Talk:Medical cannabis/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2014

The countries where medical cannabis is legal include Czech Republic as well. Thus, i suggest to add Czech Republic between "Austria" and "Spain" in the list of countries. Twz (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Twz (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Done Also per Legal and medical status of cannabis. Sam Sailor ^Sing 16:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Already done Apparently already done. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources

We need to be using secondary sources thus removed [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

cancer and tumors

somewhat contradicts the Cancer Research UK's statement [2] 178.222.73.132 (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That is just a link to google scholar. Can you link to the Cancer Research UK statement? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

probably meant the link in mentioned section. anyhow, funny thing how this center is cited so often.. I just did some reading and found a potential COI involved: Our scientists and doctors have contributed to most of the world’s top cancer drugs and we have pioneered the use of life-saving radiotherapy to treat cancer. But more than one in three of us will still get cancer. Interestingly, out of "thousands of scientists" working for the institute, they quoted studies related to cannabis from only one of them... and they have a 0.5B budget!!! 212.200.205.18 (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2014

×I have been conducting research on the benefits of legalizing marijuana in Colorado. One astonishing fact that I came across during my research was that the U.S. Government owns the patent on cannabis. Within the application for the patent, the government actually has their own scientist including the evidence that they have found concerning the proven medicinal value of marijuana. In the application for patent #6630507 it states that marijuana has medical value against multiple diseases, disorders and pain”

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6630507.PN.&OS=PN%2F6630507&RS=PN%2F6630507 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodriguezcindy731 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Pharmacologic products

Can you tell how these pharmacologic products are made? Where does the chemicals come from? What plant especially do they use? By example, are consumers of recreative cannabis using the same cannabis as the pharmacological industry? If no, why? Why maybe the industry can use this cannabis and recreative cannabis consumers can use only that cannabis?

I have a lot of informations about agricultural cannabis since the 80s in Europe. I can tell what is a lie and what is true in all cannabis informations. How much does it cost to grow a cannabis plant, to extract the chemicals and to produce and sell it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.85.160.143 (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2014

This page contains a graphic which suggests that Cannabis for medicinal use is legal/essentially legal within the UK. Cannabis is a class B drug in the UK, and is very much fully illegal- the UK would fall under the illegal but often unenforced bracket. The plant itself is not recognized to have any medicinal benefit, and is only available in the form of the pharmaceutical Sativex.

I request that this graphic be amended or removed. It provides incorrect information, and very well could cause someone problems if they go to the UK believing cannabis to be legal.

Rory

Not done: Thanks for your concern, Rory, but as far as I can tell you are confusing cannabis being am illegal drug with canabis for medical purposes per prescription being legal, as Sativex is in the UK. Let me know if you think I got it wrong. Sam Sailor ^Sing 04:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2014

The countries where medical cannabis is legal include Czech Republic as well (see, e.g. http://www.drogy-info.cz/index.php/english/a_summary_of_information_about_medical_cannabis_in_the_czech_republic_the_situation_as_of_25_march_2013. Thus, i suggest to add Czech Republic between "Austra" and "Spain" in the list of countries.

Already done ... back in April. Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

genetic agitation

Marijuana promotes agitation and can act as a demographic litmus. Displaying the degree of agitation in societies over time can prove valuable to economists by way of measuring tolerance before confiscation or theft is employed or dismissed. Geneticists on the basis of degrees of agitation and contributors to agitation can measure against populations employment or dismissal of the agitator to allege genetic predispositions within a population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.158.132 (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent Review

Hello. I found this review of FDA-approved, placebo-controlled clinical trials assessing the efficacy of plant cannabis in subjects with multiple sclerosis, HIV, neuropathy and other diseases. It affirms "Based on evidence currently available the Schedule I classification is not tenable; it is not accurate that cannabis has no medical value, or that information on safety is lacking". IMHO it should be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkyRamone92 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there anyone willing to discuss this review? IMHO it is very important for various reasons: 1) It is a primary source 2) It clearly states that cannabis has medical value, and that the Schedule I classification is not accurate 3) It is FDA-approved, which is exceptionally rare when cannabis is concerned.

I also think that the paragraph stating that "in recent years the American Medical Association, the MMA, the American Society of Addiction Medicine, and other medical organizations have issued statements opposing its usage for medicinal purposes" should be changed. It is true that some medical organizations have opposed the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes and denied its safety and efficacy, but it is also true that more and more organizations have changed their minds on the matter and are now endorsing medical cannabis or at least pushing for further research. For example, the recent New York Compassionate Care Act was supported by the New York State Nurses Association, the Pharmacists Society of the State of New York, The New York Academy of Medicine, the Statewide Breast Cancer Network, the Hospice & Palliative Care Association of New York, 1 in 9: The Long Island Breast Cancer Action Coalition, GMHC, New York Physicians for Compassionate Care.MarkyRamone92 (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to hear somebody else's opinion on this matter.--MarkyRamone92 (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

My view of the review is that it's a secondary, not primary source of course, albeit not of the highest quality of review. The review isn't clear about how it selected the 62 sources it is based upon. That seems too few to be a full literature review, but there's no evidence of any search criteria in the way that a systematic review proceeds. In fact, it's partly a summary of a series of trials that took place in California, and a large proportion - but by no means all - of the studies examined are from the University of California. That's not to say that the conclusions of the review shouldn't be used, but I would urge caution if they should contradict other reviews that may be more broadly based. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2014

69.144.176.119 (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC) The use of marijuana for medical purposes dates back thousands of years. There are many technologically advances in the 21 century that are helping scientists and chemists break down the complex makeup of the marijuana plant. Many studies have been conducted and have all usefully found that marijuana does have therapeutic effects on the human body. Some studies have even found that some of the cannabinoids found in marijuana can stop the growth of cancer. Not only has marijuana benefited patients medically it has generated millions to help the economy. It has also been shown that since the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes the number of violent crimes has decreased. There has been a lot of proof showing that marijuana benefits people more than harms them and maybe laws surrounding its use of it will change.20:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)69.144.176.119 (talk)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I don t share your view, the result of modern serious research is that smoked marijuana don t work as medical treatment, the sometimes reported positive effects can be explained as placebo effects. There are some very rare groups of patient where THC maybe can have a medical value in very small doses as pain killer if other pain killers don t work, but never as THC from smoking pot. Smoking pot has many proven medical drawbacks.Dala11a (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion, Dala11a, but I think that's all it is. Msnicki (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

No there is considerable evidence backing that opinion. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Very well, we agree it's an opinion, which is not the same as fact. As for the "evidence", I'm not sure what you have in mind, since, given the US Federal Government's obstruction of research, there really isn't much evidence whatsoever beyond the patient testimonials. And they say it works. Msnicki (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I recommend you to read the article about placebo. If the patients believe the treatment is good for them it is normal that they reports a positive effect, also if the "medicine" is sugar pills or injected pure waterDala11a (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course I know what a placebo is. But your suspicion it might be a placebo is not evidence. Msnicki (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The point is, this article will reflect high quality sources, and to be honest: that you suggest the US-government "obstructs research" is downright damaging to your credibility. Additionally it's ridiculous to think that US-based research is all that is out there, please look for international research if you are so afraid of "obstruction". -- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I doubt the US government as a whole has a hidden agenda to obstruct research, but the NIDA, FDA, and DEA do obstruct research that is designed to find positive aspects of cannabis ( Why It's So Hard For Scientists To Study Medical Marijuana , The DEA: Four Decades of Impeding And Rejecting Science ). Our drug czar is required to take action against any attempt to legalize medicinal cannabis. The U.S. does, by far, the largest share of the world's medical research. Considering this, it is not surprising that 94% of cannabis studies were exploring potential harm. Psyden (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it does less than the rest of the world combined [3] (NEJM). Even if it is true that research on medical uses of cannabis is being obstructed we can't be more lenient on applying WP:MEDRS on statements in these articles. What we at most can do is to report of such an obstruction, as stated by credible high quality WP:MEDRS compliant sources (not popsci or drugpolicy). This might just exist, but is far less categorical than the statements made above. You can try and see if [4] is acceptable. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"US Federal Government's obstruction of research" is not a matter governed by MEDRS. Other sources will do. And yes, the government, through Federal anti-marijuana laws, has prevented research and made it very difficult. It has only allowed some research which was designed to present marijuana in a negative light and has covered up research which was favorable. It has even patented some pharmaceutical cannabis-based products designed for beneficial medical use, and then failed to use those patents, effectively blocking such patented use. This is part of US history and part of the history of the failed War on Drugs. That war is far more political than it is medical or scientific. It has misused science all along. As Sanjay Gupta put it: "We have been terribly and systematically misled for nearly 70 years in the United States, and I apologize for my own role in that." [5] -- Brangifer (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. So basically we have an issue where our naming criteria are in disagreement. Contrary to an assertion below, the criteria are not ranked in any order – they are considered to be equally important and in specific cases where all criteria don't point to the same title it is up to the community to decide which it is more important to follow on an case-by-case basis. And here we have people making reasonable, policy-based arguments for both sides and they are also roughly numerically split. No other way to adjudge this than to say that there is no consensus one way or the other and hence we default to the current title. Jenks24 (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Medical cannabis → Medical marijuana – Clearly, the medical profession uses "medical marijuana" (9770 Google Scholar results) far more than "medical cannabis" (1790 results). Per WP:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles, this alone is sufficient to require a move. Additionally, a Google News search shows 79,600 results vs 4,660 for "medical cannabis". Per WP:COMMONNAME, a general Google search shows 19.7 million results for "medical marijuana", but only 3.6 million results for "medical cannabis". Finally, even on en.wikipedia, "medical marijuana" is used 591 times and "medical cannabis" only 209 times. Any objections? --Relisted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Abductive (reasoning) 02:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment: A look at Cannabis (drug) #Preparations indicates that marijuana is one of several possible derivatives of the cannabis plant. That is presumably the reason why we have articles on Cannabis, Synthetic cannabis, History of medical cannabis, Cannabis foods, Cannabis smoking, Cannabis tea, Cannabis in pregnancy, Cannabis Cup and possibly more where the 'marijuana' version of the title is non-existent or a redirect. If the medicinal use of cannabis is limited to the use of marijuana, then this move makes sense, but it would then be out of line with other similar articles. --RexxS (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason those article titles are there is explained here. Nearly all of those articles are mistitled per WP:COMMONNAME also. Abductive (reasoning) 16:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with nom, that the commonname is "medical marijuana" not "medical cannabis". Msnicki (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• Very Strong Oppose As RexxS states this is because medical marijuana only covers one of the derivatives of the cannabis sativa plant. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 20:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have citations from secondary sources to back up this fanciful claim? Abductive (reasoning) 22:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not true anywhere the term is used, e.g., Washington, Colorado and elsewhere. The term medical marijuana always encompasses all the various preparations, including hash, oils and edibles. Msnicki (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this is indeed the case; that all the pro-"cannabis" arguments hinge on the notion that cannabis is the name of the drug. Cannabis is the name of the plant, and marijuana is the drug. It is like calling the "Opium" article "Papaver (drug)". In any case, they have not refuted the WP:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles argument, which is why Wikipedia calls a "heart attack" a "myocardial infarction". Abductive (reasoning) 01:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support I come here to find out about medical marijuana and instead I find out about this cannabis stuff. In all seriousness, this is overwhelmingly what it is discussed as in the MSM, and I support renaming pretty much all of the "cannabis" articles to marijuana. Torquemama007 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - seems logical enough. Red Slash 07:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I've informed WP:MED of this discussion, there is seemingly not a clear consensus to me, and I suggest we leave the request open longer. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Cannabis is the correct international term for the plant/drug in general, and is what Wikipedia uses. The WP:NAMINGCRITERIA policy requires us to take consistency into account when titling articles. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Alexbrn, that's another discussion and irrelevant here. The expression MM is to be understood as if it were one word. The two words are used together overwhelmingly most of the time, including most laws. Please change your !vote or strike your comment, as it's irrelevant and gets this RfC off-track. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• @BullRangifer: but does not this article cover non-marijuana medical products like Sativex? The manufacturers of this say this is a "a scientifically-based cannabis-derived product". AFAICS such products are derived from cannabis as a whole, and not necessarily from marijuana (which generally refers just to herbal preparations of cannabis). If this article's scope was limited to medical applications of marijuana only, then that would be different. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• MM laws cover Sativex and all medicinal products originating from the cannabis plant. That's why getting bogged down in the debate about which single word to use here is not constructive. We're looking at the phrase, not the single words. We're not using the words independently of each other, and we must recognize that this phrase has a life of its own in the general populace, the scientific community's published research, and in the legal setting, where it is by far the most commonly used phrase. The laws are nearly always called Medical marijuana laws, and cover all imaginable products derived from the cannabis plant which are used medicinally. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• After reading Msnicki's comment below, I'm now in doubt about FDA approved pharmaceutical products. They may be totally independent of the MM laws, and treated like any other pharmaceutical. I'm uncertain. Otherwise, MM laws cover all other products of the cannabis plant which are used for medicinal purposes. The laws do not make the odd distinction between the two words which some insist on here. The phrase covers it all. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, at least one MM advocate would seem to agree that it's complicated ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NAMINGCRITERIA is 5th on the list of criteria. Number 1 is WP:COMMONNAME. Further, per WP:TITLECHANGES, "the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage." Re: Sativex, that is indeed a drug derived the Cannabis plant. But that doesn't make it "medical marijuana", which typically defined in the law to encompass all manner of other simple preparations including buds, hash, oils and edibles – but not Sativex. Nowhere (that I'm aware of) do laws allowing for medical marijuana also allow you to buy Sativex. Sativex is still treated as a regular prescription drug like any other, assuming if it's even available (which it's not in the US, where it's still in Phase III trials.) Msnicki (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

In the article body we specifically cover nabiximols (i.e. Sativex). So, the proposed name change is going to knock the title out-of-sync with the article we have. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose "Marijuana" or "Marihuana" were derogatory terms popularized in the 1930's to further an agenda to demonize what was then popularly known as "cannabis". Psyden (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Psyden, that argument is irrelevant for this RfC. This is about a phrase, and it's the most common phrase used, including in laws. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• BullRangifer That you suggest it is fully irrelevant is irrelevant. Phrases are not independent of the words that make them up. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think he meant yours is not a guidelines-based argument. And it's not. And even if it was derogatory term 80 years ago, I don't think anyone believes it's still used that way today. As such, your argument really is pretty irrelevant to the discussion, amounting to little more than a statement of personal preference. Msnicki (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose We have discussed this many times. Agree that cannabis is more international. Thus oppose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Doc James, that argument is irrelevant for this RfC. This is about a phrase, and it's the most common phrase used, including in laws. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• BullRangifer That you suggest it is fully irrelevant is irrelevant. Phrases are not independent of the words that make them up. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. If we consider only the term "marijuana" versus "cannabis", marijuana is about 1.8x as frequent as cannabis on the web, about 1.1x as frequent on scholar, about 3x as frequent in books and about 1.6x as frequent in the specialized corpus of PubMed. Based on that (and a lot of other statistics showing the same preference across all English language sources) I thought we should have renamed Cannabis (drug) as Marijuana per WP:COMMONNAME but a lot of other editors argued that really wasn't a big enough difference and the RM was not adopted.

But this time, we're comparing the phrase "medical marijuana" to the phrase "medical cannabis". Medical marijuana is still about 1.8x as frequent on the web but it's about 5.2x as frequent on scholar and 6x as frequent in books and in PubMed. While there might have been room to argue that the WP:COMMONNAME wasn't entirely clear last time, this time it is and that should certainly outweigh irrelevant non-guidelines-based arguments about the etymology of the word and unsupported opinions about what the international term is. Msnicki (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support. This discussion is NOT the same as the many renaming discussions regarding whether to use the words "cannabis" or "marijuana". Let's get that straight. This is very different. Laws are almost exclusively worded "medical marijuana" (MM), with few exceptions. MM is the terminology of choice by far. We violate our rules in many ways within this article when we use sources which say MM, but in the text we say MC. That's totally wrong. It's as if a large censorship hammer has been wielded by someone who hates the word "marijuana". That's very unwikipedian behavior. We must follow the sources, and for this topic it's nearly always MM. A change of title will solve lots of problems and existing policy violations. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. It might be called "medical marijuana" but that doesn't make it a medical term. It's overwhelmingly a legal term. Not surprisingly, if we search .gov sites, "medical marijuana" is preferred by a factor of 9.8. Msnicki (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's how it works. Even the newest laws which allow the use of Charlotte's Web (an oil) are always framed as "medical marijuana" laws. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that the UK and Australia have not legalized medical use of marijuana by their citizens. Among the major English-speaking countries, only the US and Canada (c.f., here) allow medical marijuana, and that's the term they use for it. So this whole thing about the "international term" for it is just a little silly. We should call it what it's called in the English-speaking countries where it actually exists. Msnicki (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

An incorrect comment which highlights the confusion at the heart of this proposal. Medical cannabis products such as Sativex® most certainly are in use in UK health provision. This is not an article just about over-the-counter stuff available to North American "citizens". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

There you go. Doesn't matter which you call it, the UK does not have medical marijuana or medical cannabis as the term is understood anywhere the laws actually allow it. What they have is a prescription drug derived from the Cannabis plant. That's just not the same thing. Medical marijuana is a legal and social term, not a medical term. Msnicki (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

But this article's lede says the topic covered is "use of cannabis and its constituent cannabinoids, such as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD)". By your own argument the proposed title "medical marijuana" does not apply to the article's topic "as the term is understood anywhere". I agree. If we split the article and created a new one for Cannabis-derived medicine (or somesuch), that might open the way for the proposed renaming. But that's a different discussion. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The law uses narcotics, medically we use opioids. And? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - In addition to what has already been mentioned, I just want to point out that

- The Dutch Wikipedia uses the term "Medicinale cannabis"

- The French Wikipedia uses the term "Cannabis médical"

- The German Wikipedia uses the term "Cannabis als Arzneimittel"

- The Italian Wikipedia uses the term "Uso medico della cannabis"

Since our main article for this is currently called Cannabis (drug), changing the name of this article to medical marijuana would be a confusing and illogical step. If there is a need for a change, perhaps it may be better to do so at the main article first. -A1candidate (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Medical marijuana is clearly the most common name and what readers are most likely to look for. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 03:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Listing cannabis as an "ineffective" cancer treatment

This is a somewhat controversial issue. See the discussion here: Talk:Alternative cancer treatments/Archive 2#Cannabis Jarble (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any controversy, unless you know otherwise (sources?). There is no evidence cannabis is an effective cancer treatment; but it is falsely promoted as such in some quarters. This much the sources tell us. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Which sources, Alexbrn. Strikes me as an excessively controversial statement and many sources would back that. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The principal source is Cancer Research UK I believe. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV demands balance, so we cannot include their claims without also including the reliably sourced counter-claims. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay - what reliably-sourced counter-claims? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

We could start here. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The guidance for sourcing that applies here is WP:MEDRS. "Alternative" web sites and primary research doesn't ify. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The link i gave is to an alternative website but it is the links int eh article I was referring to. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, primary research articles that fails WP:MEDRS (and which don't generally investigate "treatment" either - they're more often about squirting stuff on cancer cells, or injecting stuff into rodents, in the lab). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that we have these may be indcative that we should not rely solely on cancer research UK if we are to maintain NPOV. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

See [http://tv.greenmedinfo.com/how-and-why-cannabis-cures-cancer-scientific-explanation/ this] as well. I personally have no idea whether cannabis does or does not cure cannabis but I do agree with Jarble that claiming that it is an ineffective treatment is controversial, compounded by the fact that cannabis is so controversial anyway. And after the discredited British Lung Foundation report on cannabis I think we need to be sceptical about organizations such as Cancer research UK as well and not rely on them as the only source for a controversial statement. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, currently we have WP:WikiProject CRUK - a project where WP and CRUK are working together to improve the cancer content here. Perhaps you should post at WT:MED explaining to the community why you think "we need to be sceptical about organizations such as Cancer research UK". So far, from what you have posted, I'm seeing they are right on the ball when they warn that the web contains a lot of misleading rubbish about cannabis being a cancer "cure". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support removing cannabis - Just because there's no evidence that cannabis is effective does not mean that it is demonstrably ineffective. -A1candidate (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Psyden (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Me too. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

We need to follow the reliable sources, and not perform OR to assert a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS based on a reversed burden of proof. So far nobody has brought any credible new source to the table, or made any specific suggestion about any flaw in the existing text. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There are no studies that have demonstrated the inefficacy of cannabis, and none of the sources claim otherwise. Using the Cancer Research UK article to claim "inefficacy" before trials have ever been conducted is OR. -A1candidate (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What text in the article are we discussing? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Not the text itself, but linking cannabis to the list of "ineffective" cancer treatments. -A1candidate (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It meets the criteria set out for inclusion in the list of "ineffective remedies" in the Alternative cancer treatments article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If something has no evidence to support it, it is currently deemed ineffective. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If something has no evidence to support it because of zero clinical trials, it is currently deemed unknown. -A1candidate (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Neurological problems

1) Spasticity: Oral cannabis extract is effective. Nabiximols and THC are probably effective.

2) Urinary dysfunction: Nabiximols is probably effective

3) Tremor: THC and cannabis are probably ineffective.

Section on neurological problems should be expanded and modified per PMID 24778283. Instead of just saying that the "use of cannabis in neurological problems, including multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and movement problems, is not very clear", we should elaborate on what is demonstrated to be effective or ineffective. -A1candidate (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

missing cancer research

I just chased a few links back on this and found this research and thought it should be more explicitly cited: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10700234 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.160.225 (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS, our guideline on reliable sourcing for medical claims. That source does not appear to be compliant, as it is a primary source (see WP:MEDREV, and is outdated (see WP:MEDDATE). Yobol (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Cancer research UK blog

We should not use this source because Cancer research UK is not a national health authority, but only a charitable organization. A blog post is not WP:MEDRS-compliant. It does not even meet WP:RS. -A1candidate (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"Statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies" (e.g. CRUK) are WP:MEDRS; that a body has charitable status (common in the UK for non-profit organizations) or that it publishes its considered positions in something it terms its "science blog" is neither here nor there. In fact trying to use the label "blog" to imply the nature of their communication here is casual, is a bit rum. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Which ref are you speaking about? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The ref is here. It is not a good source because:

• It accepts comments by readers ("If you have a considered comment you would like us to publish on this post you can contact the blog team at scienceblog.cancer.org.uk")

• It links to social media content such as "our Facebook page"

• It repeatedly uses Wikipedia as a source by citing Aspirin and camptothecin.

We should not treat a poorly-written blog as if it were a scientific statement. -A1candidate (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Lots of invented rules there. The page referred to does not now accept comments (as if that matters). This publication channel of CRUK has different authors, an editor, and updates its postings. It is the channel CRUK uses for its public news statements. There is no way, in any event, that CRUK can be an unreliable source for CRUK's (attributed) view. It is both due and WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

CRUK is a major national organization. This is their position. Thus this source can be used to support their opinion.

Next question is what text are we talking about? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it is a blog post that relies on Wikipedia as reference. This is explicitly prohibited per WP:CIRCULAR. -A1candidate (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess we disagree. You could try a RfC for gather wider opinions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, policy tells us precisely this kind of WP:NEWSBLOG may be used. Editors should be careful not to jump to false conclusion just because of the word "blog" used somewhere (the same is true for some newspapers). I don't see how CRUK's view "relies on Wikipedia" - A1candidate, please explain. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

For starters:

• The blog entry links to many Wikipedia articles related to cannabis, such as cannabinoids, cannabinoid receptors, tetrahydrocannabinol, endocannabinoid, etc

• Other blog entries contain links to several Wikipedia articles that are of a highly dubious nature and have been merged or deleted. This blog entry directs its readers to list of ineffective cancer treatments, which contains citations back to the blog itself

• Some blog authors have acknowledged that they are actively creating content on Wikipedia and I know there is an active parternship with CRUK.

-A1candidate (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hyperlinking means "reliance" for you? What does the CRUK piece "rely on" Wikipedia for? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is not a good editorial policy to allow hyperlinks to Wikipedia articles. For example, instead of linking to the cannabinoid article, which is extremely badly written, the blog could have used an actual review article or a professional reference work. -A1candidate (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, hyperlinking, by definition, does mean reliance, as it uses it as a source. Your comments are asinine. Learn the concept of formulating and defending/proving a thesis before you make yourself look like an idiot. It is an indisputable fact that cannabis is a treatment for cancer, even if not curing the underlying condition, as relieving symptoms is, once again, by definition, a treatment, and no rational source claims that cannabis use does not reduce the symptoms of cancerous syndromes.174.73.5.74 (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Vaporizors

Vaporizers are not considered safer because of a subjective belief by their users, as this article falsely claims in a blatant example of purely evil propaganda, but by the fact that countless studies over decades have shown that inhaling combusted matter introduces various harmful chemicals into the lungs, a process which has been proven to not occur in vaporization, as little to no combustion takes place! Wikipedia is a terrible place to go for accurate scientific information. Vaporizers are safer than smoking, much much safer than the vast majority of legal drugs out there, and this is a fact that is not debatable by anyone who is not a liar.174.73.5.74 (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible Additions

-There is evidence which shows an increase in potency of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol over the past few decades, likely due to it being the cannabinoid with the most abundant desirable qualities.

- Zlatko Mehmedic, M.Sc.Pharm.; Suman Chandra, Ph.D.; Desmond Slade, Ph.D.; Heather Denham, B.A.; Susan Foster, B.A.; Amit S. Patel, Ph.D.; Samir A. Ross, Ph.D.; Ikhlas A. Khan, Ph.D.; and Mahmoud A. ElSohly, Ph.D

Sept. 2010 Potency Trends of Delta-9 THC and Other Cannabinoids in Marijuana from 1993 to 2008. Journal of Forensic Sciences 55(5): doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01441.x

-There are a few statements about the medical effects of cannabis that are in need of references, this could be helpful for that.

- Borgett LM, Franson KL, Nussbaum AM, Wang GS

Feb 2013 The Pharmacological and Clinical Effects of Medical Cannabis. Pharmacotherapy 33(2):195-209

Roberson.80 (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Vaporization, as new delivery method.

"Fourteen participants preferred vaporization, 2 smoking, and 2 reported no preference. No adverse events were observed. In this study, vaporization of marijuana was found to be a safe mode of delivery. Participants had a clear preference for vaporization over smoking as a delivery system for the marijuana used in this trial."Abrig87 (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Removing dubious "Botanical strains" section

This section appears to have its origins in a series of edits to link this and the Cannabis article to a non-scholarly Web site, and a particularly poor one at that. The sources were correctly challenged and this resulted in a large section with no references and templates noting the need for medical citations. It's been like that for an entire year at this point, with most of the text pulled directly from that one dubious Web site which has since been removed. Something legitimate about cultivation might be nice, but this section isn't it, so I'm removing it. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Future inclusion

Below, I'll be adding a list of diseases and afflictions that can benefit from marijuana and provide appropriate sources. Add them to the main article as you see fit.--WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• inflammatory bowel disease [6]

• Arthritis [7]

• ProCon Medical marijuana

All sources for health material must be WP:MEDRS; these aren't. Alexbrn (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn: Noted. Thanks for the info.--WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Marijuana vending machine

We still need an image of a marijuana vending machine. Anyone? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Adverse effects - medical vs. recreational use

@Psyden: @WikiTryHardDieHard: I thought Psyden's criticism was at least partially on target. I'm not sure we should be referencing articles entitled "Adverse effects of recreational cannabis use" here, or using studies that were conducted on users who are employing the drug in a way that would not normally be used for therapeutic purposes. I'd propose the following text, which is based almost entirely on reviews of medical marijuana, as a starting point for this section. It needs to be expanded, but there are several more reviews that deal specifically with medical uses.

== Adverse effects of medicinal cannabis ==

See also: Long-term effects of cannabis

THC, the principal psychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant, has low toxicity, the dose of THC needed to kill 50% of tested rodents is extremely high.

A 2014 systematic review of medical cannabis by the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology found that among 1,619 people treated with cannabinoids in short term clinical trials, 6.9% discontinued treatment due to adverse effects. The rate of discontinuation in the placebo arms was 2.2%. Data on the symptoms that caused discontinuation were poorly reported, but symptoms appearing in at least 2 studies included nausea, weakness, behavioral or mood changes, suicidal behavior, hallucinations, dizziness, fatigue, and feelings of intoxication. Psychosis, dysphoria, and anxiety, which are observed at higher exposures to tetrahydrocannabinol, were not seen in these trials. Two studies performed in people with multiple sclerosis showed an increased incidence of cognitive impairment in those who smoke cannabis. The authors noted that "it is especially concerning that a medication that may have an AE of suicide may be prescribed in a population such as patients with MS who already are at increased suicide risk".

A second review of medical marijuana use noted that no fatalities have been attributed to marijuana use. A review of 25 studies on the safety and efficacy of acute or chronic cannabadiol administration reported a lack of side effects across a wide range of doses. The only adverse effect was somnolence that spontaneously resolved in most cases. Cardiopulmonary adverse effects such as atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, and transient ischemic attacks are uncommon in clinical trials, but have been the subject of case reports. Cannabis smoke contains a similar number of carcinogens as cigarette smoke, and may increase the risk of cancers of the lung, head, and neck. Evidence regarding whether cannabis smoking reduces lung function is mixed, but overall this appears to be a problem primarily in heavy users.

Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 15:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It was suggested that medical use of cannabis does not differ from recreational use. How can this be given that:

1) Doses typically used for medicine are much less than those used for recreation.

2) Usually medical cannabis is used in a vaporized or extracted oil form.

3) Medical cannabis is typically used under the close supervision of a doctor.

It is not accurate to suggest that controlled medical cannabis use under the supervision of a medical professional equates to uncontrolled recreational use of a street product.Psyden (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment of @Formerly 98:. Perhaps add those to the "Medical use" section under Adverse Effects and eliminate the "Recreational use" section. Psyden (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Psyden (talk) I like what you did by splitting the section. I completely agree with every point you made. It was not clear to me initially that we were talking about the difference between oil vs. vape vs. flower. The side effects listed did not differentiate. WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

References

IBD

This text "Cannabis has been used to treat a number of gastrointestinal problems, including anorexia, emesis, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and diabetic gastroparesis. Two clinical studies have shown promise in treating Crohn's disease with cannabis. Some patients have achieved complete remission. Further study is required to establish which specific cannabinoids help, the optimal dose, and mode of administration, to maximize the beneficial effects. "

Was added supported by the ref http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=24969296

I do not believe that is a good summary. Ref says "Despite anecdotal reports on medical cannabis in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), there are few controlled studies." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Summary was redone to better represent the findings. Psyden (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The sources do not support the text you have added

The previous summary was better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Has anybody got the full text of this review? (It's apparently in a section of the issue entitled "Off the Wall!") The current wording looks suspiciously close to the abstract. Alexbrn (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a selective reporting of the abstract leaving out

"Yet, in an additional study, low-dose cannabidiol did not have an effect on CD activity" and "Despite anecdotal reports on medical cannabis in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), there are few controlled studies" and "further research is required to declare cannabinoids a medicine"

Impact factor of the journal is fairly low at 1.8 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've accurified this to the source (insofar as I can tell what it says from just the abstract) and moved the content to the "Research" section. I would like to hear from Psyden about what the conclusion of the full article says. Alexbrn (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Alexbrn. What do you think of this change [8]? Same issue as here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you really feel that this review concluded that there is only "weak" evidence? It seems to me they are making the case that there is good evidence, though definitive proof is lacking. Why remove their specific findings regarding ongoing research? I feel that suppressing and censoring this information is very much against the spirit of Wikipedia. I did manage to find a secondary source discussing this, however it is not listed as a review: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4076530/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyden (talk • contribs) 14:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

From the abstract it appears - yes - there is only weak evidence. Have you got access to the full text (i.e. have you read this article?) Alexbrn (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have the full text, what would you like to know? Psyden (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

One observational study of 30 people. One RCT of 21 people. A third trial that showed no benefit. Paper concludes that cannabinoids are not currently medicine. Yes that is exceedingly weak evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to know what the article's conclusions says. Alexbrn (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

"Conclusion The cannabinoid system has important regulatory functions throughout the human body, including the GI tract, and a major role in the regulation of inflammatory reactions. Despite the importance of the cannabinoid system, it has stayed ‘below the radar’ of medical research and we are only beginning to discover its implications. Evidence is accumulating showing that manipulation of the endocannabinoid system could have beneficial effects on IBD. However, further research is required before cannabinoids can be declared a medicine. We need to establish the appropriate cannabinoids, as well as medical conditions, dose, and mode of administration for cannabinoid use in IBD."

Instead of saying "As of 2014 there is only weak evidence that cannabis is of benefit to people with inflammatory bowel disease" how about we say something that better represents "Evidence is accumulating showing that manipulation of the endocannabinoid system could have beneficial effects on IBD. However, further research is required before cannabinoids can be declared a medicine." with mention of the studies that support this. I'm fine with it being moved to the "research" section. Psyden (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The above when translated into the wording the general population understands means that there is little clinical evidence for its use. We have a few weak and contradictory human studies. We have a couple of animals studies. None of that is sufficient to direct medical care.

One could says "evidence is insufficient for the use of cannabis to treat IBD" which is what "before cannabinoids can be declared a medicine." means Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I did find this reference, [9] it is governmental (though applicable in this case in California)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I oppose the "evidence is accumulating, however..." formulation as it overstates the current state of the evidence, which is that there simply isn't enough of it to handle it as if it were accepted as a treatment. Agree with moving to Research, but the wording would have to be more in line with what is normally found in a Research section, something like "Cannabis is being investigated for its possible use in inflammatory bowel disease." Zad68 02:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I would just like to add that Wikipedia is a repository of information. Not anyone's personal sandbox. Psyden (talk) 07:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure to that we agree. We are not here to promote stuff beyond the evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So why suppress information? Psyden (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This is about WP:DUE weight and not giving poor quality evidence more weight than it deserves. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd say Wikipedia is one level above "a repository of information", rather that it "summarizes accepted knowledge". All three words of that phrase are very important and apply here. Alexbrn (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

And this is exactly what I have done. Include whatever additional information that you wish to balance it out. Psyden (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

For other topics with this much evidence we usually just say little evidence exists. For topics were there are 50 or a 100 RCTs we do not describe each individual one but give a summary of what they show. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

JAMA 2015

Here's all 4 articles from JAMA:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=2338251
Whiting PF, Wolff RF, Deshpande S, et al.
Cannabinoids for Medical Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
JAMA. 2015;313(24):2456-2473. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.6358.
June 23/30, 2015
Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids for the following indications: nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, appetite stimulation in HIV/AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity due to multiple sclerosis or paraplegia, depression, anxiety disorder, sleep disorder, psychosis, glaucoma, or Tourette syndrome.
Conclusions and Relevance: There was moderate-quality evidence to support the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity. There was low-quality evidence suggesting that cannabinoids were associated with improvements in nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, weight gain in HIV infection, sleep disorders, and Tourette syndrome. Cannabinoids were associated with an increased risk of short-term AEs.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=2338266
Clinical Crossroads
Medical Marijuana for Treatment of Chronic Pain and Other Medical and Psychiatric ProblemsA Clinical Review
Kevin P. Hill, MD, MHS1,2
JAMA. 2015;313(24):2474-2483. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.6199.
June 23/30, 2015
Findings: Use of marijuana for chronic pain, neuropathic pain, and spasticity due to multiple sclerosis is supported by high-quality evidence. Six trials that included 325 patients examined chronic pain, 6 trials that included 396 patients investigated neuropathic pain, and 12 trials that included 1600 patients focused on multiple sclerosis. Several of these trials had positive results, suggesting that marijuana or cannabinoids may be efficacious for these indications.
Dr Hill: Mr Z is a 60-year-old man with a long history of chronic low back pain refractory to multiple procedures and medications. In an effort to obtain better control of his chronic pain, he began using medical marijuana after receiving a certification from a local specialty medical marijuana clinic. He thought that medical marijuana improved his pain control and approached his primary care physician about continued use of medical marijuana.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=2338239
Research Letter
Cannabinoid Dose and Label Accuracy in Edible Medical Cannabis Products
Ryan Vandrey, PhD1; Jeffrey C. Raber, PhD2; Mark E. Raber2; Brad Douglass, PhD3; Cameron Miller, MS3; Marcel O. Bonn-Miller, PhD4
JAMA. 2015;313(24):2491-2493. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.6613.
June 23/30, 2015
RESULTS: Of 75 products purchased (47 different brands), 17% were accurately labeled, 23% were underlabeled, and 60% were overlabeled with respect to THC content

Editorial
Medical MarijuanaIs the Cart Before the Horse?
Deepak Cyril D'Souza, MBBS, MD1,2,3; Mohini Ranganathan, MD1,2,3
JAMA. 2015;313(24):2431-2432. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.6407.
June 23/30, 2015
First, for most qualifying conditions, approval has relied on low-quality scientific evidence, anecdotal reports, individual testimonials, legislative initiatives, and public opinion....
Second, there are inconsistencies in how medical conditions are qualified for medical marijuana use within a state and between states....
Third, unlike most FDA-approved drugs that typically have 1 or 2 active constituents, marijuana is a complex of more than 400 compounds including flavonoids and terpenoids and approximately 70 cannabinoids other than Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)3....
Fourth, some individual cannabinoids are already commercially available in the form of dronabinol and nabilone....
Fifth, while the acute adverse effects of marijuana are quite well known, the effects of repeated exposure, as would occur with medical marijuana, need further study....
There is also a small but definite risk of psychotic disorder associated with marijuana use, as well as a significant risk of symptom exacerbations and relapse in patients with an established psychotic disorder....
Sixth, the interactions of marijuana with other drugs that may be concurrently prescribed for qualifying conditions need further study.
Seventh, emerging evidence suggests that the endocannabinoid system is critical in brain development and maturational processes, especially during adolescence and early adulthood....
Eighth, it is important to understand the mechanism(s) underlying the potential beneficial effects of marijuana or its constituent cannabinoids....
For physicians, the legal implications of certifying patients for medical marijuana remain unclear given the differences between the views of state vs federal government....
In conclusion, if the states’ initiative to legalize medical marijuana is merely a veiled step toward allowing access to recreational marijuana, then the medical community should be left out of the process, and instead marijuana should be decriminalized. Conversely, if the goal is to make marijuana available for medical purposes, then it is unclear why the approval process should be different from that used for other medications. Evidence justifying marijuana use for various medical conditions will require the conduct of adequately powered, double-blind, randomized, placebo/active controlled clinical trials to test its short- and long-term efficacy and safety. The federal government and states should support medical marijuana research. Since medical marijuana is not a life-saving intervention, it may be prudent to wait before widely adopting its use until high-quality evidence is available to guide the development of a rational approval process. Perhaps it is time to place the horse back in front of the cart.

--Nbauman (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request on July 6 2015

The article currently states:

"A number of medical organizations have endorsed reclassification of marijuana to allow for further study. These include, but are not limited to:

• The American Medical Association[72][73][74]
• The American College of Physicians – America's second largest physicians group[75]
• Leukemia & Lymphoma Society – America's second largest cancer charity[76]
• American Academy of Family Physicians opposes the use of marijuana except under medical supervision[77]

These statements are not supported by the cited sources, and I request that the following changes be made:

• "A number of medical organizations have endorsed reclassification of marijuana to allow for further study." should be changed to "A number of medical organizations have endorsed studies to determine whether marijuana should be reclassified to allow for further study", and
• Deletion of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society from the list

The basis for this request is as follows:

• With regards to the AMA

• Reference 72 does not support the AMA requesting reclassification. It only says the AMA voted in favor of a study to consider reclassification
• Reference 73 is to an advocacy site and appears to simply be misquoting reference 72
• Reference 74 is a broken link

• The ACP, like the AMA, did not support reclassification, only a study of the issue, per the cited source 75
• The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society is not mentioned on the advocacy site in reference 76.

Further, I'm pretty sure the descriptors "America's second largest physician's group", and "America's second largest cancer charity" violate some sort of guideline. Its a synthesis on the part of the editor stating "see how authoritative these groups are". I think you need a third party source that ties the opinion together with the group description to avoid synthesis.

thanks, 2605:E000:1C0C:808F:25E1:84F0:6D4F:BB08 (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I have removed it since most of the references are 5+ years old anyway. The opinions of medical organizations should probably be in a "Controversy" section if they are to be added back in with up to date references. Sizeofint (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Vasodilator/Vasoconstrictor?

The effect of cannabis is AFAIK vasodilation and not vasoconstriction as stated in the article, quick search on scholar.google.com finds many published articles supporting this, such as http://www.pnas.org/content/96/24/14136.short 83.248.183.93 (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2015

Dear Sir or Madam,

I request that the article on medical marijuana be modified. The article should note at the very beginning that "There is no such thing as 'medical' marijuana. There is 'marijuana,' but there is no 'medical'" marijuana."

Sincerely, 137.151.55.66 (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources say otherwise. Stickee (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Topical Use - Worth Mentioning

Transdermal use isn't covered in the article. In the medical/legal cannabis states there is cannabis infused oils/salves/creams etc which are also used. The use and sale of topical products should at least be mentioned. There is some academic evidence on efficacy.

• [Topical analgesics]
• Management of painful neuropathies
• Recent advances in the pharmacological management of acute and chronic pain

News Coverage:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/16/oregon-medical-marijuana-conference-what-i-learned http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/09/04/how-weed-is-being-embraced-by-wellness-movement/ https://www.leafly.com/news/cannabis-101/what-are-topicals-anyway-a-tour-of-a-manufacturing-lab

Timetraveler3.14 (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Medical marijuana

Added information for medical marijuana. Medical marijuana can also be used in children. Children that suffer from seizures can benefit from marijuana as well. Seizures can be reduced in severity as well as number of seizures a day. Typically for children capsules are taken with medicinal oil inside. 2601:281:C901:6DC8:C155:EFCB:2BEF:7611 (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Christine Gallwitz

Recently reported in Vancouver for use of cannabis oil in children with epilepsy and autism. --Zefr (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Are there any reviews on this? Otherwise we can put this in the research section. Sizeofint (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As with other medicinal properties of cannabis oil (cannabidiol and cannabinol) under clinical study, the status remains insufficient to be approved by scientific agreement or regulatory agencies. Reviews do exist and appear promising for: 1) a specific form of childhood epilepsy and a general review here, but the clinical field is divided; 2) preliminary evidence in anxiety, schizophrenia, addiction, and newborn hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. Related articles/reviews exist. --Zefr (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Cancer Sub-section

In reference to the following statement:

"There is no firm evidence that cannabis helps reduce the risk of getting cancer; whether it increases the risk is difficult to establish, since most users combine its use with tobacco smoking, and this complicates research."

I doubt that the claim that "most" users of cannabis also smoke can be substantiated, particularly given that no one tracks all cannabis users (the given reference is a blog post, not a WP:MEDRS compliant secondary literature source). Rewording this to indicate that multiple confounding variables, such as tobacco use, make it difficult to establish a causative link between cannabis use and cancer, may be more fruitful and certainly more accurate. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This section may need to be updated. See this news article, for example. Jarble (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No, we're spot on: "Cannabinoids have been shown to exhibit some anti-cancer effects in laboratory experiments, although there has been little research into their use as a cancer treatment in people." This has been the case for a while. Alexbrn (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

medical or medicinal?

Shouldn't it be "medicinal marijuana?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.5.145 (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I think in one archive debate the argument was that all forms of marijuana are cannabis but not all forms of cannabis are marijuana. Medical is used more than medicinal in articles and common parlance. Sizeofint (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

distribution section - link request

Please add distribution section and link to marijuana dispensary. Thanks!! --Potguru (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done Sizeofint (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

New stub

High everyone. Please help expand Cannabis shop to include info on shops in different countries, etc. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2016

Medical cannabis can be administered using a variety of methods, including vaporizing or smoking dried buds, eating cannabis edibles, taking capsules or using oral sprays. Synthetic cannabinoids are available as prescription drugs in some countries; examples include: dronabinol and nabilone. Recreational use of cannabis is illegal in most parts of the world, but the medical use of cannabis is legal in certain countries, including Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Australia is currently in the process of passing a law which would allow the use of marijuana for medical and scientific purposes.[11][12] In the United States, federal law outlaws all cannabis use, while 20 states and the District of Columbia no longer prosecute individuals for the possession or sale of marijuana, as long as the individuals are in compliance with the state's marijuana sale regulations. However, an appeals court ruled in January 2014 that a 2007 Ninth Circuit ruling remains binding in relation to the ongoing illegality, in federal legislative terms, of Californian cannabis dispensaries, reaffirming the impact of the federal Controlled Substances Act.[13]

03:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)03:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)~Vaporizing cannabis oil is the choice de jour going forward for effective and discreet medical cannabis use. Please edit to show this.

184.100.171.236 (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Definition and scope of this article

What is the source for the first sentence of this article: "Medical cannabis, or medical marijuana, refers to the use of cannabis and its cannabinoids to treat disease or improve symptoms."? I am unclear especially on the "and its cannabinoids" part. Jytdog (talk) 08:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Source added. "Medical cannabis" and "medical marijuana" are terms commonly used in medical literature. They refer to cannabis and its extracts. Psyden (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The source is clear that the term has no agreed definition; I added that. Thanks for bringing the source. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

In my view it is unhelpful to encyclopedic clarity to include content in this article on derivatives that are used as medicine, like THC (which is an actual manufactured pharmaceutical drug) and Nabiximols which is a botanical drug, manufactured in a standarized way. This article should focus on use of the plant matter for medical purposes - the stuff you get at a Cannabis shop. What do folks think about that? Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

THC can be extracted from the plant, it is the main psychoactive cannabinoid. There is also a synthesized version called Marinol. Medical literature often uses the term medical cannabis to refer to these plant extractions, and sometimes the plant form. Rarely does the term medical cannabis refer to burnt plant matter. Many medical cannabis states do not even allow the smoking of plant matter, some do not allow the sale of the plant matter, only extractions. Regardless, the term commonly used to refer to plant or extractions is 'medical cannabis'. Psyden (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The sourced content in article says that the main way medical cannabis is used in the US as of 2013 is by smoking the plant matter. There is no source in this article about medical use of gross extracts. It seems to me that the article should be limited to plant matter at least for now; it could be expanded to gross extracts if sources are added. But it should not include the manufactured products because those are a completely different ball of wax. They are each defined things that have ben through clinical trials and regulatory approvals. Discussing them from a medical perspective is really different from discussing medical use of plant matter or gross extracts. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Source says "There is no agreed definition of medicinal cannabis. The term is used to refer to the therapeutic use of herbal cannabis and its constituents." Switched the order. Useful to provide one definition before saying a number exist IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James. What do you think about limiting this article to the plant matter, for the sake of focus and clarity, per the above? In my view there are unique issues with medical cannabis (plant matter) that we should really be focusing on here (like what exactly is it, since it is not manufactured like drugs are.... nor put through the same kind of CMC testing that botanical drugs are. it is an interesting animal. ) that are different from content about specific cannibinoids.... Jytdog (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes I think limiting it to plant matter or non pharmaceutical formulations would be good. Than link to the articles on the pharmaceutical forms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Cannabis articles in general are becoming too fragmented. Simply specify which form is being discussed, ie plant vaporized, plant smoked, plant extract edible or vaporized, synthetic, etc. Often sources that discuss therapeutic benefits for say, pain, talk about multiple forms. It seems silly to break this information up over multiple pages when specific forms can simply be named here. Psyden (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

different things are different. different specific chemicals have different activity, different toxicities. it's like saying that a bike and a ferrari and a semi a train and an airplane are the same - they're all vehicles. There is not much interesting to say lumping everything together. And especially not, if we want to treat them seriously like medical treatments and say anything meaningful about them. Jytdog (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Bikes, cars, and trains have much more varied content, vastly different vast histories, very different designs, etc, one can write many pages on any single one of them. Cannabinoids, synthetic or plant based all primarily act on the endocannabinoid system, synthetics are usually modeled to mimic phytocannabinoids, they are not so vastly different. Yes, precisely measured dosing is a concern for raw plant material and should be mentioned. More and more synthetics will be developed. We would likely end up with a large number of tiny articles. Why not combine them? Where does a product like Sativex fit which is not synthetic but an extraction? It just seems unnecessary to break everything up when you can simply specify the type. Psyden (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

OK maybe an analogy that would work better for you - is should we have only one article on COX-2 inhibitors? do Vioxx and Celebrex have identical toxicities and uses? No. One killed people and has been withdrawn from the market, the other is used by zillions of people. The molecule matters in medicine. This stuff is also going to emerge more and more clearly as these molecules get teased apart, tweaked, and brought through clinical trials. And Sativex is a Botanical drug that is manufactured and they measure things and adjust it to make sure it meets the parameters it needs to meet. It is not like a bag of weed that you buy at a cannabis dispensary. Nothing like that. And taking it is not like smoking a joint - the effects on your body, on your lungs, are totally different, just from the route of administration, much less all the other ingredients that are in cannabis. Not the same thing. This is what happens when the medical establisment starts to take this stuff seriously. These distinctions matter. Jytdog (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not say it does not matter or that there are no differences, I just question the necessity of breaking the article up, which is not a small task. Psyden (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

if the differences matter, then of course it is important. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Having this information on one page does not negate that fact. Psyden (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have two arguments. One of them appears to be based on the amount of work. The work will be easy and I will be happy to do it. The other objection seems to be about "fragmentation" and I am not getting that. And, I think, like we have an article on COX-2 inhibitors, we already have an article on Cannabinoids. I think the latter is the article you want. This article should really be about the medical use of the plant matter, per its name "Medical cannabis". Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

As a a general comment, the "cannabis suite" of articles came in for some major attention at the end of 2013 when they were in a really dangerous state and subject to emergency de-POVing. It was recognised then that some kind of restructuring would be in order but this never took place. I'm not sure if any of the articles have slipped back into POV-o-ramas but it's worth reviewing the historical discussion here. In my view it would be good to devise a from-scratch ground-plan for all of these articles, get centralized consensus for it, and then refactor the content. As it is, the subject matter is fragmented into a mess. Alexbrn (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree some restructuring is definitely in order. It would be a tremendous effort though. Sizeofint (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

PA just leaglized it

http://6abc.com/news/medical-marijuana-bill-passes-pa-house/1288426/

-json94 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSon94 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The Governor is expected to sign it into law on Sunday.Psyden (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Nigromante25 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)== Insomnia and anxiety == I would like to add both insomnia and anxiety to this uses section and am posting here first in good faith. There are reliable sources supporting these additions. Any objections can be discussed.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It may help if you can link to the WP:MEDRS compliant sources you're talking about. Sizeofint (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Sizeofint. I take your WP:MEDRS point on these proposed inclusions, and after a bit of research, I'm not sure if including these uses, mostly found in primary sources, would meet the mark. At least right now.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Marijuana Use as Palliative Drug in Cancer Patients

Even though; the beneficial effects of its two main chemical elements delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and Cannabidiol (CBD), to manage symptoms like nausea, anorexia, pain, and anxiety. Due to the actual federal restrictions banning the use and commercialization of marijuana, the drug is not being prescribed by physicians in the United States of America as part of the regular protocols to treat certain cancers. However; the FDA has approved two cannabinoid-based drugs (Dronabinol, Nabilone) to treat nausea and stimulate the appetite of patients receiving chemotherapy (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2015). There are also studies in animals that have proven the properties of these elements to reduce tumors. Nevertheless; these experiences have not been documented enough as formal investigations, to receive the authorization of the FDA for its open medical use. In spite of the benefits that marijuana has provided for the management of the mentioned symptoms in terminal cancer patients; the drug has adverse effects like addiction, can cause heart problems, hallucinations, paranoia, blood pressure problems, depression, cognitive diminish, withdrawal syndrome among others. For that reason, the drug needs to be studied more in depth to offset its benefits against its detrimental health effects so it can be prescribed freely as any other drug in the market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigromante25 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Nigromante25 04/24/16

What would you like changed? Sizeofint (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2016

want to fix deadlink, footnote #18 with article: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Medical_cannabis

also want to add that ASAM also recommended for doctors should have their licenses revoked. Finddankweed (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Categories

Here are the current categories:

• Category:Medicinal use of cannabis
• Category:Antiemetics
• Category:Antioxidants
• Category:Biologically-based therapies
• Category:Herbalism
• Category:Medical ethics
• Category:Medicinal plants
• Category:Pharmaceuticals policy
• Category:Pharmacognosy
• Category:Psychoactive drugs

• User:Mario Castelán Castro removed the Category:Psychoactive drugs category in this dif with no edit note,
• Guy reverted here, then
• Mario re-reverted here with edit note, "Category:Psychoactive drugs through several child categories. Redundant categorization is to be avoided per WP:Categorization. Do not revert carelessly.".
• I restored it here and have started this discussion.

Mario, which of the categories is a sub? Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

To Jytdog: There are several paths. Here is one: Category:Medicinal use of cannabis, Category:Cannabis, Category:Categories by psychoactive drug, Category:Psychoactive drugs. You can figure more paths for yourself if you are interested. One is enough to justify my edit.

Just because you did not care to check whether Medical cannabis it is included on Category:Psychoactive drugs through the category tree is not a good reason to revert. That is as if you removed a well-sourced paragraph because you did not bother to read the source.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC),

Boghog insists

To Boghog: What is your justification for reverting me?. I have already that this page should not be listed directly under Category:Psychoactive drugs because it is already included through subcategories (see above). Quoting WP:categorization:

“In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C.”

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC).

This was an accidental revision on my part. I have therefore self-reverted. I will note in passing that this edit summary is unnecessarily combative. A simple explanation would have sufficed. Boghog (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions

1. Under Modern: Cannabis was widely marketed and manufactured in England and North America for its narcotic, pain relieving effects by the late 1800s (Lucas, 2012, 125). However, medical advancements and the discovery of aspirin led to declines in using the plant in medicine (Lucas, 2012, 125).

2. Perhaps a small section elaborating on the endocannabinoid system: Cannabinoids are known to modulate the endocannabinoid system, a subsystem of the mammalian central and peripheral nervous systems (Giacoppo et al., 2014, 18782). They have been extensively studied for their antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and neuroprotective effects, and it is suspected that they may prevent and/or treat the symptoms of neurological disorders (Giacoppo et al., 2014, 18783). Cannabinoids have their effect in the endocannabinoid system by using inhibitory signaling of G-protein-coupled cannabinoid receptors in special areas of the brain specific to neurological functioning (Croxford, 2003, 179). This inhibitory effect in certain parts of the brain is what makes cannabinoids potentially beneficial for treating neurological diseases (Croxford, 2003, 179).

3. Under Other Conditions: One specific neurological disease that may be helped by cannabis is Parkinson’s disease (Croxford, 2003, 179). This may be due to the fact that cannabinoids can inhibit glutamate, the major excitatory neurotransmitter of the nervous system (Croxford, 2003, 179). They also help to counteract oxidative damage to specific dopaminergic neurons by inhibiting reactive oxygen species and tumor necrosis factor, an apparent neuroprotective effect (Croxford, 2003, 179).

References Croxford JL. 2003. Therapeutic potential of cannabinoids in cns disease. CNS Drugs 17(3): 179-202. Giacoppo S, Mandolino G, Galuppo M, Bramanti P, Mazzon E. 2014. Cannabinoids: new promising agents in the treatment of neurological diseases. Molecules 19(11): 18781-18816. Lucas PL. 2012. Cannabis as an adjunct to or substitute for opiates in the treatment of chronic pain. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 44(2): 125-133.

(Tori.sanders (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2017

The map showing where medical cannibis is legal shows Australia as still having it only decriminalised or illegal in some states. It has, however been legalised and the map should be updated to reflect that

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/medical-marijuana-to-be-legalised-in-australia-from-november-2016-a7222576.html

Thanks

--139.216.116.149 (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

slight BIAS?

i notice the adverse effects section is large compared to the positives :)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/13/legalise-medical-cannabis-urgency — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.68.148 (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2017

In Argentina the use of medical marihuana is now legal, so it should be added to the list, and update the map.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/argentine-senate-approves-medical-use-of-cannabis-oil/2017/03/29/53232b78-14ed-11e7-bb16-269934184168_story.html

LucasCollino (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Cancer

Alexbrn‎ "since most users smoke it mixed with tobacco, and this complicates research" Such a claim would have to be supported by some statistic but none is referenced in http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/Exerdoph (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you a WP:SOCK IP or editing WP:LOGGEDOUT? The source says:

When it comes to finding out whether cannabis can cause cancer, the evidence is a lot murkier. This is mainly because most people who use cannabis smoke it mixed with tobacco, a substance that definitely does cause cancer.

We reflect that faithfully. If you personally disagree with it then that has no relevance as far as our WP:PAGs go. Alexbrn (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to log back in, also I don't personally disagree I just find this section dismissive, biased and inconsistent. Please prove that most cannabis users also use tobacco. From what I can find https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/high-school-youth-trends, that claim is just false and unbased.Exerdoph (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't need to "prove" anything except that we're reflecting faithfully what good sources say, for that is the purpose of this encyclopedia. If you want to propose a change then say what text you want and specify the good source that backs it up. Alexbrn (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I read the source and its sources. No such claim is verifiable by any statistic. Here are some sources that warrant the deleteion of the claim. Such a claim would need some quantification but none is sourced. These two sources prove how inaccurate and vague of a claim its is. It's biased and unrepresentative of the the whole population. The UK and Europe are not the world, the statement is an extreme generalizition of the evidence.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00104/full

-This is only The americas, australasia, and europe. The idea that most cannabis users smoke frequqently with tobacco is only true in Europe. Cannabis-tobacco mixing rates in the Americas and Australasia are much much lower and definitly not the the majority. Its actually very uncommon in the Americas. There is no data on Asia or Africa so worlwide assesment is not quantifiable.

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/high-school-youth-trends

-Cigarette smoking has decreased markedly over the past 5 years (almost 50%) across all grades and is currently at its lowest rate in the survey’s history.

-The survey also revealed that marijuana is frequently consumed as an edible

-Marijuana use continues to exceed cigarette use

-34.9% marijuana prevalance is over twice 15.9% cigarrete usage rate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exerdoph (talk • contribs) 21:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Primary research in a journal from Frontiers Media is not a good source, and if Europe is not the world then "High School and Youth Trends" in the US certainly isn't. Since the CRUK source is obviously referring to the problem of research being complicated by smokers who mix tobacco & cannabis a simple tweak to the wording can shut down any undue implication about global usage patterns. Alexbrn (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking to either remove or modify this section →"There is no good evidence that cannabis use helps reduce the risk of getting cancer.[116] Whether smoking cannabis increases the risk is difficult to establish since it is usually smoked mixed with tobacco – a known carcinogen – and this complicates research." The terminology is vague in that it does not acknowledge the complicated relationship between cancers and cannabis. For example in the cancer.gov cannabis pdq, a very large epidemiologic study is cited that directly contradicts (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25623697?dopt=Abstract) →"An analysis of 84,170 participants in the California Men’s Health Study was performed to investigate the association between Cannabis use and the incidence of bladder cancer. During 16 years of follow-up, 89 Cannabis users (0.3%) developed bladder cancer compared with 190 (0.4%) of the men who did not report Cannabis use (P < .001). After adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, and body mass index, Cannabis use was associated with a 45% reduction in bladder cancer incidence (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.33–1.00)" There are many cancers, many with extremely distinct pathophysiologies, given that this study has elucidated cannabis' ability to significantly reduce the frequency of certain types of cancers, even with tobacco co-use, Kat Arney's of Cancer Research UK's claim should be at the very minimum removed. It should be replaced with the conclusions of the study, or the results from the study, or it should at-least be acknowledged that the relationship between cannabis and cancer is still illusive. The claim that there is no good evidence and that tobacco necessarily complicates the relationship is too emphatic and is not supported by the empirical data. A reasonable replacement would be this from the Cancer PDQ →"A comprehensive Health Canada monograph on marijuana concluded that while there are many cellular and molecular studies that provide strong evidence that inhaled marijuana is carcinogenic, the epidemiologic evidence of a link between marijuana use and cancer is still inconclusive." Exerdoph (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It's well-sourced as is. The source you bring is not WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

For biomedical information we'd ideally like to cite secondary sources like review, meta-analyses, and government and NGO reports. WP:MEDRS goes into more detail on what good sources are for biomedical information. Sizeofint (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I know, but the WP:MEDRS is not strictly binding in this sense. Also that is why I recommended the health Canada monograph which is a secondary source and is speaking about the illusive relationship instead of making a claim. If anything the Cancer Research UK, though well cited, is not reflective of current knowledge and therefore does not follow WP:MEDRS. Also there is no problem with using this study just to prove that point. Its undeniable that Arney's claim is not appropriate, is it not based on anything but speculation. The mere existence of sound empirical data contrary to this claim warrants it's deletion. I was merely suggesting some feasible replacements.Exerdoph (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS certainly does apply and material from CRUK is good MEDRS for this material; your suggested source is not. Notice also that the CRUK post is revised over time, so we can expect any significant new findings to appear there if other good sources do not emerge. Alexbrn (talk) 09:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

This fails to adress the central issue that the USGOV Cancer.gov PDQ which is pretty high in terms of the information hierarchy described in WP:MEDRS considers this good information and directly contradicts this speculative claim, which is practically on the level of expert opinion considering its a blog post by an individual in the CRUK, this claim is not the result of any real assessment. Also the WP:MEDRS is very explicit that any good evidence is fine as long as it is reasonable for the argument being made. And my argument is simply that the relationship between cannabis and cancer is more inconclusive than the CRUK conclusion. And given that the quality of my evidence is good and is presented by a trustworthy secondary source there is no reason that the CRUK statement shouldn't be scrutinized and replaced. Again the study may not be the best under WP:MEDRS but the Health canada conclusion is equivalent to the CRUK conclusion under WP:MEDRS. But because the health canada conclusion is more accurate and informed by more relevant and more recent research, it should replace it.Exerdoph (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You cited PMID 25623697. What is the "PDQ" document? We currently say "Whether smoking cannabis increases cancer risk in general is difficult to establish" - that is not "conclusive" surely. It is unclear what you want to say and the sources you want to use. Please make a full proposal. Alexbrn (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I think they mean this, from NCI PDQ series. it is a good ref and supports the current content in my view. Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I replaced the word 'most' with 'often'. That at least 51% of worldwide cannabis smokers use it with tobacco is an extremely high statement (literally), even if one-sourced, and 'often' would seem to cover concensus. Randy Kryn 12:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medical cannabis. 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/20090327124100/http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/geninfo/news.htm to http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/geninfo/news.htm

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) 12:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Problems with intro section, 3rd paragraph

This 3rd paragraph of the intro section is problematic for a number of reasons, I believe. It reads as follows:

The Cannabis plant has a history of medicinal use dating back thousands of years across many cultures.[7] Its current use is controversial. The American Medical Association, the Minnesota Medical Association, the American Society of Addiction Medicine, and other medical organizations have issued statements opposing its use for medicinal purposes.[8][9][10] The American Academy of Pediatrics states that while cannabinoids may have potential as therapy for a number of medical conditions, they do not recommend it until more research is done. They, along with the American Medical Association and the Minnesota Medical Association, call for moving cannabis out of DEA Schedule I to facilitate this research.[10][11][12]

Here are my objections:

• The opposition of the American Medical Association is not supported by any of the references at the end of the sentence where it is mentioned. One of the references does mention the AMA's opposition to recreational legalization, but nothing about medical use. Also, the AMA did at one time hold a position that could be considered as being opposed, but their current position as of 2009 is considered to be neutral, so they should not be mentioned as being opposed to medical use.

• The Minnesota Medical Association is mentioned for their opposition, but why? They are not even a national organization, so does it really matter what their opinion on the issue is, any more than the dozens of other AMA chapters / affiliates such as the California Medical Association? I'm not sure it is correct to say they oppose the medical use of cannabis either. They opposed a particular bill three years ago, according to the supporting reference. But I have no idea what their position on medical cannabis in general is, in 2017. And this source actually says they were neutral on that 2014 bill.

• There are a lot of national medical organizations that do support medical cannabis (see here and here) but none of them are listed in the paragraph. Only organizations that oppose are listed for some reason, and 2 of the 3 should not even be listed as outlined above. This doesn't make much sense.

• Is the medical use of cannabis really "controversial"? Most national polls show support of at least 80%, and some even above 90%. How many political issues in this day and age poll above 90 percent? Extremely few, so use of the word "controversial" doesn't seem appropriate.

The whole paragraph (except the first sentence perhaps) needs a major rewrite or should be deleted. I would be happy to just scrap it and maybe move the first sentence to the first paragraph of the article.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Its current medical use is controversial in much of the world per [10] Some support its us other do not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Selectively using Minnesota is kind of strange. It sounds like the paragraph needs better sourcing and some updates. I certainly would not be opposed to you updating it. Sizeofint (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the link posted, I'm not sure what you'd like me to take away. It's interesting that Andrea Barthwell and Robert DuPont (quoted in press release) are affiliated with ASAM though, with Barthwell being the former president. They are both well-known for their extreme prohibitionists views, as employees of the federal government that have railed against the evils of cannabis for years. DuPont has even called cannabis "the most dangerous drug" (above heroin and crack cocaine), and Barthwell has toured the country extensively as deputy drug czar campaigning against numerous medical cannabis initiatives. Their views are not representative of the general population who support medical cannabis by very large majorities, above even 90% according to some recent polls. They are a small minority, just like the small segment of society that believes the earth is flat or the moon landing was staged. But I would not consider either of those ideas controversial.

The use of the word "controversial" isn't even my main objection to the paragraph though, it has more to do with the medical organizations listed. If the word "controversial" were to be kept, it should be quantified / expounded upon in some way.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, I gave it a shot. Kept the word "controversial" but with some qualifiers, and mostly rewrote the rest of the paragraph except the first sentence. Also added / corrected some info later in the article regarding medical organizations that support / oppose medical cannabis, and moved this material to a new section as it was becoming too large and didn't fit in the location where it was previously located. --Jamesy0627144 (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

NPOV / Sourcing

The following content is pasted from the article :

Positions of medical organizations

Support

A number of medical organizations in the U.S. have issued statements in support of the medical use of cannabis, including the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Medical Student Association, American Nurses Association, American Preventive Medical Association, American Public Health Association, National Association for Public Health Policy, The New England Journal of Medicine, American College of Physicians, Muscular Dystrophy Association, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, National Women's Health Network, Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, and several AIDS advocacy organizations.

Oppose

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) states that "so far, researchers have not conducted enough large-scale clinical trials that show that the benefits of the marijuana plant (as opposed to its cannabinoid ingredients) outweigh its risks in patients it is meant to treat." The FDA similarly finds that cannabis does not meet the criteria for accepted medical use due to lack of evidence regarding safety and the high risk of abuse. In 2011, the American Society of Addiction Medicine issued a white paper rejecting the medical use of cannabis, citing the dangers of the drug and the physician's oath to "first, do no harm."

Other

The American Medical Association is considered to be neutral on the subject of medical cannabis, urging further review of the drug's status as a Schedule I controlled substance. The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes legalizing medical cannabis outside of the usual approval process by the FDA, but also has called for cannabis to be moved out of the Schedule I category to facilitate research.

References

Discussion

This seems highly problematic, since some of the sources are poor (norml.org - seriously?) for example making Wikipedia say that the New England Journal of Medicine is "pro" the use medical cannabis, apparently on the basis of a comment in an editorial 20 years ago! More generally forcing organizations into a worldview whereby they are either "pro" medical cannabis, or "opposed" or whatever seems rather simplistic - surely sane medical bodies are in favour of good medicine generally and don't take pre-decided positions on particular substances, but look to evidence. I am pinging WT:MED for further input. Alexbrn (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello alexbrn. I am happy to discuss this with you on the talk page, instead of reverting back-and-forth with shots thrown in like "weasel" :-)

BTW, for anyone new to this discussion, it is a continuation of the discussion above ("Problems with intro section, 3rd paragraph") regarding biased and inaccurate material that was in the all-important intro section, such as the AMA being opposed to medical cannabis. I really only started editing the article because of that very problematic intro paragraph, and don't plan on making any more significant edits to the article.

I'll probably have more to respond to your post later, but have to take care of other matters for now. In the meantime can you please explain what is wrong with AlterNet and ProCon.org as a source? I know nothing about them being disreputable, and neither of those sources was providing medical opinion. AlterNet is known as being somewhat left-leaning - is that the problem? What about ProCon.org? They both have wikipedia pages which you should check out if you've never heard of them.

Also, regarding this sentence which you removed from the intro section: "Its use in modern medicine is opposed by some who argue that the medical applications of cannabis have not been sufficiently studied." I'm open to suggestions to how it can be improved, instead of just clicking the undo button and calling it a "weasel". That's why I started a conversation a few days ago on the talk page. How about this as an alternative though: "Its use in modern medicine is opposed by some who argue that evidence regarding its medical efficacy is lacking." I think both of these sentences are much better than "The use of medical cannabis is controversial" which is a very vague and somewhat inaccurate statement. How is something controversial that is supported by over 90% of the public according to some polls? Maybe in the medical profession it is somewhat controversial, but among the general public it really is not. If the word "controversial" is kept, then it should be qualified in some way, to clarify how and by whom. --Jamesy0627144 (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

We should be reflecting high-quality medical views not those supposed to be those of the (presumably you mean American) "general public". "Controversial" by definition means there are voices on different sides, so is plain & correct. Downplaying the concern merely to "some who argue" is textbook WP:WEASEL. I see no evidence that ProCon.org is a reliable source for this purpose (and our article on it is poor); it is certainly not a WP:MEDRS. Alternet is dubious, and has been discussed at WP:RS/N before: I don't think it's adequate for statements of fact. We are ideally looking for reputable published sources for important knowledge like what the AMA's position is: journal articles, major news outlets, etc. But more generally I am concerned about the dumbing down of this topic into pro/con (like procon.org must) - that is simply not how our best sources seem to frame it. The views of major medical organization are however pertinent and can simply be sourced to those organizations. Alexbrn (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree we need to use sources per WP:MEDRS. The NEJM does not take positions but simply publishes research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply alexbrn.

Regarding WP:WEASEL, there is also a statement at the link that appears to absolve the sentence I wrote. However, I have done further reflection on use of the word "controversial", and now think its use can be justified. So I'm content to keep it and not completely rewrite the sentence.

There is still some work that needs to be done to the intro 3rd paragraph, however. For example, I do not believe the following sentence is accurate:

"The American Medical Association in 2009 called cannabis to be removed from the list of Schedule I controlled substances followed by regulatory and scientific review."

The above sentence is probably based on the below statement from the referenced 2009 AMA report:

"The future of cannabinoid-based medicine lies in the rapidly evolving field of botanical drug substance development, as well as the design of molecules that target various aspects of the endocannabinoid system. To the extent that rescheduling marijuana out of Schedule I will benefit this effort, such a move can be supported."

That sounds like a possible statement of support for rescheduling; however, almost every news article that was published at the time (November 2009) reported that the AMA was merely calling for review of the Schedule I classification, and not for an actual rescheduling. All of these news reports for example:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ama-calls-for-feds-to-review-marijuana-restrictions/

http://www.alternet.org/story/143958/in_historic_shift,_the_american_medical_association_sees_value_in_marijuana

http://www.rawstory.com/2009/11/ama-review-pot-prohibition/

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/21/opinion/la-ed-ama21-2009nov21

https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/healthpolicy/16987

http://www.safeaccessnow.org/ama_report_recognizes_medical_benefits_of_marijuana_urges_further_research

http://norml.org/news/2009/11/12/american-medical-association-calls-for-scientific-review-of-marijuana-s-prohibitive-status

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2009/nov/13/medical_marijuana_american_medic

http://www.maps.org/research/mmj/mmj-news/1199-join-together-ama-calls-for-more-research-into-medical-use-of-marijua

ProCon.org also interprets the AMA's position the same way:

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=000134

The only news article I found interpreting the AMA's position as supporting rescheduling is this one:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-ama-eases-its-stance-on-marijuana/

So I think the sentence needs to revised accordingly. That would change the 3rd paragraph so that one neutral organization is listed (AMA) and one opposed (AAP). I think one additional organization needs to be listed on the supporting side, so that the full spectrum of views is represented. I will work on picking one out and finding a suitable supporting reference. --Jamesy0627144 (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

"Whole plant" research

In regards to the following excerpt from the article:

As of 2016, most cannabis-related research in the United States is on chemical components of the cannabis plant, and not on the whole plant.[14] To conduct research on the whole plant, proposals must be submitted to the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institute on Drug Abuse for approval, and a license must be obtained from the Drug Enforcement Administration specific to conducting research on Schedule I drugs.

I cannot find anything in reference 14 that supports the first sentence above. As to the second sentence, reference 14 only vaguely alludes to the notion that there is a difference between how whole plant and individual cannabinoid research is approved, and I recently came across two articles (here and here) that appear to indicate that research on individual cannabinoids is just as difficult to get approval for. So I plan to remove the mentioning of "whole plant" / individual cannabinoid research, unless someone can provide some more conclusive material supporting the current wording. --Jamesy0627144 (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

MOS:LINKS, a WP editing guideline supports some "glossing"

I glossed the term neuropthy in the article. I don't think it is a common term for laypeople without a scientific or medical background. MOS:LINKS, a Wikipedia editing guideline appears to support some use of in-text (non-link-based) explaining of terms:

"Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links." OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 09:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

But "neuropathy" is not a "a highly technical term". Alexbrn (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to me it seems so, as I have neither scientific nor medical training.😊 OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 15:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Pharmacology

This section lacks the basic pharmacological information relevant to every drug. My group will work to improve this section, covering pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Pharmacokinetics will include absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. We will primarily rely on primary literature and articles found on PubMed. Schoi0412 (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC) schoi0412

Peer Review

Assessment of Quality as a Whole

The edits to the pharmacology section are high quality and cover many facts that are essential to every drug (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion). I believe the goals to update the pharmacology section were met, as each paragraph covers many details and is very informative. After reading the new information, I have a clearer idea about how various forms and administration of medical cannabis differ from one another, and I feel more educated about this drug that is quickly growing in popularity and usage. In addition, the facts and information throughout the sections are cited correctly and I can quickly verify the sources. Jessica Tran (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

In regards to the quality of the edit as a whole, I believe there was a good mix of information taken from multiple sources, which increases the validity of the information. It did a great job integrating the study results and information into a coherent edit. Additionally, the information was cleverly broken up into the 4 main pharmacokinetic profiles (ADME- Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion), which was a very clear way to organize the information. The information was also accompanied by structures of the molecule and its metabolites, which was helpful to have as a visual representation of the information. Yuna.song (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The quality of the information added to the “Pharmacology” section of this Wikipedia page was meaningful and relevant. First, the information provided was well written. It was clearly organized into four subcategories describing the drugs pharmacology (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, and Excretion) and the information provided was concise, addressing the main aspect of the topic and didn’t include any unnecessary detail. The information included a complete list of references, which were included within their text and was from reliable sources. There was no indication that this information presented was from original research. Lastly, the information provided was included with an image that is relevant to their topic.NicholsKing4 (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

Yes, the draft submission reflects a neutral point of view. All the added sections within pharmacology reflect scientific facts about cannabis. There are key pharmacology facts about absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion without any opinions or biased language inserted within the information. The information can reliably be traced to scientific sources and not opinion articles, which adds to the neutral point of view and minimizes any bias. --Jessica Tran (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style?

The edits made are consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style. The edits didn’t utilize unnecessary style techniques such as the use of bold or italicized font to emphasize for inappropriate portions of their edits. The sub-headings under pharmacology section were appropriately used and organized the information in a clear manner. In addition, text formatting in citations did consistently maintain an established citation style throughout the text. I would recommend a minor change within the absorption section, specifically regarding the last sentence of the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph. To make the paragraph flow better and avoid redundancy consider turning the two paragraphs into one and reformatting to say “Oral administration has the lowest bioavailability of approximately 6%, variable absorption depending on the vehicle used, and the longest time to peak plasma levels (2 to 6 hours) compared to smoked or vaporized THC. The low oral bioavailability is largely attributed to significant first-pass metabolism in the liver and erratic absorption from the gastrointestinal tract. However, oral administration of CBD has a faster time to peak concentrations (2 hours) than THC”NicholsKing4 (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation?

There were a couple instances of close copying of the original source. These instances are listed below: - The first sentence of the edit reads: “Several of the effects of cannabinoids are mediated by G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), primarily CB1 and CB2, although other cannabinoid receptors may be involved. CB1 receptors are found in very high levels in the brain and are thought to be responsible for psychoactive effects.” Source #77 reads similarly “Many of the effects of cannabinoids and endocannabinoids are mediated by two G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), CB1 and CB2, although additional receptors may be involved.” Yuna.song (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

- The fourth sentence of the edit reads: “Smoking, the most common form of administration, provides rapid and efficient drug delivery from the lungs to the brain.” Similarly, source #79 reads: “Smoking, the principal route of cannabis administration, provides a rapid and efficient method of drug delivery from the lungs to the brain.” Yuna.song (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Other parts of the edit did not closely copy or plagiarize its sources. Other parts of the edit combined multiple sentences and paraphrased information well, while retaining the statistics and numerical information such as percentages and study results. Yuna.song (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?

The Points included were verifiable with secondary sources that were freely available and cited correctly. There was a total of 14 cited sources ( [77]-[91] ), all were freely accessible form the references page. All content included was appropriately derived from cited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DNf999 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC) DNf999 (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi all. Thank you for your thorough feedback. We're glad to hear that you find the expanded pharmacology section of great value and quality to this Wikipedia page. Thanks for pointing out the "similar wording" for some sentences. It's definitely difficult to word sentences differently enough, especially regarding such scientific topics. We have taken what you've said and made the corresponding changes to our section. Thanks again! Schoi0412 (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

That sounds good, I changed the metabolism section to reflect the Wikipedia style a bit better, and I also tried to paraphrase in a less plagiaristic way Brianmaucsf (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for peer reviewing our Pharmacology section to help improve this section for our readers. We will continue to keep all of your feedback in mind as we make further changes. Drhyoo (talk) 09:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback on our contributions to this page. Hopefully we can continue to edit and add valuable information while still adhering to the best practices on this site. Evelyn.coria (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Jan '18 removal of line regarding cognitive impairments.

Hello all.

I removed the following from the article:

There is little evidence that cognitive impairments persist in adult abstinent cannabis users.

References

The article referenced does kind of make that claim to an extent, but it's presented in the context of comparison to abstinent users of other drugs. Furthermore, only three marijuana-related studies were included in that analysis, all with rather small sample sizes. More current articles that look specifically at marijuana use and synthesize more studies do not draw the same conclusion. E.g., Weighing the Evidence: A Systematic Review on Long-Term Neurocognitive Effects of Cannabis Use in Abstinent Adolescents and Adults or An Evidence Based Review of Acute and Long-Term Effects of Cannabis Use on Executive Cognitive Functions. I'm not comfortable changing the line to read "there is some evidence" or something that hijacks the original contributor's presumed intent, so I'm just removing it entirely.

Reve (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2014

The countries where medical cannabis is legal, include Czech Republic as well (see, e.g. http://www.drogy-info.cz/index.php/english/a_summary_of_information_about_medical_cannabis_in_the_czech_republic_the_situation_as_of_25_march_2013. Thus, i suggest to add Czech Republic between "Austra" and "Spain" in the list of countries.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medical cannabis. 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/20120729115046/http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancer-questions/does-smoking-cannabis-cause-cancer to http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancer-questions/does-smoking-cannabis-cause-cancer

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) 08:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Origins of the Plant into Today's medicine

The article is a great read, but also could use the help of more amazing scientists adding more research as is put into the field. The current rating of the article according to Wikipedia says it is limiting in resources and could use more information. The lead section is clear and easy to read, and the structure is laid out in a way that essentially maps out the use of the plant as medicine from top to bottom. After looking at other additions to the talk page, the article appears to contain balanced and reliable sources. However, I think adding some information about the origin of the plant as well as how those strains have helped breed this amazing medicine, may help future scientists and readers. It also may educate people more about the history of cannabis, which may be added to the history section, or an entirely new section may be created.(Ag780113 (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2018

Marijuana’s use can be recreational, medical, or illicit. Medical Marijuana works through cannabinoid receptors namely CB1 and CB2 Mostupdated (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Fork content - new article for Medical cannabis research

• Medical cannabis research

I did a WP:Fork of the section called "research" into its own article for these reasons:

1. The Wikipedia:Article size was 41k of readable prose, when past 40 is an appropriate time to split based on article size.
2. This content is too low quality to keep on a Wikipedia article for a medical treatment. Per Wikipedia:Research sections, descriptions of research should be about general research directions and not the results of particular studies. We need a quick fix to bring this article's quality up to medical standards and to start somewhere now, forking this content which is too low quality for a drug does increase the quality of the overall article which remains.
3. It is too overwhelming for anyone to develop the topic of medical cannabis research while this "medical cannabis" article intermingles with it. Cannabis is unusual for being an especially broad treatment for all sorts of medical conditions, including physical and mental and social. Additionally medical cannabis research goes in directions which typical drugs do not, including exceptionally complicated cultural considerations, research in manufacture, high variety in administration and adherence, and being parallel to a recreational market. There is room for splitting many topics off into to their own directions.
4. The research section itself is long and developed enough to merit its own article.
5. The research section has been stagnant in this article for a couple of years. It is not so poor as to be deleted, but I feel that it is best to stage it as its own article to encourage more people to edit it without being intimidated to keep the research updates in compliance with established medical uses.

If anyone has comments about removing the content from this article, then post here. If anyone has comments about improving the quality of the research content, then post to that article's talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2018

Since the November 2016 presidential election, one-fifth of the nation’s population resides in states which have passed ballot initiatives which permit any person aged 21 years or older to purchase it. Cannabinoids work on two receptors namely CB1 and CB2. CB1 receptors are found in abundance in neuronal tissue, in addition to being present in the liver, adipose tissue, and in the cardiovascular system, while CB2 receptors are found in the highest concentration in the spleen and tonsils, with CB2 mRNA found most abundantly in B cells and natural killer cells. Mostupdated (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Are you asking for this information to be added to the article? If so, where? Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 00:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Help fixing image; Landrace Strains subsection

I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia, please bare with me. I'm trying to add a picture, which I checked and thought was considered acceptable free content based on wikis page, but the photo itself does not seem to be actually showing up in the little box that got created for it, which successfully added my caption. If anyone could help out that would be great. If it is a problem with sourcing please reach out. Thanks! (Alexander Greff (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC))

Suggested edit 26 April 2018

I suggest adding link to Occupational health concerns of cannabis use. Thanks TMorata (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Malformed link

Please fix the link to Jamaica in https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Medical_cannabis#Legal_status: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Jamaica 84.119.3.225 (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Jamesy0627144 (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2018

I would like to add additional information on medical marijuana in regards to opioids. The article offers a sentence about this topic. However, I would like to expand on that idea, stating that we are in what some call an "opioid epidemic", and that cannabis may be a safer and less addictive choice when treating pain, etc. NOT ONLY THAT, but cannabis is now being used to assist people fighting opioid addiction, as also with alcohol addiction. PetePassword (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Sarahellingboe (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you supply a WP:MEDRS compliant source (i.e., review article) that supports the text you want to add? Boghog (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

New review finds very few health benefits

Did anyone else see this?

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/ It's disinformation, the cannabis world has seen all manner of bullshit about this plant, and if you aren't cognisant with the whole subject it's best you stay away and leave it to those who are familiar and knowledgeable. This whole page is littered with garbage, lies and half truths as usual, a disgraceful example of a encyclopedia page. Since the research into cannabis is ongoing and expanding rapidly, there is a need for this page to be brought up to date frequently. It presently reads like something out of the 'just say no' nonsense of decades ago. It must al;ways be remembered why cannabis was first made illegal, and the commercial forces ranged against it. And no, that's not a conspiracy theory but a very real conspiracy. Why else would a plant that for thousands of years has been of benefit to humans suddenly become the most hated and dangerous drug ever? America needs to come clean and admit to the world it bullied over this that it was all made up, there are no dangers and no health risks. The number of conditions treatable with cannabis is expanding rapidly, currently there are dozens of serious conditions whuich respond to it, and make the pharmaceuticals that are poisoning people obsolete. It isn't just a treatment for nausea from chemotherapy, it's a substitute for the noxious pharmaceuticals used to poison cancer which poison the body at the same time. PetePassword (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The blog posting contains a link to where you can get the review as a free pdf. This article is not one that I want to wade into editing but this seems like it should be in here somewhere. No it shouldn't, it's deliberate misinformation. PetePassword (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The review by the US National Academies is here. As stated in the article lede, "The use of cannabis as medicine has not been rigorously tested due to production restrictions and other governmental regulations", supported by this Nature editorial. --Zefr (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC) These people can have no clue of the current research into cannabis, which is ongoing across the world. Try Israel for some cutting edge research. There is in reality a growing list of medical conditions being treated with cannabis. https://www.projectcbd.org/guidance/conditions has lists and full details. PetePassword (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

All right then, so it is. Just something I randomly ran into and thought it should be here. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

More detail for medical uses of cannabis

The article lacks detail for readers who are trying to understand if cannabis could be useful for their specific condition. Citations and descriptions of research specific to certain conditions as well as citations and descriptions of research describing the physiological systems impacted would be beneficial. Further, a link to the human endocannibinoid system article should be provided. I also have numerous peer reviewed studies that should be cited.

Cannabis has appetite modulating, immune modulating, and anti-inflammatory effects. Importantly, cannabis does not seem to directly suppress pain but rather seems to improve the user's ability to tolerate pain. However, if pain is due to inflammation cannabis may actually relieve pain because it is a good anti-inflammatory.

For example, cannabis is indicated for multiple sclerosis sufferers because it both modulates the immune reaction that triggers MS attacks (reducing frequency) and reduces the inflammation that accompanies such attacks (reducing severity).

Given the increasing legalization of cannabis, conveying a better overview of the state of current research into its possible uses would provide readers with more comprehensive information on how to integrate cannabis into a their personal treatment plan.

To that end, a need for better coverage of the potential drug interactions associated with cannabis use should be given.

The tone of the article regarding the use of cannabis to treat HIV is subtly biased. Cannabis is useful to HIV sufferers both for promoting appetite and reducing symptoms, yet no reference to the available literature is made. A cursory review can be found here:

For example, dronabinol (synthetic THC) has been found to improve appetite in both cancer and HIV patients. This indicates that cannabis is a good adjunctive therapy to traditional chemotherapeutic and anti-viral drugs:

Or, there is this research indicating cannabis may reduce opioid dependency:

Further, there is this research indicating improved lymphocyte counts in HIV infected cannabis users versus non-users:

In conclusion, while not wishing to bias the page so far as to make recommendations, there is both utility and the desire to avoid negative bias in providing a more complete picture of current research.

Wikicam7731 (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia does not give medical advice. The only WP:MEDRS-reliable source you list is on Dronabinol, which has its own article. Alexbrn (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Smoking template

From our article on Smoking "is a practice in which a substance is burned and the resulting smoke breathed in to be tasted and absorbed into the bloodstream." Since cannabis is "by far" mostly smoked it is not incidental to medical cannabis. I understand advocates of medical cannabis do not want the use of cannabis associated with the smoking of more harmful substances. To allow that would not be neutral. The template is fine, apt and useful. It should be retained. Let me demonstrate why.

Notice this edit as unsourced. At this page we can see that "far the most common method is smoking (inhaling)." On this page is the statement that "Smoking, the principal route of cannabis administration" and that here it states "Although smoking is the most common cannabis administration route". It took a 30 second google search to demonstrate how badly User:Alexbrn is editing.

Consequently I will be adding the recently removed claims about smoking cannabis with these references and then re-add the relevant navbox. As the plant is decriminalised around the world there will be many people who seek information related to smoking. It would be remiss to not add navigation links to related articles in a navbox placed out of the "cluttered" lead (the first excuse used for its removal). - Shiftchange (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

That was me that originally removed the smoking sidebar for the reason of the top of the article being too cluttered. I stand by that because there were three graphics in the lead section and having any more than one looks pretty weird IMO -- but I guess that is also somewhat a matter of subjective opinion.

Really though, I don't think the sidebar is worth including anywhere in the article. What good does it do to provide the reader a bunch of links to unrelated drugs? Tobacco, opium, crack, DMT, heroin, meth, PCP -- none of those are relevant to the topic of medical cannabis. The only relevant wikilink in the entire sidebar (besides the links under the "Cannabis" heading which are already provided throughout the article and in the lead "Cannabis" sidebar) is the smoking wikilink at the very top. That wikilink can just be inserted into article instead, as the very first word in the "Administration" section.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Checked the first link, and it was about drug abuse not "medical cannabis". While there's no doubt smoking is the most pravelent way of using cannabis recreationally, for medical use it's just one of many ways and is not recommended. We might as well put a "baking" template at the top of the article. Alexbrn (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I see. So the topic carries a little controversy among health professionals. I still see no reason for its removal but I do realize I lack consensus. - Shiftchange (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Update United States now 33 states, DC, & 3 territories

In the United States, the use of cannabis for medical purposes is legal in 33 states, plus the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and the District of Columbia, as of November 2018.[1] Source - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Medical_cannabis_in_the_United_States — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.56.221 (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I changed it to 33 states and DC. It's probably not necessary to go into any more detail than that.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Upon further consideration I added the territories to the body of the article, but left the lead section alone for the sake of brevity.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Bias and non bias

Isn't it time this subject was overhauled and rewritten by someone who knows the subject rather than an obviously biased person? Without reading through the lot, it reads like a typical anti cannabis diatribe from the likes of Frank [UK] website or worse. There have been many attempts to link cannabis with schizophrenia, the problem for these 'researchers' aka psychologists, is that the incidence of schizophrenia has stayed stable over the last sixty years while cannabis use has multiplied many times over in the West, and current thinking is that there is no causative effect. Professor Robin Murray, a principal researcher in this field has admitted there is none, and is now of the opinion that cannabis should be fully legalised for medicinal use. There are various mentions of harms, danger of addiction [there is none], and danger to chgildren, again none. It's not true that little research has been done, despite the illegality in most countries, several have seen sense and research has been piling up, perhaps not in America or the UK, but they are still backward. CBD alone is now known to treat dozens of conditions; it's an anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, neuroprotectant, anxiolytic, antidepressant, analgesic, anti-tumoral agent and an antipsychotic. Other conditions may well be added to thislist. Some claim as many as fifty medical conditions.

There isn't even a description of the endocannabinoid system which phyto-cannabinoids mimic! The mere fact that our bodies produce all these cannabinoids, YES even the dreaded THC so many appear utterly terrified of, which begs the question how could any of them be dangerous to our bodies if they already produce them for normal brain and other organ functioning?

There are 114 cannabinoids at last count, not counting the hundreds of terpenes and flavanoids in this plant. This sorry page doesn't do justice to such a complex and subtle subject. PetePassword (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2018

Effect of CBD on Epilepsy

Epilepsy is a chronic disorder characterized by unprovoked, recurrent seizures & it’s the 4th most common neurological disorder, affecting people of all ages. It’s a spectrum condition, meaning there’s wide range of seizure types & control varying from person to person. A person is diagnosed with epilepsy if they have 2 or more unprovoked seizures that are not caused by any medical condition like low blood sugar, alcoholism, or stress. EEG testing are used to monitor seizures. A seizure is a sudden synchronous discharge of neurons in which electrical signals become out if sync & chaotic, neurons are firing when they’re not supposed to. The effect of seizure on a patient can range from spasm on lips to complete loss of conscience and muscular control. There’s 2 types of seizure: partial, where the electrical disturbance occurs in certain part of the brain & can be simple partial, when a person is aware or complex partial when person is not aware. The other type is generalized, where disturbance happening all over the brain and always leads to loss of awareness. During seizure clusters of neurons in the brain become temporarily impaired & start sending out many excitatory signals repeatedly, thought to happen due to too much excitation or too little inhibition. Long lasting activation of Ca channels & Glutamate/NMDA or mutations in GABA receptors (can’t inhibit signal) are the main cause of seizures. Main treatments include anti-convulsants, surgery, nerve stimulation & ketogenic diet; however, these treatments have many side effects. Cannabis can be dried leaves, flowers, stems, and seeds from the Cannabis sativa or Cannabis indicaplant. The plant contains the mind-altering chemical THC and other similar compounds & extracts can also be made from the cannabis plant. The difference between THC & CBD is that THC is psychoactive while CBD is not. Cannabidiol is a cannabis compound that has significant medical benefits, but does not make people feel “stoned” and can actually counteract the psychoactivity of THC. We have an endocannabinoid system that regulates our body’s processes. Mechanism of action of CBD: works by acting on different targets like calcium ion channels, glutamate receptor antagonists, sodium channels & the GATA system & receptor agonists in the brain. Many studies have been done and concluded that CBD has many neuroprotective effects. Main criteria for regulation is if CBD derived from hemp or marijuana plant. Pquinoneslopez2015 (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

CBD for Depression and Anxiety

CBD is known to be useful from last many years. People use CBD to fight stress, anxiety and Depression due to the irreplaceable medicinal properties that it has. There are a lot more health benefits associated with CBD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamhook61 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2019

At chapter 4.3 (Pharmacology/Metabolism), the caption under the image says that the metabolism of THC into THC-COOH would be shown, but in the image, the (simplified) biosynthesis of THC is shown. Amml501 (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2019

A 2011 review considered cannabis to be generally safe,[29] and it appears safer than opioids in palliative care.[30] After this sentence add: Due to the increase in opioid-abuse and opioid related deaths, studies have found that medical marijuana in conjunction with opioid use can decrease their opioid dosage in pain management. Medical marijuana can work in tandem with opioids due to the active ingredients in marijuana effecting different areas of pain management in the brain than opioids.

Gsteph1210 (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done: An edit request needs "a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"." A change in the article to make a statement about efficacy and safety requires, minimally, a high-quality review of completed late-stage clinical trials, which are not available yet for replacing opioids for pain. --Zefr (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zefr: Please re-read the request. The request is crystal clear (After this sentence add ...). The real problem is that the first set of sources are all primary. The second set of sources are secondary. Per WP:MEDRS, secondary sources (review articles) are strongly preferred to support biomedical claims. The reason for this is that an astonishingly high percentage of original research results cannot be repeated. These results need to be reviewed by independent third parties before they can be considered reliable. Boghog (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiese and Wilson-Poe (2018) is a pretty good replacement for the first set of citations. Now we have secondary sources to support both statements. Boghog (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

References

All the sources are inadequate. The Wiese review is not really a discussion of high-quality clinical evidence, as the sources for the review are primary and inconclusive, as is the summary of the review. The journal Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research is not where rigorous clinical evidence for opioids and cannabis analgesic effects will appear. It has only been in circulation for 3 years and does not appear to yet have an impact factor. I don't think the source is strong enough for the pain-cannabis issue. --Zefr (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zefr: Please re-read the review. "the sources for the review are primary" is not true. By my count, Wiese cites at least 12 reviews. It is also not relevant. No where in WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS does it state that reliable sources must cite other reviews. While the journal is fairly new, both the publisher and the editorial board of the journal are respected. Finally if the conclusion of a review is that the evidence is inconclusive, that in itself is a conclusion that can be included in Wikipedia. You yourself have cited sources whose conclusions are inconclusive. Boghog (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zefr: I note that Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research is not MEDLINE indexed. For sourcing claims about cannabis that are not supported in the literature at large, there is a WP:REDFLAG flying in my view. Alexbrn (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that exceptional claims require exception evidence. However the particular claim that this review makes is that the evidence is in inconclusive. This claim is hardly controversial nor is it exceptional. Boghog (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree with its use for that. The OP was proposing something much stronger. Alexbrn (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

In the section on Pain, we already have a strong 2017 review in a high-quality journal (Nugent, ref. #25) that states in the Discussion: "no good-quality data exist on how cannabis use affects opioid use and opioid-related adverse effects," indicating that the Nugent reference supports saying there is inadequate evidence for using marijuana to lower opioid dosing for analgesia. I don't see the Wiese review as sufficient to add content based on the requested statement: medical marijuana in conjunction with opioid use can decrease their opioid dosage in pain management. Further editor discussion and consensus are needed, WP:CON. --Zefr (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Lozenge

please change ((lozenge))s to ((Throat lozenge|lozenges))

Thanks for the notice! Change is done. Spyder212 (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should this epilepsy research be added to the Cannabidiol article?

Please weigh in if interested here. petrarchan47คุก 10:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Opioid epidemic

This is in regard to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28993073 , "The use of cannabis in response to the opioid crisis: A review of the literature." a valid medical source as required by WP:MEDRS .

The conclusion of the review is: "CONCLUSIONS: Review of the current literature suggests states that implement MC policies could reduce POM-associated mortality, improve pain management, and significantly reduce health care costs. However, MC research is constrained by federal policy restrictions, and more research related to MC as a potential alternative to POM for pain management, MC harms, and its impact on POM-related harms and health care costs should be a priority of public health, medical, and nursing research. "

I added the line "A 2018 review found evidence that medical cannabis could reduce prescription opioid associated mortality, improve pain management, and significantly reduce health care costs" to our article, which is basically taken right from the conclusion.

User Alexbrn took exception to this wording for unknown reasons and changed it to: "It is unclear whether American states might be able mitigate the adverse effects of the opioid epidemic by prescribing medical cannabis as an alternative pain managament drug."

This is not what the published review says. It does not use the terminology "unclear". The authors do desire more research (don't they always?), but their conclusions are as I originally worded them.

Further, I reverted to my original wording, which Alexbrn reverted back, accusing me of "dishonest POV-pushing", which clearly it is not. I reverted again and asked Alexbrn to discuss on talk before reverting. He did not discuss on talk as requested and simply reverted again, attacking me with "Rv. cherry picking. When the source says it's hard to reach conclusions, we don't contradict it. Problem editor needs a TBAN".

Alexbrn seems to be refusing to discuss this and insists on using his own wording that does not accurately represent the conclusions of the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyden (talk • contribs) 18:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You have falsely stated you are quoting the conclusion of the article. You are just quoting the abstract. Alexbrn (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Was there something wrong with simply stating that in the beginning instead of resorting to threats and libellous statements? Not all of us have access to every full version of every article. I will check the full version when I get a chance and see if your wording accurately represents all of their findings. Psyden (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

It is a basic requirement of editing here that we read sources before using them. See WP:NOABSTRACT. If it's your common practice to base stuff on abstracts the community is going to have a clean-up operation on its hands. Alexbrn (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I just read the PDF file. This is the main point from the conclusion: "The opioid epidemic is a public health crisis that is at least partially driven by harms associated with POM use. States are passing laws allowing use of MC and patients are using MC, but currently there is little understanding of how this influences POM use or of MC related harms. This literature review provides preliminary evidence that states with MC laws have experienced reported decreases in POM use, abuse, overdose, and costs. However, existing evidence is limited by significant methodological shortcomings, so general conclusions are difficult to draw."[11] This is difficult to summarise. QuackGuru (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Per request by QuackGuru, I suggest a more accurate synopsis: "A 2018 review found preliminary evidence that U.S. states which pass medical cannabis laws experience reduced prescription opioid use, abuse, overdose and related costs." Psyden (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

If this can't be resolved within a week or two I recommend starting a RfC. There could be three proposals by three different editors for one RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I support Psyden's synopsis. If editors vehemently disagree then an RfC is a good option. petrarchan47คุก 18:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Psyden I'm sorry for the treatment you received when trying to add material. I'm no stranger to this exact scenario and have given up editing this suite of articles because of it. QGuru left a note about this conversation on my talk page for some reason, so here I am.

I disagree with QGuru that this is difficult to summarize. As can be plainly seen, Alexbrn accurately described exactly half of (cherry picked) the conclusion. A summary would include the addition of "states with MC laws have experienced..." to a more concise version of Alexbrn's "unclear" bit, also adding that researchers found 'existing evidence was limited by significant methodological shortcomings'.

This is another paper that may be of some use. QGuru, would you be able to copy the conclusion from the full text to here? I don't have access The Role of Cannabis Legalization in the Opioid Crisis petrarchan47คุก 18:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Closer to source

See A 2018 review found tentative evidence that US states which pass medical cannabis laws have observed reduced prescription opioid use, abuse, overdose, and related costs.[17] Though, the available evidence is lacking due to extensive methodological deficiencies.[17] Done. QuackGuru (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• It would be misleading to state there was evidence without also saying that it of such poor quality no general conclusions can be drawn about it (so, overall it is "unclear" - which is the simple way to summarize this). If, however, it's felt there is a need to delve a bit deeper it would be misleading to say there was evidence that MC might bring benefit, without also mentioning the paper's concern that MC harms might be worse than those of the opioid epidemic. It's pretty concerning to see editors who haven't read a source show up here with a pre-conceived POV and a desire to include it. I think if there's any further doubt about this it would be wise to seek wider input from WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The source did not come to the conclusion that overall it is "unclear". That is misleading because it is way too vague and thus far less accurate. I added the part about "general conclusions" to the accurate wording, according to the conclusion from the PDF file. See WP:NOABSTRACT.
  • Where does the conclusion mention the concern that MC harms might be worse than those of the opioid epidemic?
  • See "A 2018 review found tentative evidence that US states which pass medical cannabis laws have observed reduced prescription opioid use, abuse, overdose, and related costs.[17] Though, the available evidence is lacking due to extensive methodological deficiencies, as such general conclusions are hard to determine.[17]" QuackGuru (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, we don't use just abstracts. Nor do we use just conclusions. We summarize entire papers fairly, as WP:MEDRS tells us to. Your summary is not a good one. Alexbrn (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
      • The conclusion does not support this content. It was also not a summary of the entire paper. QuackGuru (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
        • I disagree, "unclear" is an excellent brief summary. Your effort entirely fails to capture the point that it is "not possible" to draw general conclusions, which is kind of critical wouldn't you say? Alexbrn (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC); fix 15:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
          • I did add "as such general conclusions are hard to determine." That is soured and accurate. It is "not possible" to draw general conclusions is not the conclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
            • So you did - sorry. But we must also avoid WP:CLOP. As I say if we want to expand this then the point about MC harms would also need to be expanded. Take this to WT:MED if in doubt. Since this is not a great source I don't think it's worth giving it more weight than we have anyway. Alexbrn (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
              • I did avoid WP:CLOP. The paper does not verify this content. It easily fails verification.
              • The point about MC harms is not relevant to the conclusion and has no bearing on deleting the content. It is a different point but more content could be added.
              • You stated "Your effort entirely fails to capture the point that it is "not possible" to draw general conclusions, which is kind of critical wouldn't you say?" No, that is not the point. I just checked the PDF file. It does not mention "not possible" anywhere. QuackGuru (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
                • Yes, "not possible" was my misremembering. WP:V is well satisfied by the summary that the evidence is unclear. I don't see how MC harms "not relevant to the conclusion" when it specifically mentions them. As I say, seek further input from WT:MED if in doubt; the source is not great and is focussed on US states only, more weight would be undue in my opinion. Alexbrn (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
                  • The evidence is not "unclear". The MC harms from the conclusion was not summarized with this edit. According to your edit the MC harms from the conclusion is not relevant. I can add more content about the MC harms from the conclusion. It is like the wording has nothing to do with this paper. QuackGuru (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

See "The opioid epidemic is a public health crisis that is at least partially driven by harms associated with POM use. States are passing laws allowing use of MC and patients are using MC, but currently there is little understanding of how this influences POM use or of MC related harms. This literature review provides preliminary evidence that states with MC laws have experienced reported decreases in POM use, abuse, overdose, and costs. However, existing evidence is limited by significant methodological shortcomings, so general conclusions are difficult to draw."[12] If more content is required from the conclusion then I will add more content. QuackGuru (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I would be happy to have something along the lines of the evidence being "inconclusive" instead of "unclear". I look forward to any further discussion at WT:MED. In summary this paper is saying the opioid crisis in the US is bad (nothing surprising there), but that MC might improves things, or it might not, and that all the evidence is crap so we can't really say. Then it tries to oversell its meagre conclusions with a punchy title and over-claiming abstract. Alexbrn (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

This edit has nothing to do with the conclusion. It did not no summarise any part of the conclusion. Please provide verification for your edit or self-revert.

I do not support failed verification content. MC might improves things is not what is supported by the paper. Please try to summarise the conclusion and paper. QuackGuru (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Conclusion from PDF file says: "The opioid epidemic is a public health crisis that is at least partially driven by harms associated with POM use. States are passing laws allowing use of MC and patients are using MC, but currently there is little understanding of how this influences POM use or of MC related harms. This literature review provides preliminary evidence that states with MC laws have experienced reported decreases in POM use, abuse, overdose, and costs. However, existing evidence is limited by significant methodological shortcomings, so general conclusions are difficult to draw."[13]

See accurate content: There is limited information on how US states which pass medical cannabis laws impacts either opioid use or medical cannabis associated risks.[17] A 2018 review found tentative evidence that US states which pass medical cannabis laws have observed reduced prescription opioid use, abuse, overdose, and related costs.[17] Though, the available evidence is lacking due to extensive methodological deficiencies, as such general conclusions are hard to determine.[17][14]

Nothing relevant from the conclusion was left out and is a good summary of the paper. The previous wording did not summarise the paper and clearly failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

You repeat yourself. See above. Alexbrn (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Bizarre display issue viewing this page in Chrome

When viewing this article in Chrome on a desktop, I am seeing a very large gap consisting of about 10 lines of empty space close to the beginning of the "Society and Culture" section. The gap splits up the word "Czech Republic", and there is also an unnecessary line break after "Countries that have legalized the medical use of cannabis include". When I zoom out far enough, however, the issue disappears. Also, I see no issue when viewing the page in Firefox or Microsoft Edge. I did verify that this issue is not isolated to my computer by viewing the page in Chrome on a different computer and seeing the exact same problem. This is very strange because I viewed the article last night and did not see anything wrong. Does anyone else see the same thing and have an idea what the problem could be? I tried fiddling around with the wikicode to see if I could isolate what part of it may be causing an issue, but haven't been able to figure it out. Will probably make a post about this at the Village Pump soon.

The issue doesn't have anything to do with the map BTW. When the map is removed, the large gap disappears but there are still unnecessary line breaks at various places that change as the zoom level is changed.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I created a bug report for Wikimedia Phabricator. T232066 Unwanted line breaks when viewing Wikipedia article in Chrome --Jamesy0627144 (talk) 05:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The wikipedia developer replied back and said that the issue was with Chrome and that I should submit a report to them. So I did that: Issue 1001258: Unwanted line breaks and large gap in text when viewing Wikipedia page in Chrome. The wikipedia developer also said he wasn't able to reproduce the problem, but I know for sure the issue is not limited to my computer because like mentioned above I observed the same thing on a difference desktop computer. I also observed the same problem today on my Amazon Fire 7 tablet using the Silk browser (which is Chrome-based).--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I can reproduce the issue on a Chrome browser if I shrink the width of the window beyond certain point. Firefox and IE do not seem to have the issue. Psyden (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and actually the wikipedia developer now says he has reproduced the issue too after updating to a newer version of Chrome.

BTW, the Chrome person I have been talking to suggested I try the Beta version of Chrome and see if the issue is still present. I tried it and everything looks good, so just have to wait for the Beta version to become the "stable" version, which the Chrome person said should be about a week.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2020

In the legal status paragraph, please add Lebanon. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/04/21/world/middleeast/21reuters-lebanon-crisis-cannabis.html

Tnx Pchalu (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pchalu:  Done! GoingBatty (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Major new source

From The Lancet: "Cannabinoids for the treatment of mental disorders and symptoms of mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis".[15]. This will have quite a ripple effect through the cannabis article "suite" I suspect. Has anybody access to the full text yet? Alexbrn (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Note that they seem to primarily be discussing "Pharmaceutical THC" aka Marinol, dronabinol, which is synthetic THC. It does not contain dozens of other potentially therapeutically active cannabinoids found in cannabis. Also, they are calling for more studies, they found insufficient evidence either way. . Psyden (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Dying to get high

Wendy Chapkis/Richard J. Webb, Dying to Get High: Marijuana and Medicine, New York University Press 2008. Why is there no mention of this, still excellent, source on the history and experience of WAMM? Johannes (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it discussed in reliable sources? Alexbrn (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

First paragraph not supported by evidence

Last sentence of the first paragraph is not supported by evidence in regards to cannabis treating epilepsy. The source used as evidence explicitly states the following: "To date, the FDA has not approved a marketing application for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. The agency has, however, approved one cannabis-derived drug product: Epidiolex (cannabidiol)."

This is not evidence that cannabis "treats severe forms of epilepsy," this is only evidence that a cannibidiol compound can treate epilepsy. This would be like claiming poppy plants provide pain relief, since morphine is ultimately derived from poppy plants. It is not the plant providing the pain relief, it is the specific compound providing the mechanism of action.

The sentence "Preliminary evidence suggests that cannabis can reduce nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy, improve appetite in people with HIV/AIDS, reduces chronic pain and muscle spasms[4][5][6] and treats severe forms of epilepsy.[7]" should be changed to: "Preliminary evidence suggests that cannabis can reduce nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy, improve appetite in people with HIV/AIDS, and reduces chronic pain and muscle spasms.[4][5][6]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.126.82 (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Good spot. Alexbrn (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Eli Lilly and Parke-Davis

Pharmaceutical companies Eli Lilly and Parke-Davis developed and marketed cannabis extracts for commercial medical use at 10 mg dose levels until the federal government in 1941 suddenly claimed, without evidence, that the drug had no medical usage. This significant, historical information needs to be highlighted in the article. Further, several reliable articles written by respected journalists and authors have noted that Eli Lilly has attempted to whitewash this information from their corporate history, and to date, refuses to share their archival documents with researchers and historians. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Update map

The map of which jurisdictions allow medical and recreational marijuana needs to be updated. It still lists New Jersey as allowing only medical marijuana, but (as described on the Legality of cannabis by US jurisdiction page) it now allows recreational marijuana. - 73.195.249.93 (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2021

There is heavily biased and incorrect information in this article. Clearly someone with an agenda has only chosen to cite sources which are against medical marijuana. For example, the section on PTSD is heavily biased and incorrect. It is not objective at all. 166.205.124.103 (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)