Misplaced Pages

Talk:Medical cannabis: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:51, 7 December 2013 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,025 edits →Pharmacology, Methods of consumption: link to sandbox← Previous edit Revision as of 21:10, 7 December 2013 edit undoPetrarchan47 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,771 edits →Concerns about Schizophrenia - to round out the discussionNext edit →
Line 361: Line 361:
::: Sandy, this list is not directed at you, personally. I am going to try and call in a larger group of editors to help - no article on Misplaced Pages should be allowed to be controlled by a select group of people, which I see happening across the entire suite of cannabis articles. Experts like David Nutt are being removed, and a systematic sweep is leaving the articles with a focus on the negative by these edits. This is not an easy field to study. Research is hampered by laws, while the USG funds only studies that will look for negative effects. At the ] article, it took roughly 7 editors (none of them working as a team or who knew each other previously) over a month, maybe two, of hard work just to deal with ''one section'', the Safety section, which was a disgrace before I waved the flag. Few of us agreed, we took our time, added refs, and made our cases. We looked at the totality of the science and other RS on the subject, and formed a consensus as a group. People have ''very'' heated opinions about this subject, and this is why we need a good, large mix of folks in here. I am doing the best I can to help. If my refs need fixing, you have my permission to go ahead and do it yourself - but please leave a clickable link. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 20:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC) ::: Sandy, this list is not directed at you, personally. I am going to try and call in a larger group of editors to help - no article on Misplaced Pages should be allowed to be controlled by a select group of people, which I see happening across the entire suite of cannabis articles. Experts like David Nutt are being removed, and a systematic sweep is leaving the articles with a focus on the negative by these edits. This is not an easy field to study. Research is hampered by laws, while the USG funds only studies that will look for negative effects. At the ] article, it took roughly 7 editors (none of them working as a team or who knew each other previously) over a month, maybe two, of hard work just to deal with ''one section'', the Safety section, which was a disgrace before I waved the flag. Few of us agreed, we took our time, added refs, and made our cases. We looked at the totality of the science and other RS on the subject, and formed a consensus as a group. People have ''very'' heated opinions about this subject, and this is why we need a good, large mix of folks in here. I am doing the best I can to help. If my refs need fixing, you have my permission to go ahead and do it yourself - but please leave a clickable link. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 20:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
:::: Yes, I was suggesting that you could shorten your posts by using PMID links, and that this particular list belongs at ]. I've made a number of proposals above to try to speed up our work (I'm sure we'd all like to get tags removed from articles asap); would you mind responding to those so we can move on? ] (]) 20:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC) :::: Yes, I was suggesting that you could shorten your posts by using PMID links, and that this particular list belongs at ]. I've made a number of proposals above to try to speed up our work (I'm sure we'd all like to get tags removed from articles asap); would you mind responding to those so we can move on? ] (]) 20:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
:::::I don't have the time or the energy to go after this like you all are doing. I am working on getting a team together to review all these changes for NPOV. The research takes time, this is a complex subject. For instance, this review shows that some of the conclusions your team has added to the article are not the result of a good review of the literature, with an open mind about the subject:

PUBMED 21462790
"Many studies have focused on the long-term effects of cannabis on memory, but their results have been inconclusive. There do not * About fifteen longitudinal cohort studies that examined the influence of cannabis on depressive thoughts or suicidal ideation have yielded conflicting results and are inconclusive. Several longitudinal cohort studies have shown a statistical association between psychotic illness and self-reported cannabis use. However, the results are difficult to interpret due to methodological problems, particularly the unknown reliability of self-reported data. It has not been possible to establish a causal relationship in either direction, because of these methodological limitations..."(etc) '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 21:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


== Source consolidation page == == Source consolidation page ==

Revision as of 21:10, 7 December 2013

Canasol was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 07 July 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Medical cannabis. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Medical cannabis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 45 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMedicine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPharmacology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCannabis High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cannabis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cannabis on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CannabisWikipedia:WikiProject CannabisTemplate:WikiProject CannabisCannabis
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAlternative views Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

cannabis effective against cancer and not chemotherapy???

exists any study which compares chemotherapy success rate with and without cannabis? recent research indicates, that cannabis itself has anti-cancer properties..so it could theoretically be that chemotherapy does not work at all and the benefits aris from cannabis itself.. does anyone have information on this topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.130.74.143 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There is one clinical study that looked into clinical effects of cannabis in cancer patients. http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v95/n2/full/6603236a.html
9 patients with progression of a brain cancer called glioblastoma multiforme was treated. It wasn't a controlled study, so it is unknown if the benefits that were observed was an effect of cannabis or an effect of the natural history of their cancer. The bottom line is, that all nine patients died within a year. Not a single patient was cured.
This could be mentioned in the section on brain cancer. The referenced study (111) used tumour samples from these patients. Jli Anax (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Please have a look at WP:MEDRS; we don't cite medical content to primary studies or the laypress-- we use secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Marijuana vending machine

A merge to medical cannabis has been proposed. I encourage you to weigh in and get it resolved so that we can remove the unsightly template at the top of medical cannabis as soon as possible.

Please see: Talk:Marijuana_vending_machine#This article as a section within another

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I see this merge was done, which is frankly ridiculous for an article this size. Could we revisit this logic with a broader audience please? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Inserted graphic about medical cannibis use in the US

There has been a proposed graphic to recent reclassification of medical cannabis in the United States. Image was located via Wikimedia.Ktownnative (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Long tagged, removed from article for citation

These have been tagged for years; I have removed them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  • During the 1970s and 1980s, six U.S. states' health departments performed studies on the use of medical cannabis. These are widely considered some of the most useful and pioneering studies on the subject.
  • In Spain, since the late 1990s and early 2000s, medical cannabis underwent a process of progressive decriminalization and legalisation. The parliament of the region of Catalonia was the first in Spain to have voted unanimously in 2001 legalizing medical marijuana; it was quickly followed by parliaments of Aragon and the Balearic Islands. The Spanish Penal Code prohibits the sale of cannabis but it does not prohibit consumption (although consumption on the street is fined). Until early 2000, the Penal Code did not distinguish between therapeutic use of cannabis and recreational use, however, several court decisions show that this distinction is increasingly taken into account by judges. From 2006, the sale of seed is legalized,
  • Several studies have been conducted to study the effects of cannabis on patients suffering from diseases like cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, seizures or asthma. This research was conducted by various Spanish agencies at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid headed by Manuel Guzman, the hospital of La Laguna in Tenerife led neurosurgeon Luis González Feria or the University of Barcelona.

Not correctly sourced, removed

Removing text not sourced correctly, see WP:MEDRS-- much of this article is cited to primary studies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, full sections discussing primary studies, there are secondary reviews compliant with WP:MEDRS, pls find and use them. See also WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT (News) and WP:RECENTISM.

  • ALS:
  • Pain relief:
  • Brain cancer:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Diabetes

Entire section, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT (news), WP:MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

A study published on May 16, 2013 in the Journal of American Medicine revealed that regular marijuana use is associated with better glucose control. They found that current marijuana users had significantly lower fasting insulin and were less likely to be insulin resistant, even after excluding patients with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Participants who reported using marijuana in the past month had lower levels of fasting insulin and HOMA-IR and higher levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). These associations were weaker among those who reported using marijuana at least once, but not in the past thirty days, suggesting that the impact of marijuana use on insulin and insulin resistance exists during periods of recent use. The Study there were al

Crohn's Disease

A study published on May 6, 2013 in the journal Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology revealed that subjects with Crohn's Disease experienced benefits from inhaled cannabis use. At the completion of the study's treatment period, ten out of the eleven patients that received cannabis treatment displayed substantial improvements in disease-related symptoms, while five of these patients experienced complete remission. The study's authors wrote: "... all patients in the study group expressed strong satisfaction with their treatment and improvement in their daily function." The study was small, but was designed as a randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial, the gold standard for a clinical trial.

Breast cancer

According to a 2007 and a 2010 study at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, cannabidiol (CBD) stops breast cancer from spreading throughout the body by downregulating a gene called ID1. This may provide a non-toxic alternative to chemotherapy while achieving the same results without the painful and unpleasant side effects. The research team says that CBD works by blocking the activity of a gene called ID1, which is believed to be responsible for a process called metastasis, which is the aggressive spread of cancer cells away from the original tumor site. According to findings released by the team in 2012, when the particularly aggressive "triple-negative" cells (which contain high levels of ID1 and account for 15% of breast cancers) were exposed to CBD, they "not only stopped acting 'crazy' but also returned to a healthy normal state". Human trial models are currently in development. Dr Sean McAllister, study co-leader, commented:

"The preclinical trial data is very strong, and there's no toxicity. There's really a lot of research to move ahead with and to get people excited".

Mental disorders

A study by Keele University commissioned by the British government found that between 1996 and 2005 there had been significant reductions in the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia. From 2000 onwards there were also significant reductions in the prevalence of psychoses. The authors say this data is "not consistent with the hypothesis that increasing cannabis use in earlier decades is associated with increasing schizophrenia or psychoses from the mid-1990s onwards".

A 10-year study on 1,923 individuals from the general population in Germany, aged 14–24, concluded that cannabis use is a risk factor for the development of incident psychotic disorder symptoms, and the continued use might increase the risk. A study conducted by Thomas F. Denson and Mitchell Earleywine found fewer weekly users with symptoms of depression than those that did not use marijuana. They also reported that used marijuana for medical reasons were found to have been more depressed than recreational users, but reported fewer negative symptomatic issues.

However a medical study published in 2009 taken by the Medical Research Council in London, showed there was no significant effect of THC on -raclopride binding. Thus concluding, recreational cannabis users do not release significant amounts of dopamine from an oral THC dose equivalent to a standard cannabis cigarette. This result challenges current models of striatal dopamine release as the mechanism mediating cannabis as risk factor for schizophrenia.

Tourette syndrome

First, it's Tourette syndrome, not Tourette's. I pride myself on attempting to write neutral text, sourced to secondary reviews. This removal of two review sources made the text less neutral. There are positive findings wrt cannibinoids in TS; we need not completely sanitize the article to present evidence-based facts, and Cochrane Reviews are not the only game in town. If we are *only* going to cite the Cochrane review, then we need to go back and say more. Let me know, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, an over-zealous revision on my part: I have restored the section with 3 sources as you had it. Alexbrn 15:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Alexbrn ... I will update those reviews as I come across newer things, but for the next few days, I'm going to be quite busy elsewhere! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Criticism in the lede

The lede does need to contain notable criticism, but the FDA-centric stuff that's there presently probably isn't it as (yes) it is a bit US-centric. Attempting to make it seem otherwise by saying organizations "like" the FDA share its view, are unsourced. I'd favour removing this paragraph and re-visiting this when the article body is in better shape. Alexbrn 15:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"FDA-centric stuff" is not a correct description. It is a fact that many countries in the western world demand the drugs for medical use must be registered and approved by its own agency. Typically have persons from the medical profession a very strong position in those agencies. Approval of a drug as as medical drug is i those countries demand around 10 years of testing and documentation of the result and a strict quality control of the production and distribution after approval.Dala11a (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm always all in favor of writing the lead last-- after the article has been developed-- because leads should summarize the article. I also don't view content in terms of "criticism" or not, unless we are talking about, for example, literary criticism or criticism of a film or work of art. Content is content, the facts are the facts, and a well written article will not be categorized along the lines of "criticism". See Misplaced Pages:Criticism. The article should be neither "pro" nor "con", which negates the need to view any part of it as "criticism". It should merely state the facts as supported by the highest quality, most recent sources, for example:
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The way I see it, criticism is not necessarily adverse criticism; so perhaps "evaluative opinion" might be a better way of putting it. WP:LEDE does guide us include "any prominent controversies", and that might apply here. I'm not sure though, that the FDA stuff does that well - and agree it is better to focus on the body before writing a lede.
Has anybody got access to that new review article, BTW? Alexbrn 21:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The introduction must give a balanced view of the situation in this matter. The vast majority of doctors do not recommend the smoking of marijuana, it is a very small minority of doctors who write for a very large proportion of all recommendations, most of them are made after a very brief survey, in practice, often only on the grounds that the patient states he needs pain relief. Dala11a (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm definitely in favor of a balanced section on this topic. I would put off using this material in the lead until it is completed. I do want to point out, however, that your argument is fallacious on several levels. You say that the majority of physicians don't recommend it, but you will need to quantify that statement. More to the point, why would the majority of physicians recommend it? Do you understand why some do? Please think your argument through. The majority of people are not sick and in need of cannabis, nor are the majority of patients and doctors in states where it is legal. Also your claim plays around with the concept of a minority. Since only the minority of people are sick, only a minority of physicians would recommend it, especially due to the concerns listed above with laws and regions. The point you are trying to make, however indirectly, is when would it be recommended and when would it not. You should probably look at specific specialists who focus on issues where the drug is shown to work. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Gordon review

I have this paper now:

Excerpt:

Advocacy, opinion, and politics may cloud perception of the merits of marijuana’s legal use . However, the peer-reviewed literature is the most objective means to examine purported and realized health effects of marijuana exposure. In this review, we examined the recent (since 1998) literature regarding associations of the health effects to marijuana exposure. We found evidence that marijuana seems to have physical health effects in humans aside from mental health, behavioral, and societal morbidity, and there is a biological basis for many of these effects. For example, marijuana use is associated with diseases of the liver (particularly with co-existing hepatitis C), lungs, heart, and vasculature. For clinicians, knowing these associations will enhance their ability to address these incident (or on-going) physical illnesses that may occur secondary to marijuana use.

That is, it deals with the health effects of cannabis, not medical cannabis. It will be useful for updating the cannabis, effects of cannabis and long-term effects of cannabis articles, but less useful here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. The study makes popular anti-drug claims and the references show studies dated from 23 years ago. I also question the veracity of these claims and find them unbelievable. They seem to be extrapolating long term harm from a single correlated association. Is this even science? I'm familiar with the medical cannabis literature and I've never seen these strange claims before. The references also show a lot of citations to the anti-drug studies. I'm curious who funded this study and if it is taken seriously by the research community. I suspect that it is not. NIDA, the DEA, big pharma, and other groups have expressed an interest in helping publish studies like this. In the 1980s, NIDA even said off the record that they would not publish studies that showed positive outcomes. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Request quote, Clark 2011

Text was added to the lead saying:

The alleviating benefits of cannabis has (sic) been shown to outweigh negative effects.

The source is:

The abstract says (emphasis mine):

These studies state that the alleviating benefits of marijuana outweigh the negative effects of the drug ...

which is not what our text says. Our text states as fact something that the source says is claimed by the studies. Full text of that source is available; which part of it supports the text in our article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this article a reliable source in any case? (I think not). The full text does contain: "Scientific research has shown that the benefits of medical marijuana greatly outweigh the burdens." Alexbrn 22:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, sure, Jesuits know all about medicine (they know all about everything :) At any rate, if we're going to use sources, we need to use them correctly. There were two new reviews added to the lead, with neither of them used correctly (one cherry picked, this one misrepresents). I added the missing portions of PMID 23386598. Petrarchan47, when adding new sources, please do not use bare URLs and expect others to do all the cleanup. You can generate a citation template from a PMID by entering it here. Also, if you add a source to the lead (implying it is recent enough and high enough quality to be cited throughout) please make sure you include both sides of the coin as presented by that source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion, Cannabis (drug)

Cannabis_(drug)#Medical_use is a poor summary of this article, and most of it should be removed, merged here, and rewritten in summary style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Review concerning glaucoma

I recently deleted a paragraph concerning Canasol, a drug that didn't turn up hits on pubmed, NHS or FDAs websites. The only review that seems to be from a main-stream journal is this one I found from 2002, is there any point in mentioning it? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12182967 CFCF (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Google Scholar turns up some stuff; not sure how notable it is overall. I believe it was a standalone article topic once (!) Alexbrn 19:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Rearranged

Per WP:MEDMOS and deleted a lot of popular press / primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Need for more worldly viewpoint in Lede

The fourth paragraph of the Lede states that medical effects of cannabis are disputed, and cites the US DEA and a US medical organization. This is leaving out the rest of the world, and seems more fitting for an article dedicated to Medical cannabis in the US. petrarchan47tc 03:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the entire paragraph. It was not cited to a reliable secondary source and was clearly labeled as an advocacy statement on both ends. Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This is the same discussion below under "Recent additions to the lead". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Emperor Shen Nung

The Cannabis plant has a long history of medicinal use, with evidence dating to the Emperor Shen Nung in 2737 BCE.

This date is not correct, which is why I previously removed it. Why was it added back? Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, also, Shen Nung is a mythical or semi-mythical figure, so the word "evidence" is probably too strong. This is pretty much like saying that medical cannabis was pioneered by Romulus and Remus. MastCell  05:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Yep, and the first written evidence wasn't dated until 1-2 CE. New evidence of older medicinal cannabis use is now available. The Chinese claim is from the mid-1970s and is no longer true. Viriditas (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent additions to lead

The medicinal value of cannabis is disputed. The American Society of Addiction Medicine dismisses the concept of medical cannabis because the plant fails to meet its standard requirements for approved medicines. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains that cannabis is associated with numerous harmful health effects, and that significant aspects such as content, production, and supply are unregulated.

And editor recently added this content to the lead section. The statement by the ASAM is sourced to a primary advocacy piece while the statement by the FDA is sourced to a government propaganda press release published on a website by the Scholastic Corporation. Both of these statement have been thoroughly debunked in the literature and neither citation meets the reliable secondary source classification. It's funny how WP:MEDRS is invoked when an editor removes positive information about the efficacy of medical cannabis but ignored when editors add negative political propaganda. Viriditas (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, your insinuations are unhelpful; there are many people at work on the article, sometimes editors get crossways with each other with that much work happending; there is much work still to be done; attributing motives is a failure to AGF and doesn't help work advance. There is still a mountain of poorly sourced content in the article that needs to be deleted; that there hasn't been time to get to it yet isn't a reason to attribute motive. I usually work on the lead last and hadn't really looked. And I have no idea if Dala11a has invoked MEDRS for anything. Let's please focus on content and not be attributing motive.

This was the text addition by Dala11 that was subsequently copyedited into much better shape by someone before you removed it. The sentence The medicinal value of cannabis is disputed has been in the article all along, was not added by Dala11, it was merely joined with that information when someone later copyedited (I haven't followed through to see who did that copyedit, but it did improve the prose.)I can't see any reason for deleting that sentence, as it is an accurate, brief, and balanced summary statement.

This removal should be discussed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The medicinal value of cannabis isn't disputed by the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academies or any other number of established mainstream medical institutions. That sounds like a fringe statement. Do you have a MEDRS-compliant source to support it or just a link to a self-published advocacy website? Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Israel

Israel is the leading country in terms of research, and should have its own section.

Here are some sources: NPR Science Daily Fox petrarchan47tc 08:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There is an Israel section. (I'll note that the bottom of the article is still in bad need of a copyedit, rationalization, and consolidation, but I removed the copyedit tag because the top is in good shape and in the hopes others will take that on willingly.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Great. petrarchan47tc 08:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is too long; I've proposed in another section below that we merge a lot of the country-specific text here about the legal and medical status in various countries to Legal and medical status of cannabis. To whatever extent secondary sources mention the importance of medical research in Israel, that would be included in the Research section, per WP:MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement from DEA Judge

This was removed in the recent slew of fixes, but the information should be re-added.source petrarchan47tc 08:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

An assessment of cannabis safety is medical content, isn't it? How is an opinion from a judge in 1988 in line with WP:MEDRS? Alexbrn 08:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Because this edit replaced three journal sources with a laypress news source (!!), I've spent some time searching PubMed on the topic. As an aside, the three journal sources were primary sources that shouldn't have been used to begin with, but replacing them with a laypress source was even worse. From what I can determine in PubMed, it looks to me like we're weasling around the issue by quoting the judge, and we can do better. Someone with full journal access might opine; if you are willing to relax MEDRS to quote a judge in the laypress, then we might also relax MEDRS to quote primary journal sources that discuss documented deaths. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, so these are equally valuable in your view? The DEA judge did a review, for over a year, of all available research at the time. I thought his statement about the therapeutic ratio was especially relevant to this article. This is also history. But really, this isn't about scoring points and it feels as if it has become a game. The POV is obvious by these replies, sorry to say. petrarchan47tc 08:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm talking sources. You're talking motive. Let's talk content. I did not say anything was equally valuable. I said the three primary journal sources shouldn't have been used, but replacing them with lay press was even worse. And we can do better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia - This source has a section on marijuana-related fatalities (you'll need full access to see page 902). Money quote: "Few reports of marijuana-related fatalities appear in the medical literature; the etiology of those fatalities is not well documented." Cited in support is http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1064-1297.2.3.244 Alexbrn 08:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
That no one has died from cannabis is not disputed, and was echoed by Sanjay Gupta, in his 2013 CNN documentary called "Weed". He said he spent a year going over all the evidence, and one thing he found was that there exists no documented deaths attributed to cannabis. This isn't fringe theory. Lester Grinspoon is a Harvard doctor who spent 30 years researching the dangers of cannabis for the government. His statements can appear anywhere and constitute RS because of his status. I have to warn you, if you decide to state that people have died from cannabis, you're going to make wikipedia look like an idiot. petrarchan47tc 09:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Why are we quoting Sanjay Gupta anyway? Petra, please lower the rhetoric. No one is talking about stating that people have died. We are talking about whether to include statements that people "haven't died" from questionable sources. Two different things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
@Alexbrn, yes, I understand from PubMed that the etiology of deaths isn't well documented. That is what I find weasly about quoting the judge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I propose either using Barceloux then, or saying nothing at all - this doesn't seem to be a topic covered much in the secondaries, after all. Alexbrn 09:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Barceloux? Can we get a standard in here for how we refer to studies? You tend to cite DOIs, I cite PMIDs, I don't know who Barceloux is. And readers who come along three days from now are even less likely to know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

By "Barceloux" I mean Chapter 60 of Medical Toxicology of Drug Abuse: Synthesized Chemicals and Psychoactive Plants (i.e. the statement about few deaths and poorly documented etiology). For the other journal, I know you like PMIDs and I tried to find one for you, I truly did, but could only see a DOI. Alexbrn 09:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess you mean this 2012 book (which I had to look up in my ISBN finder-- Google book links don't work for everyone). OK, if that's what you mean, then a 2012 source is better than a 1988 statement from a judge, IMO. Next time, please lay out your source more clearly on the first post-- we've got a lot of work to do in here :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I had absolutely no idea that Google Books wasn't everywhere! Is there a problem accessing the .co.uk Google Books links from outside the UK? Alexbrn 09:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I will explain on your talk so as not to fill up this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Summarizing, I prefer this recent source over a 25-year-old statement from a judge:

  • Barceloux, Donald G. (2012). "Chapter 60: Marijuana (Cannabis sativa L.) and synthetic cannabinoids". Medical Toxicology of Drugs Abuse: Synthesized Chemicals and Psychoactive Plants. Wiley. p. 902. Few reports of marijuana-related fatalities appear in the medical literature; the etiology of those fatalities is not well documented. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |ISBN13= ignored (help)

Can we get a page number?

And why are we quoting Sanjay Gupta, a TV-doc commentator, in an encyclopedia? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Calabria B, Degenhardt L, Hall W, Lynskey M (2010). "Does cannabis use increase the risk of death? Systematic review of epidemiological evidence on adverse effects of cannabis use". Drug Alcohol Rev. 29 (3): 318–30. doi:10.1111/j.1465-3362.2009.00149.x.. PMID 20565525. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Another source, probably more useful for long-term effects of cannabis, but shows why we should not be using a 25-year-old statement from a judge, when we have updated medical reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) I believe many studies have showed that participants have died, but there is no way to correlate that with cannabis. Wang et al., 2008 comes to mind. These kinds of deaths happen in large studies because statistically death cannot be avoided. Viriditas (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Overcited, why ?

Why does this rather innocent looking statement require 10 sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

In Canada, marijuana vending machines are planned to be used in centres that cultivate the drug.

hmmm, no response from anyone, so I trimmed the citations. There is excess detail in the Medical_cannabis#Dispensing machines section, which resulted from the merge from Talk:Marijuana vending machine. I suggest that discussion should be revisited, and the content sent back to Marijuana vending machine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course trim. One good ref maybe two is all that is needed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Borgelt 2013

This edit took two statements sourced to Borgelt 2013-- one sentence which discussed the benefits, one which discussed safety concerns, that is balanced-- and eliminated the second portion about safety.

1. Cannabis has been used to reduce nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy and people with AIDS, and to treat pain and muscle spasticity. PMID 23386598

2. According to a 2013 review, "Safety concerns regarding cannabis include the increased risk of developing schizophrenia with adolescent use, impairments in memory and cognition, accidental pediatric ingestions, and lack of safety packaging for medical cannabis formulations." PMID 23386598

So, we have safety concerns from our most recent review eliminated, while benefits identified in that same review are retained. What we have left in the article is only that the FDA doesn't consider that safety has been established, which is confusing, since the same can be said from reliable MEDRS-compliant secondary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary said: "Please don't cherry pick abstracts". But was that happening? Alexbrn 09:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Unhelpful. Please stick to the facts; they usually speak for themselves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I meant it as a factual question, about the abstract of PMID 23386598 - this link doesn't work for me? Alexbrn 09:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Oops, I found and fixed the error (when I numbered 1 and 2 above, the two got attached-- now fixed). Kinda funny since I just lectured you above about getting your sources straight the first time :) Sorry! Now you can see the article for yourself. Not only do we still have content to remove in here, we still have much content to add-- which is why I always find it strange when people fixate on the lead before working on the article. Whether it's in the lead or elsewhere, we have left out balance from this source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Right, so I think the the concern in the edit summary was that the content ("Safety concerns regarding cannabis include the increased risk of developing schizophrenia with adolescent use, impairments in memory and cognition, accidental pediatric ingestions, and lack of safety packaging for medical cannabis formulations.") was just a mirror of the abstract ("Safety concerns regarding cannabis include the increased risk of developing schizophrenia with adolescent use, impairments in memory and cognition, accidental pediatric ingestions, and lack of safety packaging for medical cannabis formulations"). And indeed this does look problematic to me, not because of cherry picking, but because of plagiarism. Alexbrn 09:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It was one sentence, fully enclosed in quote marks. Are you familiar with plagiarism? Cherry picking refers to taking only one side of an argument from a particular source. Removing the safety issues while leaving the benefits is, yes, cherry picking. One sentence fully encased in quote marks and attributed to its source is not plagiarism. Or too close paraphrasing. Or copyvio. It's attributing a direct quote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, yes - you're completely right (I missed the quotes/attribution ... must be getting text-blindness). As for cherry-picking, this was the reason for the removal of the content, but it appears to have no basis since the original content wasn't partial. Alexbrn 10:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
No problem; since we've never worked together before, you probably didn't know that I launched this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no clear causal link between cannabis and schizophrenia and adding this to the lead section of medical cannabis is not only undue weight, it is completely off-topic. Were the study participants medical cannabis patients? Viriditas (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I've mentioned that I usually leave work on the lead for last, after the article is written. I don't care at this point what text goes in the lead, but we can't leave out of the article entirely something all recent high-quality journal secondary reviews say, nor is something covered by multiple reviews undue or off-topic. One of the specific reasons we use recent reviews is because they help us assign due weight. Borgelt 2013 is not a study; it's a review. Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches helps better understand how to apply WP:MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
And yet, the exact opposite is the case. The source was being given undue weight (There is no clear causal link between cannabis and schizophrenia and "there is minimal information available about drug interactions and contraindications with cannabis-derived pharmaceuticals and medical cannabis"). Because the source was being misused, I removed it. Viriditas (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I note that Borgelt 2013 was a source located by and added by Petra (to the lead), not me. In addition to the now four secondary review sources listed below that discuss schizophrenia, here are exact excerpts from Borgelt (our most recent review, PMID 23386598):
  • Safety concerns regarding cannabis include the increased risk of developing schizophrenia with adolescent use, impairments in memory and cognition, accidental pediatric ingestions, and lack of safety packaging for medical cannabis formulations.
  • The Canadian product insert for nabiximols states the following contraindications: ... history of schizophrenia or any other psychotic disorder;
  • Frequent use of cannabis, especially in adolescence, is associated with the development of schizophrenia, a chronic neurodevelopmental disorder. During adolescence, when schizophrenia typically presents, profound changes occur in the brain, often through synaptic pruning, a process that endocannabinoids help regulate. Using cannabis interferes with adolescent neurodevelopment, and imaging studies associate marijuana use with adverse development of the hippocampus and the cerebellum. Epidemiologic data associate heavy adolescent use of marijuana with both an earlier onset of schizophrenia and a 2-fold increased risk of developing schizophrenia.76 To be clear, the use of cannabis in adolescence does not cause schizophrenia but increases the risk of its onset, suggesting interplay between marijuana use and genetic predisposition for schizophrenia. For people who develop schizophrenia, ongoing use of marijuana is associated with more severe psychosis and impaired performance on tests of attention and impulsivity. Marijuana is a psychoactive substance whose psychiatric complications are known to increase with early onset and regular use.
We have at least four secondary reviews now. We don't need to add an exact quote from one of them to the lead, but we do need to add something. Could we please get busy coming up with text? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Nope. that material about schizophrenia did not come from the review of medical cannabis cited by the authors (Wang et al. 2008.) It's a bait and switch cited to a study that has nothing to do with medical cannabis use. It's extremely sneaky because this material is placed between a review of medical cannabis studies, making it look like that medical cannabis use is associated with schizophrenia. It's not, and the paper doesn't show that. Clearly, the abstract is misleading and the paper sensationalizes claims that have no bearing in fact. It's one thing to talk about adverse events from medical cannabis use in a controlled study. That kind of data is relevant to this article and should be encouraged. It's quite another to stick in off-topic adverse events from non-medical cannabis studies in the same paper and talk about "implications". Very sneaky and underhanded. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, ye-olde-cannabis-causes-schizophrenia-canard. That one has been making the rounds for about thirty years and gets trotted out every time a new medical cannabis law is passed. The idea that cannabis increases the risk of developing schizophrenia has no sufficient evidentiary basis nor any causal link and is based on an associative hypothesis. The self-medication hypothesis (schizophrenics use cannabis to help them cope) has not been ruled out, nor have many other competing hypotheses. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has previously said: "In some instances cannabis use may lead to a longer-lasting toxic psychosis involving delusions and hallucinations that can be misdiagnosed as schizophrenic illness...This is transient and clears up within a few days on termination of drug use; but the habitual user risks developing a more persistent psychosis, and potentially serious consequences (such as action under the Mental Health Acts and complications resulting from the administration of powerful neuroleptic drugs) may follow if an erroneous diagnosis of schizophrenia is made. It is also well established that cannabis can exacerbate the symptoms of those already suffering from schizophrenic illness and may worsen the course of the illness; but there is little evidence that cannabis use can precipitate schizophrenia or other mental illness in those not already predisposed to it." I believe this statement still sums up the consensus on the matter today. Furthermore, the incidence of schizophrenia has continued to drop while at the same time, cannabis use has increased. On the other hand, the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academies says that cannabis is "moderately well suited for particular conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting." The bottom line is that we know cannabis helps certain medical conditions, but we do not have a handle on the adverse effects. We know that schizophrenics self-medicate with cannabis, many of whom happen to show the first symptoms (without cannabis) as young adults. The evidence is conflicting. But government agencies keep funding anti-drug studies and are determined to find one that shows a relationship between cannabis and mental illness, and every year someone trots out the old "cannabis causes schizophrenia" claim. But there remains no clear causal link between cannabis and schizophrenia. Viriditas (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Have you got a source for the view of the Royal College of Psychiatrists? Alexbrn 10:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I do, but it hardly matters. Why don't you show me the evidence that cannabis causes schizophrenia? Any causal links? No? And what does this have to do with medical cannabis? Nothing? I see. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I does matter. Is it a recent view, for example? And in RS? The 2013 article whose abstract we are discussing is specifically concerned with medical cannabis. Alexbrn 10:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It is the established view on the subject. What matters is WP:MEDRS#Choosing_sources. Why are you discussing an abstract? Did you not read the study or did you get confused by the use of the term "medical cannabis"? It says, "There is minimal information available about drug interactions and contraindications with cannabis-derived pharmaceuticals and medical cannabis." (204) Have you read it? It says nothing about people who use medical cannabis and any association with schizophrenia. This is why you should follow MEDRS and not rely on abstracts. Viriditas (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Viriditas, I appreciate reading your personal views and opinions on the matter, but for the purposes of this talk page and article content on Misplaced Pages, we must follow our medical sourcing guidelines over opinion. You have removed text cited to a secondary review and that can be cited to several other reviews. In talk page discussions, we need to stick to what sources say and avoid personal opinions. I hope it won't be necessary to re-tag the article when we have so many high-quality sources from which to work. You've provided no sources; there are scores of secondary reviews that discuss the same things in the text you removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Sandy, I'm afraid you are mistaken. I've offered no "personal views and opinions", I've simply reviewed the unreliable sources under discussion. The text that was removed has nothing to do with this subject, and per WP:MEDRS#Choosing_sources we don't use or rely on abstracts. Perhaps you would like to review the source yourself and let me know which part is relevant here? Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The article (PMID 23386598) says:

The purpose of this article is to describe the pharmacology, therapeutic benefits and risks, and various dosage formulations that have been studied with medical cannabis. Specifically, medical cannabis for pain and muscle spasms, the most common uses of medical cannabis, will be evaluated using an in-depth evidence-based approach

. Alexbrn 11:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope. You've been the victim of a bait and switch. It doesn't review medical cannabis and schizophrenia, and I have to say that the study authors were very sneaky because a casual glance at the abstract and study make it seem like they did, so I completely understand your confusion. The relevant material begins on p. 203, in a section called "Safety Concerns", subtitled "Adverse Effects, Drug Interactions, and Contraindications". It correctly starts off examining actual studies of medical cannabis users, which is referenced to Wang et al. 2008. Wang's data listing adverse effects can be found here. However, there's nothing here about schizophrenia. The authors continue until p. 204, where the bait and switch occurs. At the bottom of the page, in a subsection titled "Psychiatric Implications", they begin looking at the "Frequent use of cannabis, especially in adolescence" which they say "is associated with the development of schizophrenia" which they hedge by later following it with "the use of cannabis in adolescence does not cause schizophrenia but increases the risk of its onset, suggesting interplay between marijuana use and genetic predisposition for schizophrenia." Meanwhile, nothing here is based on any study with medical cannabis. But you're right, it sure makes it look like it is to outsiders. Very sneaky. Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is what a 2008 Cochrane review (considered by many the gold standard, YMMV, I have a Misplaced Pages subscription) says (note that the source Viriditas removed is five years newer, 2013 Borgelt):

For people with schizophrenia: At present, the data is too limited to support, or refute, the use of cannabis/cannabinoid compounds for people suffering with schizophrenia. For clinicians: There is insufficient trial-based evidence to support or refute the use of cannabis based interventions. Clearly the clinician cannot be sure that treating patients with cannabis/cannabinoid compounds is desirable practice.

Which to me is the same bottom line to our readers-- there are safety concerns which have prevented the use of medical cannabis. You (Viriditas) say there is no risk and have removed all mention of any safety concerns (including the other three in the sentence, impairments in memory and cognition, accidental pediatric ingestions, and lack of safety packaging for medical cannabis formulations); Cochrane 2008 says because the risk of schizophrenia is unknown so it is still unsafe; Borgelt 2013 says it is unsafe because there is a risk. Wherever our text falls on that continuum, we have sources that say that there are safety concerns wrt schizophrenia, yet we've removed all mention, including the rest of the sentence. We've left out something mentioned in secondary reviews, and we've done that so far based only on editor opinion with no sources offered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, now I know how that text came to be added to the lead. See discussion above: Petra added one sentence from that source to the lead (why the lead), which is unbalanced, and the second source added by Petra is directly contradicted by the first, Borgelt 2013, but the text from the first was left out) so I expanded with the direct quote. And questioned why it was added to the lead. Can we not work on the lead last? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a fair bit of evidence that cannibals use is associated with the risk of psychosis. . There is disagreement if it is causal but there is still a concern Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no such causal evidence only associations which have never borne fruit. Correlation does not imply causation. Some cannabis users are schizophrenic. Some schizophrenics are cannabis users. What does that tell us about the risks of cannabis? What about causation? Multiple alternative hypotheses have not been ruled out, and this claim has not been proven in /actual/ studies of people who take medical cannabis, such as Russo et al. 2002. Russo et al. observed "no consistent or attributable neuropsychological or neurological deterioration" in a study of medical cannabis users. In addition to many other tests, they employed "MRI scans, neuropsychological tests, P300 testing, history and neurological clinical examination." The study that is cited in the article does not cite use by medical cannabis, it cites recreational cannabis users who may have been misdiagnosed, who may already have mental illness, or who are suffering from other disorders. The idea that cannabis causes psychosis is not supported by good evidence and the study in question does not concern patients who use it. These sources are being misused to claim that medical cannabis users are at a greater risk of mental illness, when actual studies of medical cannabis users have found no such association. The fact remains, the numbers of schizophrenia cases have gone down while cannabis use has increased. We would expect to see more cases of schizophrenia as cannabis use becomes more prevalent. That has not happened. Where are the rising cases of schizophrenia caused by medical canabis? Surely, we should see it by now. In 2011, depending on how you count the numbers, there were anywhere from 1-2+ million medical cannabis users in the United States. Surely we should be seeing a huge uptick in mental illness if this claim of causation had merit. Are we? No, we are not. At least 70% of kids have used cannabis, but for all this time schizophrenia only affects 1%. The numbers have not increased. If you want to talk about a risk to patients, then cite reviews of medical cannabis studies. Russo et al. 2002 did the research and found no such risk or result. Citing cases that study cannabis use in adolescents who are of the age of onset for mental illness, and who may have not been screened properly or misdiagnosed, and who are not (in the majority of cases) likely candidates for medical cananbis use (i.e. adults) is playing hard and loose with the facts. Let's look at the known risks in relation to the facts: in just the years from 1999-2009, 300,000 Americans died from legal prescription drugs. And, according to the CDC, "more deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined." So, legal prescription drugs, legal tobacco, and legal alcohol are the big killers. Any idea how many people died from using medical cannabis last year? More to the point, how many people who had a prescription for medical cannabis were admitted to hospitals for adverse effects? If you don't know the answers to these questions, then tell me how you can possibly claim that medical cannabis can lead to mental illness? Please don't cite me irrelevant, associative studies of recreational drug use by teenagers or CYA, mandatory disclaimer legalese on the back of pharmaceutical boxes. Show me the evidence. Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
It is a concern and reliable sources support this as a concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Er, no they have not. In the two examples up above, both Russo et al. 2002. and Wang et al. 2008, two different studies of medical cannabis users, did not cite any such concern. Quite the opposite actually. Cherry picking off-topic sources about recreational cannabis use, cannabis use by the mentally ill, and cannabis use by adolescents is a misuse of MEDRS and has nothing to do with this topic. Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The difficulty with toxicology studies is many are simply not ethical. One cannot simply randomize young people to cannabis versus no cannabis. There is a strong correlation between cannabis and psychosis and supporting animal data. Thus it is a concern. This is something known as the precautionary principle.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And another Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Viriditas, you continue to engage in long arguments based on primary sources and non-PubMed indexed journal reports, while Misplaced Pages's medical sourcing guidelines stress secondary reviews. We cannot use primary and advocacy sources to contradict secondary review-- particularly in a case like this suite of articles, where we have a large number of secondary reviews. Our discussions and text improvement will be more productive and move along faster if you please access secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I have done nothing of the kind. What I said about schizophrenia is covered in review sources. I have not cited any advocacy sources of any kind. Your "scholarly review" appears to consist of ignoring the medical cannabis literature. Our discussion and content improvement will be more productive if you use sources about the subject. Anti-drug sponsored studies which have nothing to do with medical cannabis should not be used. Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Second revert

This article states "There is considerable evidence to suggest that the abuse of illicit drugs, particularly cannabis and methamphetamine, has aetiological roles in the pathogenesis of psychosis and schizophrenia" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You're editing the wrong article. Those studies are about Cannabis (drug) and about people with genetic predispositions for mental illness. I've explained the problem in detail here. Again 1) Borgelt et al. 2013 review adverse events of medical cannabis studies reported by Wang et al. 2008. Wang et al. do not discuss or report schizophrenia as an adverse event. Neither does Russo et al. 2002 reported above. 2) Borgelt et al. then switch gears and talk about the psychiatric implications of non-medical cannabis studies, specifically use by adolescents. They make it clear that while adolescent use of cannabis is associated with schizophrenia "the use of cannabis in adolescence does not cause schizophrenia but increases the risk of its onset, suggesting interplay between marijuana use and genetic predisposition for schizophrenia." In other words, Borgelt et al. 2013 is being cherry picked by editors to cite non-medical cannabis research results while ignoring the medical cannabis research in the article. (Wang et al. 2008) Wang et al. found that "the rate of nonserious adverse events was 1.86 times higher among medical cannabinoid users than among controls. However, we did not find a higher incidence rate of serious adverse events associated with medical cannabinoid use." This is similar to what Russo found when he wrote that there was "no consistent or attributable neuropsychological or neurological deterioration" in a study of medical cannabis users. So this is clearly a misuse of sources and a bait and switch. It was removed from the lead because it was inaccurate (not about medical cannabis use) and undue (does not accurately reflect the studies of medical cannabis use). You reverted back for what reason? Are you not aware that we are discussing cannabis for medical use? How are the citations you've added and referred to even relevant to this discussion? We are not discussing illicit drug use, nor are we discussing the use of cannabis in a recreational manner by adolescents. Those topics are completely irrelevant. It sounds like you are abusing MEDRS. The actual studies of medical cannabis users have not reported any incidents of schizophrenia. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is about "medical cannabis" and it raises the concern of schizophrenia. That is enough for me. A reliable source say it as a concern. We do not need to do original research to explain it away. We can simple report their conclusions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No, that part of the article is not about medical cannabis nor sourced to studies about medical cannabis. It's a bait and switch. The actual sources about medical cannabis say nothing about schizophrenia, so this is a misuse of MEDRS. I've also explained this in depth several times above. Further, if you cannot cite an actual source about medical cannabis and schizophrenia based on actual studies, it is entirely undue to include it in the lead, not to mention inaccurate. Since the medical cannabis sources do not discuss schizophrenia, why is it in this article? And since this concern can neither be proven nor supported by actual evidence, why is it in the article? Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Jmh649m you added the following statement:

Concerns about its use include a greater risk of schizophrenia when used by the young, memory and cognition problems, and the risk of children taking it by accident.

This is completely undue and the source does not actually say that about medical cannabis. About recreational cannabis in general it says "the use of cannabis in adolescence does not cause schizophrenia but increases the risk of its onset, suggesting interplay between marijuana use and genetic predisposition for schizophrenia." The sources about medical cannabis in the study you cite say nothing about these risks. This is a classic bait and switch. These "concerns" do not seem to be in the medical cannabis literature, nor have any medical cannabis researchers expressed such concerns. Why is this in the lead section? This is taken completely out of context (it's about the use of recreational cannabis, not medical cannabis) and has no bearing on the safety and efficacy of medical cannabis. The notion that there is a "greater risk of schizophrenia" has been debunked many times in the literature. For only one example, the review study published by Frisher et al., 2009 looked at historical studies going back to the 1970s and nine years of recent data from 1996-2005. The researchers concluded that "the causal models linking cannabis with schizophrenia/psychoses are not supported". That's one of many studies debunking the resurgence of this continuing "reefer madness" propaganda. There isn't a single cannabis researcher who thinks cannabis causes schizophrenia, nor could it as the evidence points to genetic etiology. I can cite review after review debunking this "concern". I find it strange that the leading exponents of MEDRS are deliberately misusing medical sources to push "reefer madness" propaganda that lacks a sound scientific basis in hard data. This reminds me of the history of cannabis prohibition which shows that in the 1930s, the public was told that cannabis caused immigrants to murder and rape. In the 1940s, they blamed it for Jazz music. In the 1950s, they blamed it for sexual perversion. In the 1960s, they blamed it for political activism and anti-authoritarianism. In the 1970s, they said it was a "gateway drug" and caused people to lose their motivation. In the 1980s, they said it had no medicinal value. In the 1990s, they said it caused cancer. Now, in the 2000s, they say it causes mental illness. Some things never change... Viriditas (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Viriditas, I hope you're aware that PMID 19560900 is not a review, it's a study, a primary source.

Separately, I agree that we need not necessarily mention schizophrenia in the lead, but we do need to mention it, and we do need to mention safety concerns in the lead. (I always advocate writing the lead last as a summary, and this article as of now is almost wholly undeveloped, frequently off-topic, and we have multiple sections that need to make better use of summary style to daughter articles, for example History of cannabis and History of medical cannabis.) Back on topic; we have multiple secondary reviews that mention schizophrenia, and Borgelt 2013 does mention it in the context of medical cannabis. Please do not continue to revert, and we do not use primary sources to rebut secondary reviews. Unless anyone disagrees, for now I believe it would be better to move the schizophrenia information to a section within the article and out of the lead. We need a Safety section.

Separately, as I follow edits I am noticing that Dala11a frequently introduces original research, weasly text, and grammatical errors. There is too much to keep up with there when the basic parts of the article are in need still of so much work. I am thinking of refocusing for now on how to better organize this suite of articles so that text can be worked on in one place for each topic. Borgelt 2013, for example, does a very good job on explaining each pharmaceutical product, some history, etc, and it could be used to improve that information, but before beginning that work, I'm thinking we should discuss how to improve the overlapping structure of the entire suite of articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

PMID 19560900 (Frisher et al, 2009) is a key study, along with Degenhardt et al, 2003 and Cranford et al,. 2009 that dispute the idea that there is a relationship between cannabis and schizophrenia. They are covered in many review sources, such as PMID 19783132 and Richardson 2010. You seem to be focusing on one side of the dispute. You also claim that Borgelt et al., 2013 mentions schizophrenia research in the context of medical cannabis, which I guess is true if you stretch the meaning of words and ignore the fact that she mentions this non-medical cannabis research has implications for medical cannabis use. But the fact is, Borgelt et al., 2013 does not refer to schizophrenia research conducted on medical cannabis patients, which means it is a bait and switch. I'm glad you've decided to remove it from the lead, but I see that it is still there. I'm still very concerned that reviews of actual medical cannabis studies are not being added, in favor of focusing on anti-drug sponsored studies of adolescents who use recreational cannabis. This appears to be a misuse of our sources on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
It is still there because, a) I've been busy trying to tag reviews, while I b) waited for all of you to weigh in on the proposals I made. I see that in spite of being active on this page, neither you nor Petra have agreed yet to my proposal. I tend towards editing around consensus, and not making unilateral changes until others have had a chance to weigh in. This article is huge, making work on it difficult-- complicated by some of the habits on this talk page which increase the noise. If you and Petra and anyone else active here (Dala?) would kindly weigh in on the various proposals I made, I'll be happy to enact them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, re You seem to be focusing on one side of the dispute, I am not focusing anywhere yet, because so far I've spent most of my time in the massive amounts of cleanup needed. Borgelt 2013 became a focus because Petra4chan47 inserted it into the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
To Sandy: You claim me for "orginal reasarch" you must specify what you are talking abut. I have for ex. today corrected the text unbalanced text about Maltos-Cannabis. The sources from the 19th century state clearly that maltose sugar was the important part of the product, but somebody had deleted that including the source.Dala11a (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Dala11a - It was I who trimmed this content. I did mention that the drink contained maltose and I retained the source (putting it in a nice template). I removed the discussion of maltose's claimed health benefit, as it is not really relevant here. I also removed mention of the drink's low THC component which, in answer to my request for a source, you had sourced to the 1894 newspaper article, which I can't imagine is correct. Alexbrn 15:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Dala11a, I saw you add uncited text several times today, and I saw that Alexbrn had to tag one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I can add another source that state that "the European hemp almost completely lack the narcotic effect"]Dala11a (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Dala11a - kindly don't. The most we should say about this obscure old drink can be derived from what reliable sources say; we should not be including our own analysis by commenting on how narcotic it was or wasn't, based on sources that don't mention the drink. Alexbrn 17:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
(after ec with Alexbrn) I'm still catching up on all of the secondary review journal literature, but we have medical sources that can be used for all of that text; there is no reason to be using other sources for the medical content in this information. Getting to all of it is going to take some time. It would be helpful, Dala11a, if you would use medical sources for medical information-- they are plentiful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I hope you are spending your time reviewing sources about medical cannabis, like the kind published by CMCR. Anything else is off-topic. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Not really; Cannabis (drug) also needs attention, as does the entire suite of articles, so all of my journal reading has been fruitful. Anything of value published by CMCR will also likely be found in scholarly journals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Er, the list of active research and reviews found in scholarly journals appears on that site. It would help if you familiarize yourself with the literature as that will end the continuing misuse of non-medical cannabis sources to push a POV. Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Active research is found in PubMed as well. Viriditas, I do not want to have to put you on notice, as you are a well-enough established editor to know that continuing to allege POV is personalization and creating a battleground, and giving you a talk page warning should not be necessary. We haven't even begun to write this article, and this is not a good start. Please confine your use of the talk page to discussion of reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Interim proposal for the lead

Viriditas, Petrarchan47, Dala11a Alexbrn? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I would move the schizophrenia text from the lead to a "Safety" section, but per WP:MEDMOS#Sections, I'm unsure how we typically organize such pharmaceutical content. MEDMOS calls for "Adverse effects", and we now have some safety information listed under Adverse effects. Does that make sense? Borgelt 2013 (I appreciate Petra for finding this recent soruce, which is quite comprehensive) gives ample information there for expansion of that section, as do several other secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes the section on adverse effects is where we discuss potential adverse effects and safety issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Doc-- I'll work on moving schizophrenia from the lead and upgrading the Adverse effects section later today. Edit wars to put or keep information in the lead in undeveloped articles are always lame; this one resulted when Petra added undeveloped information, not mentioned in the article, to the lead; leads should summarize.

