This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sizeofint (talk | contribs) at 17:10, 16 September 2017 (→Am I smoking the same cannabis?: one more indent). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:10, 16 September 2017 by Sizeofint (talk | contribs) (→Am I smoking the same cannabis?: one more indent)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Long-term effects of cannabis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 45 days |
Cannabis-associated respiratory disease was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 May 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Long-term effects of 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 article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
Material from Effects of cannabis was split to Long-term effects of cannabis on January 22, 2010. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Effects of cannabis. |
The contents of the Cannabis-associated respiratory disease page were merged into Long-term effects of cannabis on 27 May 2013. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
New study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28734078 --Mikeschaerer (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Interesting, but it appears to be a primary source. We'll have to wait for a review that covers it. Sizeofint (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Overall Tone of Article and Veracity of Information
Wow. Just wow. Is this Misplaced Pages? This article is so obviously slanted against cannabis use that it rivals governmental and treatment-industry propoganda. I direct your attention to such obvious lies as "...and in the US 10 to 20% of consumers who use cannabis daily become dependent." Really? A 20% dependency rate? That's laughable. And the one accurate fact cited - the zero mortality rate - was only done so begrudgingly, surrounding it with weasely language suggesting that a lack of sufficient research renders that fact as suspect. 184.98.96.86 (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC) MrNaturalAZ 20160304
- I do not believe that the general public will take much of this article seriously. While most claims are properly sourced, its tone is approaching that of NIDA propaganda. Much of the article mentions claims that are inconclusive, out of context, rarely occur, etc. Confounding is rarely eliminated and evidence is weak for many claims. Some claims are likely simple associations, yet many readers will interpret this as implying causation. These points are not always made clear to the reader. Psyden (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Our recreational drug articles in general leave a lot to be desired. Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better... it's not. Sizeofint (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have to agree - it is hard to take this article seriously. Someone should balance it out at this point. 71.237.26.253 (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Our recreational drug articles in general leave a lot to be desired. Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better... it's not. Sizeofint (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Bad Article
Why is there no information about the health benefits assoicated with use? And also that studies that allege some harmful effects---this fails to mention that its the smoke, not the cannabinoids themselves, which have any known links to cancer. In fact, studies have shown they have strong anti-cancer/anti-tumor properties. Came to this article and only found one sided, slant ed, and bad info. This article needs expansion. 2601:645:8302:842F:C06:55B2:F8B:716 (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, psychoactive drug articles are pretty crappy in general on Misplaced Pages. I agree it needs work. When dealing with medical content we use the WP:MEDRS sourcing guideline. This restricts some of the sources we can use. You're welcome to improve this article as long as it stays within MEDRS. Sizeofint (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Long-term effects of cannabis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141031102829/http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/files/P65single060614.pdf to http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/files/P65single060614.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Am I smoking the same cannabis?
I just wanted to say I am a long term cultural user of cannabis and whenever I read the "claimed" side effects I want to ask what the hell were they smoking during these studies. Seriously some of the findings seems absurd when you have been using this plant on a daily basis for years. I mean it's like how a coffee drinker can tell you that you don't experience a moment of insanity when you drink a strong cup. Although that is the findings of coffee well if my dagga brains serves me correctly.
I would like to point out a simple oversight made by most of the studies and research on the negative side-effects of cannabis and that is they are using a single strain of cannabis or do not account for strain type at all. (especially older studies)
There are probably thousands of strains of cannabis. Each one unique with it's own unique cannabinoid profile exerting different properties and physiological changes on the human body.
Cannabis is not a single strain where you can generalize short & long term effects as if it each study or finding applies to all cannabis strains.
How is the accounted for, has this been anticipated?
--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 00:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Reference: The 2nd paragraph of the Effects of cannabis highlights the problem with outdated research. References must be re-verified as accurate to current scientific consensus.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 01:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- The best course of action would be to find some WP:MEDRS compliant sources and WP:FIXIT. If you don't have much experience editing medical content yet, you may want to post proposed changes here first to get feedback. Sizeofint (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you! Don't have any experience with writing medical content yet but will propose changes here first. have a great day. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 08:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Mickey, I do not necessarily think the differences between your experience and other's experiences is down to a 'single strain'. Your experience is a 'single case' and we are all biologically different people; single case reports are one of the weakest form of evidence. All psychoactive drugs have a side effect profile and I've never seen it described where 100% of persons get the exact same side effect or withdrawal effect profile or lack thereof. There is also the issue with long-term use where side effects will diminish for some people (tolerance) or increase or appear for others (toxicity or withdrawal). I am not denying that there are some subtle or not so subtle differences between strains of cannabis. There is additionally many controversial viewpoints on cannabis reflected in the academic literature.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed! This is my problem exactly not even flowers from the same plant or strain has consistent levels of cannabinoids and terpenes and all of the chemicals that make up its composition throughout a crop, that should only show the complexity and difficulty of formulating studies where the quantity and locations of endo-cannabinoid receptors also differ from individual to individual. This is why academics and people with a formal qualification in science related to the field must review the references and information presented here and accommodate for this. I can only hope for scientific breakthroughs that would help clarify this further. What I am proposing is that the latest scientific consensus should apply where there is a contradiction to outdated information. The Afrikaans Wiki article for cannabis still contain unverified pseudo-scientific claims af:Dagga. Thank you for engaging in discussion.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 12:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Also think in terms of recreational alcohol. There are many various types of alcoholic beverages each one having it's own effects. Think beer vs hard liquor. Tequila vs Brandy. Some people get hammered by Tequila while having brandy tolerance. Altough alcohol is basic it does not differ as much as cannabis crops. Not all cannabis strains are equal. For example one would give your red dry eyes while another give cotton mouth. Logically it tells me that different cannabinoid receptors are targeted by different strains. Thus it's really not as subtle difference between crops and strains. I mean have a look at the strain chart and the effects they may have. It's bigger the the evolutionary wheel. :D --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 12:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- We just follow the most reputable mainstream sources and if they don't differentiate between types of cannabis/alcohol/tobacco (or whatever) when discussing harms, then Misplaced Pages won't either. Alexbrn (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- But they do differentiate on alcohol: beers vs alcohol. eg. 2 beers' debilitating effects is equal to 1 tot of hard liquor. (Hypothetical), just because they don't does not meen they shouldn't. Someone needs to inform researchers of this. Do they even know seeing they don't use it themselves to understand this complexity and may even be a major stumbling block that would excel cannabis research. All I am saying is question the questionable. Just for the sake of inspiring curiosity see this graph and realize even between plants, crops and strains the levels of these chemicals differ considerably. I think little research has really been done on the profiles of cannabis and it's effects. A major contradiction is the statement that cannabis causes, or may cause hallucinations. Although I am not contesting any specific point in the article from an anecdotal point of view and for someone involved in the cannabis culture. I have never heard of anyone experiencing hallucinations from cannabis. If this was a major characteristic of cannabis YouTube would filled with cannabis smokers "seeing things or hearing things". I just want people to think about some general blanket statements made about cannabis as if it's a single thing. Only the individual cannabinoids can be understood as a single thing as it is removed from the complexity.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 12:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- We just follow the most reputable mainstream sources and if they don't differentiate between types of cannabis/alcohol/tobacco (or whatever) when discussing harms, then Misplaced Pages won't either. Alexbrn (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Also think in terms of recreational alcohol. There are many various types of alcoholic beverages each one having it's own effects. Think beer vs hard liquor. Tequila vs Brandy. Some people get hammered by Tequila while having brandy tolerance. Altough alcohol is basic it does not differ as much as cannabis crops. Not all cannabis strains are equal. For example one would give your red dry eyes while another give cotton mouth. Logically it tells me that different cannabinoid receptors are targeted by different strains. Thus it's really not as subtle difference between crops and strains. I mean have a look at the strain chart and the effects they may have. It's bigger the the evolutionary wheel. :D --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 12:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed! This is my problem exactly not even flowers from the same plant or strain has consistent levels of cannabinoids and terpenes and all of the chemicals that make up its composition throughout a crop, that should only show the complexity and difficulty of formulating studies where the quantity and locations of endo-cannabinoid receptors also differ from individual to individual. This is why academics and people with a formal qualification in science related to the field must review the references and information presented here and accommodate for this. I can only hope for scientific breakthroughs that would help clarify this further. What I am proposing is that the latest scientific consensus should apply where there is a contradiction to outdated information. The Afrikaans Wiki article for cannabis still contain unverified pseudo-scientific claims af:Dagga. Thank you for engaging in discussion.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 12:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Please see video: the Visualization of the endocannabinoid signaling system --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 12:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Someone needs to inform researchers of this.
Sure, but it isn't really Misplaced Pages's purpose to tell scientists what they should research. The best we can do here is include a "Research directions" section that discusses some of the prominent areas of new research. If assaying the effects of different cannabis strains is one of these we can mention it there.Do they even know seeing they don't use it themselves....
Given over 50% of Americans have used Cannabis at some point, I can virtually guarantee many researchers have as well. Sizeofint (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class Cannabis articles
- High-importance Cannabis articles
- WikiProject Cannabis articles
- C-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- C-Class toxicology articles
- Unknown-importance toxicology articles
- Toxicology task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics