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Trichomes are what produces the resin. A trichome is a hair.

hash "oil" can be solid - some links to pics

HighInBC reverted the pic I addeed saying in the edit summary 'oil is a liquid' I want to show you that Hash oil can indeed be solid. These are links to thcfarmer.com, a cannabis cultivation forum in the netherlands. Lots of good hash/oil pics here, the first link has some hard oil on the first page.

[3]

Both the pics in the article now are from the same person and illustrate the same thing. I think this article needs some great pics because there is a ocean of cannabis pics out there on these discussion boards. I am going to register on some cannabis boards and try to ask some people to release their pics under gfdl or PD. -- Diletante 04:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think of oil as a liquid, that first one looks like pipe resin, or some type of solid hash. What do other people think? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I usually think of oil as a liquid too, but some methods can apparently produce a hard product in the end and it is still considered 'hash oil' (the definition in the article now says "thick to runny viscosity" this is just at the thick end of the spectrum). I have found a several more posts that say that hard "oil" is very desirable, sometimes it is called glass or rosin. I can post more links if you want :D I saw a great pic of some hardened BHO that spelled out "BHO". Of course its all just message board heresay, unworthy of citation. -- Diletante 03:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, back in my younger days I saw both semi-solid oil (in the sense that I could roll it with my fingers) and some runny "shit". Viscosity varied depending on the quality. If need be, I'm sure some (if not all of us) could take pictures and post. Fr0 06:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation Tag Spam?

These tags completely disturb the flow of this article; someone please do a cleanup Litanss 01:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The tags are to show that the facts have no supporting citation. The informations will be removed if no citation is provided. You can search for a reliable source that supports the facts and replace the tags with those sources if you like. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

terminology

What is the usual English term for a piece or a little ball of hashish? In esperanto we have the slang term "bido".--Sonjaaa 17:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no particular term that I know of. Perhaps "crumb"? I favor "miette" from French but I expect I'm the only one. --Mashford 01:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, we call it hash, or sometimes cheese in this part of Ontario. Do you mean like a hit? A small ball, as in what you plan on toking or the gram? Fr0 04:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hashish is never adulterated

Soemone has added "Low quality forms of hash often contain adulterants used as cutting agents added to exaggerate the value of hash through increasing the volume or including other cheaper drugs.[citation needed]" and it's nonsense. In order to adulterate hash (at the consuming end of the chain) one would need a separate, industrial process requiring heat, and it would drive out much of the resinous material. Nor would anybody do it in the producing nations either - what for? Can you imagine a drug dealer travelling to Morocco and buying product that was tampered with? Or taking the risk of smuggling low grade product? (However, there have sometimes been threatening and abusive sellers of fake hashish in tourist spots). TomRawlinson 20:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What you say is simply not so. Hashish is adulterated a lot in the UK and has been for 20 years on a commercial scale. It doesnt happen in Morocco but in the UK. I added this reference. Weed is alos know being cut in the UK with small glass particles [4] and this subject should be dealt with in Cannabis (drug), SqueakBox 20:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What?! The appropriate answers to "Can you imagine.." and "..Taking the risk" are yes, and yes. Some (not all) hash is adulterated prior to export from Morocco, as appropriate adulterants are often more easily obtained there. International dealers such as you describe are not uncommon. The risk is obviously justifiable. So this is not nonsense. If you want properly unadulterated hashish, go to Ketama. Mashford 22:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember the dope-smugglers of Morocco being pretty strange - but not stupid. I accept your corrections, maybe times have changed. What the two of you are telling me is actually contradictory, but I'd have thought a section (or a separate article) on this practise would be a valuable addition to the project. TomRawlinson 16:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be sourced and that would be great. I have no idea whether it happens in Morocco but no reason to think not. Certainly in the UK till I was last there a few years ago and over the previous decade if you wanted unadulterated hash you had to pay for it (eg 20 an eighth rather than 14 an eighth, SqueakBox 00:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

A source?! I agree in principle, but what source do you suggest would be available for such an assertion? I strongly doubt that this is usefully documented in any valid fashion. --Mashford 00:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The suggestion is to move Legal history of marijuana in the United States to 'Legal history of cannabis in the United States.' Opinions are requested, SqueakBox 00:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No objection. Carry on, MacDuff. --Mashford 00:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Honey oil

This section either needs removinmg, we need a sour ce that honey oil is a type of hashish or the article name should be changed. I'd prefer to merge the whole lot into Cannabis (drug) under a preparations section. What do others think? SqueakBox 01:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

The first screen should discuss the Etymology. Mathiastck 21:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Consumption" clean up

"U.S.A produces a great deal of hashish, but only a small fraction reaches the United States [6]", "about 80% of the hashish seized in France every year comes from Egypt"? The "consumption" section contained the above statements. The source cited is http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2005/vol1/html/42369.htm , but I can't find anything there to support any interpretation of those confusing statements. I've removed them, but change them if you can word or cite better, or discuss here -- or may be vandalism by 171.64.245.68.