Viriditas, please stop using the talk page to advance your personal views with long essays; focusing on what secondary sources (not primary studies) say will shorten the amount of time it takes to get these articles in shape and remove tags. There is much work to be done, and long-term effects of cannabis is still POV (as is this one for now, in the interest of good faith, I've not tagged it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added a summary of the evidence to the lead. Feel free to move. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Wang PMID 18559804, Borgelt PMID 23386598 and several other recent secondary reviews should be expanded in the article body, and then summarized back to the lead in one or two sentences. (Separately, I'm wondering why we're using a five-year old secondary review, but for now, it will do.) As leads summarize the article, not every statement in it needs a citation (if it is an accurate summary, the text supports). We now have in the lead:

Cannabis has been used to reduce nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy and people with AIDS, and to treat pain and muscle spasticity. Its short term use while increasing minor adverse effects, does not appear to increase major adverse effects. Long term effects are not clear. Other concerns include a greater risk of schizophrenia when used by the young, memory and cognition problems, and the risk of children taking it by accident.

I suggest provisionally (that is, for the purpose of avoiding edit wars while the text is being developed) replacing that with:

Cannabis has been used to reduce nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy and people with AIDS, and to treat pain and muscle spasticity; its use for other medical applications has been studied but there is insufficient data for conclusions about safety and efficacy. Short-term use increases minor adverse effects, but does not appear to increase major adverse effects. Long-term effects are not clear, and there are safety concerns.

That would be an uncited summary, leaving out specifics for now for the avoidance of edit wars; ideally, we would later have a better, cited summary.

Separately, when reading over some of the journal reviews last night, I realized this article does a very poor job of distinguishing the various pharmaceutical products and stating which has been studied in which condition, which is another reason I hope we can settle for now on a compromise lead, as we develop the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It is very important for controversial topics to leave the refs in the lead IMO. People will come along and either 1) remove it without bothering to read the body or 2) tag it. We could hide it like this <!-- Ref here --> Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Otherwise I am happy with you changing the text to the wording you suggest and moving the more details content to the appropriate section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind leaving the citations in; I'm just after an interim compromise so we can get back to work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a strong preference for leaving the lede until we can make it a good summary of a reworked body. If Borgelt is to be cited in the lede, "both sides of the coin" must be used - my preference would be not cite Borgelt at all in the lede. Alexbrn 21:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I am still waiting to hear from the other parties active on this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Anything relevant to medical cannabis use is fair game. However, the continuing misuse of non-medical cannabis sources to push a POV is unacceptable. Case in point is the schizophrenia nonsense which is not currently cited to any research on medical cannabis and is completely undue. The adverse effects of medical cannabis have been studied, but those sources are not being given due weight due to this misuse of sources. I should also like to point out that while MEDRS is a helpful guideline for best practice, it does not outweigh or supplant our general policies which take precedence over local WikiProject consensus. This is especially true for sensitive issues where science is tarnished by political influence. In the case of medical cannabis, one of the most highly politicized drug topics in the last century, researchers have been subject to persecution, studies that have shown positive outcomes have been threatened, and cannabis users and patients have been subject to persecution. This is not hyperbole, this is a documented fact supported by hundreds of our best sources on the subject. If editors attempt to misuse a local consensus guideline to thwart our primary policies, then the usability and application of MEDRS will be called into question. In other words, Misplaced Pages editors can edit this article without adhering to MEDRS as long as they follow our standard policies. If MEDRS is used to undermine these policies given the political nature of the topic, then this will be actively challenged. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Completely agree, if there are no secondary sources which review cannabis used as medicine opposed to recreational use or something else, then we can only mention the level or correlation found in primary sources. Götz (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Götz there are numerous secondary sources on the topic of medical cannabis; we've barely scratched the surface here at incorporating them, but the article is now trimmed enough to begin to work. The premature insertion of one source into the lead was unfortunate as it seems to have gotten things off on the wrong foot here; working first on the article body is usually more effective. There is still plenty of content to be built, and plentiful secondary sources that can be used. In many sections, I've so far added only one sentence from one main secondary source; each of those can be expanded and there are still many untapped secondary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Viriditas We could use the talk page more productively if people would stick to policy, guideline and sources and remember that talk pages are WP:NOTAFORUM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Nausea and vomiting section

Our text says:

and it may be a reasonable option in those who do not improve with other treatments.

cited to PMID 23008748. PubMed indicates two follow-up letters about that source (the authors have a COI). Could someone with journal access please provide detail on the two follow-ups? I'm not sure we need to cite a COI review, because I think we have similar text from other reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Have no problem with you switching out the ref for another one. It is not a particularly controversial statement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

We also have this very old source-- can it be updated?

  • Jordan K, Sippel C, Schmoll HJ (September 2007). "Guidelines for antiemetic treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: past, present, and future recommendations". Oncologist 12 (9): 1143–50. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.12-9-1143. PMID 17914084.

Rationalization of sub-articles per summary style

Viriditas, Petrarchan47, Dala11a Alexbrn? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is enormous and working on it is difficult. I propose:

Excellent idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I can go with that too, support♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
My ideas are in flux about how best to organize, but rather than suffer "analysis paralysis" - yes: let's start moving in a sensible direction now (knowing we can adapt if necessary later). Alexbrn 20:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Concerns about Schizophrenia - to round out the discussion

From the video (at 15:30): Scientists are unsure whether it causes, or simply correlates. "Dr Grinspoon was a psychiatrist and his expertise was in schizophrenia. He strongly disagrees with critics who say marijuana may trigger . Grinspoon: 'I think that is absurd. The frequency of of schizophrenia - the world over - is about one percent. You would expect that with a drug used as often as it is, you would expect a "blip"' (ie, a rise in rate of Schizophrenia to match increased cannabis use). "It doesn't change a bit. In fact, you can find as much in the literature about how cannabis is useful to Schizophrenic patients as it is harmful" Lester Grinspoon.
  • Of the studies included in the review, 11 reported better cognitive functions among cannabis-using schizophrenia patients compared to non-users, 5 found minimal or no difference between the groups and 3 found poorer cognitive functions among cannabis-using schizophrenia patients compared to non-users. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22716156
  • Patients with schizophrenia frequently report cannabis use, yet its effects on neurocognitive functioning in this population are still unclear. This meta-analysis was conducted to determine the magnitude of effect of cannabis consumption on cognition in schizophrenia without the confounding effects of other co-morbid substance use disorders. Eight studies met inclusion criteria yielding a total sample of 942. Three hundred and fifty six of these participants were cannabis users with schizophrenia, and 586 were patients with no cannabis use. Neuropsychological tests were grouped into seven domains (general cognitive ability and intelligence; selective, sustained and divided attention; executive abilities; working memory and learning; retrieval and recognition; receptive and expressive language abilities and visuo-spatial and construction abilities). Effect sizes were computed for each cognitive domain between cannabis-using patients and patients with no history of cannabis use. Effect size differences in cognitive performance in the schizophrenia group as a function of cannabis use were in the small to medium range, denoting superior performance in cannabis-using patients. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21420282
  • PMID 21420282 is a 2011 review and meta-analysis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(Just beginning to leave some notes) petrarchan47tc 18:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


Petra, if you give a PMID followed by a number, we can all see what type of study it is, and a link to the full text. It makes for a much shorter and more navigable talk page. Also, if you minimize markup (bolding and italics) your posts will be more readable.

I've been at work most of the day flagging reviews, will look at these later.

I'm also unclear why you are parking these here, as they appear to be useful for long-term effects of cannabis (which is still in dreadful shape). That we have recent reviews discussing that there are safety concerns related to schizophrenia and relative to medical cannabis is the issue in this article; these reviews will need to be incorporated into the long-term effects article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I left them here to begin a conversation about the new and improved Lede to this article, specifically its "concerns about schizophrenia". I think all of the changes being made to these articles need review. I'm beginning with the Lede to this one. If I had a team like you do, we could work on all of the articles together, but I don't. petrarchan47tc 20:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Sandy, this list is not directed at you, personally. I am going to try and call in a larger group of editors to help - no article on Misplaced Pages should be allowed to be controlled by a select group of people, which I see happening across the entire suite of cannabis articles. Experts like David Nutt are being removed, and a systematic sweep is leaving the articles with a focus on the negative by these edits. This is not an easy field to study. Research is hampered by laws, while the USG funds only studies that will look for negative effects. At the Cannabis (drug) article, it took roughly 7 editors (none of them working as a team or who knew each other previously) over a month, maybe two, of hard work just to deal with one section, the Safety section, which was a disgrace before I waved the flag. Few of us agreed, we took our time, added refs, and made our cases. We looked at the totality of the science and other RS on the subject, and formed a consensus as a group. People have very heated opinions about this subject, and this is why we need a good, large mix of folks in here. I am doing the best I can to help. If my refs need fixing, you have my permission to go ahead and do it yourself - but please leave a clickable link. petrarchan47tc 20:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I was suggesting that you could shorten your posts by using PMID links, and that this particular list belongs at Talk:Long-term effects of cannabis. I've made a number of proposals above to try to speed up our work (I'm sure we'd all like to get tags removed from articles asap); would you mind responding to those so we can move on? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't have the time or the energy to go after this like you all are doing. I am working on getting a team together to review all these changes for NPOV. The research takes time, this is a complex subject. For instance, this review shows that some of the conclusions your team has added to the article are not the result of a good review of the literature, with an open mind about the subject:

PUBMED 21462790 "Many studies have focused on the long-term effects of cannabis on memory, but their results have been inconclusive. There do not * About fifteen longitudinal cohort studies that examined the influence of cannabis on depressive thoughts or suicidal ideation have yielded conflicting results and are inconclusive. Several longitudinal cohort studies have shown a statistical association between psychotic illness and self-reported cannabis use. However, the results are difficult to interpret due to methodological problems, particularly the unknown reliability of self-reported data. It has not been possible to establish a causal relationship in either direction, because of these methodological limitations..."(etc) petrarchan47tc 21:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Source consolidation page

I plowed through more than a dozen journal review yesterday, and have started

where we can consolidate a list of sources, indicating which editor has access to the full text of which articles. I've found in particular that we have in general a huge amount of untapped information in secondary reviews, some unnecessary use in the article of extremely old information, and in particular that our entire section Medical cannabis#Pharmacology is extremely poorly sourced while we have an abundance of good information in the reviews that should be covered here and isn't even touched on (this article does a poor job of sorting out which studies and finding pertain to which pharmaceutical product vs. smoked cannabis used medicinally).

Before beginning to rework the text, I've decided to instead focus a bit on organizing the sources. Could anyone who has free full access to any recent secondary review that is behind paywall please indicate so at User talk:SandyGeorgia/Cannabis sources so I can add it to the chart? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe I've now listed all of the recent secondary reviews in the article or mentioned here on talk, except that I have something about "Chadwick" in my notes, and I'm not locating a Chadwick. Please add to the talk page there if you see anything that needs to be fixed or added. Also please note if you have the full text of anything not having a URL or PMC, so we know who can quote excerpts if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I have indicated where I have access (for things which you don't).Alexbrn 14:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Pharmacology, Methods of consumption

The basic and definitional aspects of this article are in particularly poor shape, and the flow is off (concepts are introduced before they are defined, and the definitions could be much more comprehensive, as well as more specific to which product is being discussed in which research). The article should

  1. Mention that medical cannabis can be smoked, inhaled, or pharmaceutical
  2. Discuss the pharmacology
  3. Better define and discuss each pharmaceutical product

Now that I have dozens of sources covering this territory, I plan to work on these sections today and tomorrow (some of which involves sub-articles). Lots to do in here, but there is very good information in sources that have been alarmingly untapped in this suite of articles. User:SandyGeorgia/Cannabis sandbox SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

  1. Wong, Ming (1976). La Médecine chinoise par les plantes. Paris: Tchou. OCLC 2646789.
  2. Penner, Elizabeth A.; Buettner, Hannah; Mittleman, Murray A. (2013). "The Impact of Marijuana Use on Glucose, Insulin, and Insulin Resistance among US Adults". The American Journal of Medicine. 126 (7): 583–9. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.03.002. PMID 23684393.
  3. TruthOnPot.com (20 May 2013). "Study: Cannabis Helps Manage Symptoms of Crohn's Disease". TruthOnPot.com. TruthOnPot.com. Retrieved 11 June 2013.
  4. Naftali, Timna (6). "Cannabis Induces a Clinical Response in Patients with Crohn's Disease: a Prospective Placebo-Controlled Study". Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 11 (10). Elsevier Inc: 1276–1280.e1. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2013.04.034. PMID 23648372. {{cite journal}}: |first2= missing |last2= (help); |first3= missing |last3= (help); |first4= missing |last4= (help); |first5= missing |last5= (help); |first6= missing |last6= (help); Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  5. ^ McAllister SD, Christian RT, Horowitz MP, Garcia A, Desprez PY (2007). "Cannabidiol as a novel inhibitor of Id-1 gene expression in aggressive breast cancer cells". Molecular Cancer Therapeutics. 6 (11): 2921–7. doi:10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-07-0371. PMID 18025276. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ McAllister SD, Murase R, Christian RT; et al. (22 September 2010). "Pathways mediating the effects of cannabidiol on the reduction of breast cancer cell proliferation, invasion, and metastasis". Breast Cancer Res Treat. 129 (1): 37–47. doi:10.1007/s10549-010-1177-4. PMC 3410650. PMID 20859676. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. Claire Bates (20 September 2012). "Cannabis compound could stop breast cancer from spreading". Daily Mail. Retrieved 2012-12-25Template:Inconsistent citations{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
  8. Victoria Colliver (18 September 2012). "Pot compound seen as tool against cancer". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2012-12-25Template:Inconsistent citations{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
  9. Frisher, Martin; Crome, Ilana; Martino, Orsolina; Croft, Peter (2009). "Assessing the impact of cannabis use on trends in diagnosed schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005". Schizophrenia Research. 113 (2–3): 123–8. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2009.05.031. PMID 19560900.
  10. Kuepper, R.; Van Os, J.; Lieb, R.; Wittchen, H.-U.; Hofler, M.; Henquet, C. (2011). "Continued cannabis use and risk of incidence and persistence of psychotic symptoms: 10 year follow-up cohort study". BMJ. 342: d738. doi:10.1136/bmj.d738. PMC 3047001. PMID 21363868.
  11. Denson, Thomas F.; Earleywine, Mitchell (2006). "Decreased depression in marijuana users". Addictive Behaviors. 31 (4): 738–42. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.05.052. PMID 15964704.
  12. Stokes, PR; Mehta, MA; Curran, HV; Breen, G; Grasby, PM (2009). "Can recreational doses of THC produce significant dopamine release in the human striatum?". NeuroImage. 48 (1): 186–90. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.029. PMID 19539765.
  13. Laskow, Sarah (2013-06-10). "Marijuana vending machines are the future of recreational drug use". Grist. Retrieved 2013-10-19.
  14. "Marijuana vending machines". News.msn.com. Retrieved 2013-10-19.
  15. "The pot vending machine's first foreign market? Canada, of course, 'a seed for the rest of the world' | National Post". News.nationalpost.com. Retrieved 2013-10-19.
  16. "Marijuana Vending Machines Popping Up At California Pot Clubs " CBS San Francisco". Sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com. 2013-03-20. Retrieved 2013-10-19.
  17. Vrankulj, Adam (2012-11-13). "Medbox partners with Canadian medical marijuana R&D lab". BiometricUpdate.com. Retrieved 2013-10-19.
  18. "Marijuana vending machines coming to a store near you? | Mail Online". Dailymail.co.uk. 2013-06-10. Retrieved 2013-10-19.
  19. Epstein, Mike (2012-11-16). "Marijuana Vending Machine Maker's Stock Skyrockets and Everybody Freaks Out". Geekosystem. Retrieved 2013-10-19.
  20. "Marijuana Vending Machines, Stoner Fantasy, May Become Industry Norm". Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2013-10-19.
  21. "Marijuana vending machines: helfpul or just hype? | Marijuana and Cannabis News". Toke of the Town. 2013-03-29. Retrieved 2013-10-19.
  22. "Marijuana Vending Machine Investing". Wealthdaily.com. 2013-05-13. Retrieved 2013-10-19.
Categories: