Talk:Cannabis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Cannabinoid Deficiency[edit]

I'm in college and for one of my classes, we are supposed to edit a Wikipedia page and see what kind of reaction we get. So I chose the section on cannabis and wanted to add under the medical section information about Cannabinoid Deficiency and how cannabis can help this issue. Below is a link to information on the subject. Feedback is clearly wanted, so any you have will be helpful. Thank you in advance. Wkelley2 Very much needed, the knowledge on cannabis exbibited here is lamentable and relies mostly on outdated 'studies' the veracity of which is unknown. There hisn't even anything here on the endocannabinoid system, which is pretty basic to understanding the whole subject I suggest. PetePassword (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18404144 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkelley2 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Wkelley2 the journal in question has a fairly low impact factor. Not a great source. Appears this condition has not been looked at much. Not listed in the ICD 11 for example. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

What is a species[edit]

Normally, plants or animals that are capable of interbreeding belong to the same species, Wikipedia says as much regarding species. For example, Neanderthals were finally allowed to join the rest of us humans because we have so many of their genes, as it turns out.

At a minimum, this article should mention that Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, and Cannabis ruderalis all readily interbreed. If the idea that they are different species is to be included in the article, readers might appreciate some explanation as to why. I think it makes more sense just say they're subspecies, with an aside saying that sometimes they're referred to as separate species. Wikipedia says subspecies are distinguished on the basis of morphology, and these three certainly are subspecies in this sense.

By contrast, all three subspecies of cannabis can be bred to contain either high or low levels of THC. Speaking of which, I'm puzzled by the asymmetric treatment of the terms hemp and marijuana. They're just two different types (as opposed to varieties or strains or subspecies). Recently, these two types of cannabis have been legislatively defined. Commonly, marijuana, especially medical marijuana, is any cannabis strain with more than 0.3% THC. Whereas hemp is any strain with less than 0.3% THC. (Technically, it's the THCA + THC content because, in most strains, fresh leaves and buds contain very little THC; the THCA converts to THC on heating.) This new way of looking at things is useful because hemp products are being sold in all 50 states. Furtherm ore, there are now lots of strains targeting the medical marijuana market that contain relatively well-balanced proportions of THC and CBD, so it no longer makes sense to talk about 'drug' marijuana as being bred for high THC. Page Notes (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not for us to make judgements; we must just report what reliable sources say. I think the trend is actually not even to recognize subspecies, but to accept only one variable species, Cannabis sativa – this is the view of Plants of the World Online, for example. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I took a look at http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/?q=cannabis, and I like it. I think it cuts through a lot of unproductive quibbling. But I have a question. The second entry is about Orobanche cannabis Vaucher, which has nothing to do with cannabis. If you agree that it looks like a database error, I'll ask them about it. Page Notes (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Page Notes: it's not an error; a straight search using http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/?q=cannabis finds any occurrence of "cannabis". If you want to find only genera then the search ends "?f=genus_f&q=cannabis". I haven't found a way of searching for species whose genus name is "cannabis". Peter coxhead (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
plants or animals that are capable of interbreeding belong to the same species - if that's what the species article says, it's incorrect. (It's hard to know what that article says, since it begins with a long, rambling essay of a lead). A better answer would come from the species problem article, though even that rambles. It's safe to say that whether populations that can be induced to interbreed has little bearing on whether they are considered distinct species.
It's also useful to bear in mind that each species description is a hypothesis proposed by the person publishing it. It's up to others to decide whether to accept that hypothesis, or not. Cannabis happens to be an unusual case because of national and international drug laws, but it doesn't change the basic rule - we can only describe what reliable sources say. And in this case, there are differing opinions. Guettarda (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Guettarda. I just noticed your comments - I still haven't persuaded Wikipedia to send an email when others mention me. Page Notes (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Squirrels and bobcat/lynx (& lion and tiger to make liger) interbreed in a captive environment. However in the wild they rarely do (different mating rituals; social mores). Viability of offspring is an issue when dna not identical. Then again some marijuana strains are polyploid. Shjacks45 (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

"Three species may be recognized [...]"[edit]

The entire section a) is written very badly (ie. confusingly) b) is far too detailed for the lede. Please fix it. 91.10.27.106 (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Apart from reducing it to something like "Between one and three species are recognized by different authorities", which seems over-simplified to me, I'm not sure what can be done. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Help Missesalahronaldo (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It's to dengerous Missesalahronaldo (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Effects of legalisation[edit]

See https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190205090524.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.21.214 (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

This study ends up with results anyone could of guessed- when something is first made legal, a bunch of inexperienced people make bad choices and get themselves killed. However, it shows that with the millions of people affected by legalization only around 1 extra car fatality per million persons occurred (I think? Not clearly laid out.) and that tapered off within a year. But the further conclusions then drawn, that the states who chose to give their residents more freedoms are somehow at fault for the actions of the people who live in the states who do not- that is ridiculous. It really just seems like the issue is that states who legalize marijuana need to be more prepared for the yearlong period afterwards when traffic fatalities will go up and that this country needs to end these racist and draconian marijuana laws since here is another way that they can cause people harm. Because if, like this article is positing, "cannabis tourism" is such a problem, blame the states that won't legalize it. Not the states that will and already have.

Because this article explains its statistics poorly, seems to use poorly thought out reasoning (such as, obviously studies on recreational use should not be compared to studies done on medicinal use), and draws conclusions that their data does not seem to support, this article should not be used on this Wikipedia page. Basil989 (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Add reference to Mechoulam[edit]

Some of the early research on Cannabis medicinal was by Rafael Mechoulam. His work was seminal in elucidating structure activity relationship and work on in vivo cannabinoid receptor target Annandamide. Shjacks45 (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTCV; there isn't a Wikipedia page for this person. If the research doesn't bear significantly on the existing content of cannabis, then there isn't justification to single out one researcher. Shown here on PubMed, the research would be classified as primary and speculative, so is arguably too preliminary and unencyclopedic to highlight individually. --Zefr (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cannabis&oldid=952354159"