The source is interesting, so I moved it to see-also. (http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2005/vol1/html/42369.htm International Narcotics Control Strategy Report], released by the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, March 2005) wolfe 06:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality and Use of Fillers

Low quality forms of hash often contain adulterants used as cutting agents added to exaggerate the value of hash through increasing the volume or including other cheaper drugs.[citation needed] Such forms usually possess a low potency and may have a strangeness in taste and feel. The adulterants in the hash may range from waste material from the Cannabis plant to products such as soap, vaseline, beeswax, boot polish, rubber, licorice, henna, ground coffee, milk powder, pine resin, opium, barbiturates, ketamine, aspirin, glues and dyes,vitamin E (in regards to hash oil), as well as carcinogenic solvents such as toluene and benzene.[4] The low quality may lead one to smoke more to get the same effect, and may increase the adverse effects done to the lungs.

Does the inclusion of opium, barbiturates and ketamine make sense with the tone of the paragraph? I think they may actually be more expensive than hash. The addition of opium would produce a different and more intense high. Also opium has a very strong floral aroma that would most likely be noticed at least by a seasoned hashish smoker. The ketamine and barbiturates would also add an unpleasant taste when burnt and most likely would add little to the high compared to consuming them by their selves.

Many of these mentioned fillers would add a very foul taste. As hash is not a physically addictive drug where withdrawal can kill, most consumers would probably forgo the hash rather than smoke something that will taste like burnt rubber.

Just my two cents.

71.198.54.215 22:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming a serious problem. People remove the references and then demand references. please desist. Fillers are well known and proven and the removal of these references is highly annoying and damages the encyclopedia.. Your claim wont smoke polluted hash is clearly false, SqueakBox 22:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster that the laundry list of adulterants is pointless to ennumerate because we could always add more. I agree with squeakbox that obviously hash is often adulterated, but I think its pointless to have this dubious list. Not to mention the list is mis-cited to the wrong source right now. That ukcia link is hardly a reliable source, still I think its better than nothing.-- Diletante 22:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I almost removed the4 lot just a few mins back. I have kept cannabis plant products cos this is well known and also sopa because of the term soap bar but removed everything else. Thoughts? SqueakBox 22:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also say to the anon that cannabis can be highly psychologically addictive, especially to certain young people who get very fixated on (that was me once upon a time) so people will smoke adulterated hash if it contains enough genuine product to get people high, SqueakBox 22:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for nuking the list, and the mention of soapbar is good too. Are you sure that the reference provided (Mariuana Potency, Michael Starks 1977) makes those statements though? -- Diletante 22:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect local terms to designate Hashish in France

The section stating that Hash is called "Maroc" in France is not correct (I can't speak for Switzerland). "Hash" and "Shit" for instance are colloquially used to designate Hashish in general. Terms such as "Marocain", "Black", "Pollen" are used to designate specific types of Hash.

History

In the history section the 2nd and 3rd paragraph do not make much sense, especially the 3rd which seems to be following on from something not on this page. and given that the idea that the Hashshashin have anything to do with Hashish is disputed it seems to me that this section should be removed. If you think it should stay it needs to be re-written and have sources added for verification of the claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganrah (talk • contribs) 05:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hash in pakistan

refs removed

Several of the referenced slipped in here were inappropriate and therefore removed. Also there is s lot of WP:OR.--Mjpresson (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

New high res images

Replaced 2 older images with high-resolution Commons imgs with comprehensive descriptions.--Mjpresson (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Cutting agents

Adulterants: "Cutting agents used to adulterate (or "cut") illicit drugs - for example, shoe polish in hashish." Is this common or maybe wrong? Should this be here or cutting agents in general? comp.arch (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky says that you can't over-dose on hashish. This should be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RollandRFanatick (talk • contribs) 15:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

ERA

Anonymous IP in this revision [[5]] stated that they were changing the era (BCE to BC) as a revert due to WP:ERA. Note:" Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content." I checked back to December 2013, and did not see a change from BC to BCE, so I am not sure what they are reverting. Suggesting to change back as it was already established in the article. Rmosler | ● 15:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense

What is this supposed to mean? "In 1596, Dutchman Jan Huyghen van Linschoten spent three pages on "Bangue" (Bhang) in his historic work documenting his journeys in the East, he died particularly mentioning the Egyptian Hashish." Is the word "died" a typo? Is a period or other punctuation missing?211.225.33.104 (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a clue. It rather confused me as well. The way the sentence stands now, it's as though his last words were mentioning Egyptian hashish.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Last section

The entire final section of the article is lousy with fragmented sentences, strange disjointed sentences and overall makes conflicting statements. I can't fix it, as I know nothing whatsoever about the substance or its residual remains after use.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I fixed a few of the worst cases. The article needs help, for sure. Mjpresson (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I can give it a read and edit it under the influence of hash the next time I visit a safe house in a safe state. I am not an attorney and can't give illegal advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesMJames (talk • contribs) 06:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Manufacturing processes

The processes in this section seem to only be talking about ones used in the West for small batches. By far the most hash is produced in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa and not made with these methods. More explanation needs to be added about this.158.223.164.107 (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)