| This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details. |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cannabis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cannabis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  C | This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. | | High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia'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. | | | C | This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | | | | [edit] Where to present new efficacy review? In a landmark article, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Opioid Management, University of Washington researcher Sunil Aggarwal and colleagues document no fewer than 33 controlled clinical trials -- published over a 38-year period from 1971 to 2009 -- confirming that marijuana is a safe, effective medicine for specific medical conditions. 66.37.153.100 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) "The most common misconception among doctors and the general public regarding medical marijuana is that its effectiveness claims are substantiated only by compelling anecdotes from patients," Aggarwal told SF Weekly. "What is not acknowledged is that 33 separate controlled clinical trials with patients, at least a third of which are of gold standard design, have been conducted and published in the United States by investigators at major research centers using the same federal cannabis supply and mode of delivery. "In fact," Aggarwal and colleagues write, "nearly all of the 33 published controlled clinical trials conducted in the United States have shown significant and measurable benefits in subjects receiving the treatment." The Study: [1], PMID: 19662925, Journal of opioid management. 5(3):153-68. ,ISSN: 1551-7489, Medicinal use of cannabis in the United States: Historical perspectives, current trends, and future directions. Sunil K. Aggarwal, PhD; Gregory T. Carter, MD, MS; Mark D. Sullivan, MD, PhD; Craig ZumBrunnen, PhD; Richard Morrill, PhD; Jonathan D. Mayer, PhD - Link corrected. Please sign your contributions in the future. —Alfie±Talk 11:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this should be added to the article, in my opinion, asap. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC) - It has been added to the further reading section. —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 11:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- Would anyone else agree this deserves a mention in the article? 72.213.23.110 (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes, this new review paper does merit inclusion in the article body rather than just in the "further reading" section. It's much more current than the 2002 review article cited presently in the "indications" section, and is more comprehensive. My preference would be to see the whole first section, "Indications" revised; it's kind of choppy and discontinuous now, with its two subsections. Also, "indications" is medical jargon, not a word that's widely understood by lay people. I'd propose the "indications" section be retitled to something like "Clinical applications and effectiveness", with a brief summary (as above, in talk) of the Aggarwal, et. al. paper forming the intro/opening-paragraph to that section. Further, the separation of the section into "Partial list of clinical applications", and "Recent studies" subsections is artificial and distracting. If the consensus is that the clinical applications detailed in "Recent studies" merit separate mention from those of the previous subsection then I think they should be broken out to separate articles by application, eg "Medical cannibis for Alzheimers", etc. Comments/objections? Ohiostandard (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I like your ideas very much.68.13.178.225 (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Structure and Sourcing Many editors here have expressed concern over the somewhat random treatment of indications for use, or "Clinical applications", or whatever it is we're calling them at the moment. With all good will, people have thrown individual papers at the section, at the "Partial list of clinical applications" section, in particular, with indications for use in allergies shown alongside indications for nausea from chemotherapy or for muscle spasms associated with multiple sclerosis. Now I do not mean to disparage any one potential use, but it's certainly the case that some uses are better supported by the literature than others, and that some uses have been more broadly applied if not necessarily more broadly researched than others. It would seem helpful to me to rank clinical applications according to how extensively they're supported by the literature, and particularly by how well they're supported by review papers, i.e. by papers that review and summarize the results of multiple different studies from the same general area of research. I don't have time to expand on this much at the moment, but if we can find a way to work in maximum accordance with wp policies, then I think putting together an updated structure similar to the "Hierarchy of Therapeutic Effects" presented by Grotenhermen & Russo (2002) would give us a very sound basis by which to proceed. Further, any rancorous contention over which potential applications merit inclusion in which of the various value-judgment hierarchical categories that we ultimately decide upon could stymie progress for six months or more if people couldn't put aside their feuds and ego-involvement to work cooperatively with editors who hold an opposing pov. But if we could all manage to remain fairly civil, and agree to stick to the rules with each other, I think this structure, or a similar one, would likely be our best bet to organize the great many clinical applications that are now shown in the "Partical list of clinical applications" section the current article presents, and deal with the fact that they're now all of them shown as being pretty much all on the same level with respect to how well they've been proved. Note, btw, that Grotehermen & Russo (2002) present their then-current version of a "hierarchy" based on at least eight different review papers. I think it's also important to disclose, for all articles we cite, whether they're in vitro studies, in vivo animal studies, human trials, single or double blind trials, etc. I've placed this section immediately below the "Where to present new efficacy review?" one, btw, because the two sections seem to belong close together. Since that's a form of top-posting, however, anyone who objects should feel free to move this to a new section at the end of the talk page. Finally, I've added quite a lot of text to this talk page in the last few days, so I'll mention that I'm going to be away and mostly offline for something like 15 days beginning quite soon. That will give other editors their chance to criticize, respond, and suggest new ideas. Too, I hope that this will also allow time for some beginnings of consensus to form in response to some of these ideas for structural/outline reorganization, and around any new ideas for an outline/structure that we can all accept and use as a framework for respectful cooperation with each other in the future. Cheers, Ohiostandard (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC) - Hi Ohiostandard, I like your suggestions very much! I think that Grotenhermen is an excellent resource according to WP:MEDRS (at least I have the German edition on my bookshelf - maybe easier than to fiddle around with Google-Books). I'm a little bit short in time, so don't expect too much active editing from my side - but I'm monitoring the talk page. So, I would be glad if I can help in discussions. →Alfie±Talk 17:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Thank you, Alfie66. I'm not sure there are many others here who have the same "hard science" background and level of training that you have - I certainly don't - and I value your participation greatly. I just wanted to say so, and mention that I'm truly sorry if I gave a contrary impression via my very clumsy coi query earlier. I look forward to collaborating with you to improve this article once I'm back online, and to the extent you can find the time. I need to buy a copy of Grotenhermen, myself, btw, although I really wish he'd write a revised edition. So much good work been done, and so many fascinating developments have arisen since 2002. Best, Ohiostandard (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Hi Ohiostandard! Since you didn't contact me on my talk page with the COI-story, I followed it only from the distance (including the sockpuppet investigation…). Be warned, Grotenhermen's textbook is not cheap - but every cent worth. The English 2002 edition is a translation of the 1st German edition of 2001. The 2nd revised and extended German edition was published in 2004; hopefully it will be translated as well. I can send him an e-mail and simply ask. ;-) You may also find the website of the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines interesting (see especially the 'Science' section). →Alfie±Talk 01:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Caption The lead image to this article is a bottle of 1930's Cannabis extract, yet here is the description it should be illustrating: "Medical cannabis (commonly referred to as medical marijuana) refers to the use of the dried flowers and subtending leafs and stems from pistillate Cannabis plants" Can someone explain this? Any thoughts? 68.13.178.225 (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC) - What exactly needs explaining? Feel free to read the article on tinctures, and remember to stick with one user account. Viriditas (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- When not signed in, my IP address shows up, that is not the same as 2 accounts, or am I missing something? 68.13.178.225 (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Splitting This article is too long, it includes various types of medical cannabis, only one of which is mentioned in the intro. The description of medical cannabis in the intro refers only to the raw material. Yet, we have a picture of a pharmaceutical cannabis extract, and a whole section on studies done with constituents of cannabis, not mentioned in the intro. If this article is covering 3 issues: raw plant matter and it's current legal issues, it's history, it's supporters and detractors, as well as the lab studies on cannabinoids, and pharmaceutical versions, it seems they should all be mentioned in the intro. As stands now, this article is quite confusing. Tpipos (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC) - Couldn't agree more. It's one giant mess but I don't think it should be split. A8UDI talk 18:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- So, a good focus for now could be to get the introduction to match what's actually being presented, and the introduction's image to better represent the subject. Tpipos (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
This article obviously requires deletion! There is no one congruence in anything I read here. Claims that cannabis cures cancer (?) juxtaposed with other peoples inability to imagine a medicinal delivery of cannabiloid medicines in any other fashion than they themselves have sampled the drug: smoking. To patients such as myself who benefit from medicinale cannabis (not the smoked variety) and who therefore actually "know something" about modern means of delivery of the medicines, I personally an gutted that some monkey continuously alters the wikipedia page referring to me and my personal situation to the utter crap that is contained on this page. There is here a "map" of the legal situation of "cannabis" in the EU. What a total misconception! There is "illicit cannabis" and there are medical VAT Sales Tax products that happen to contain derivitaves of cannaboloids. one issue deals with criminals, and the other issue deals with people whose physicians prescribe VAT Sales Tax products (reimbursed by their medical insurers) to patients with certain conditions for various reasons ranging from increased calorific intake and increased appetite for some illnesses, to the immuno-suppressive qualities that such derivatives have on auto-immune illnesses. These illnesses are no joke, and medical treatment is something that is a very personal thing. IT is also rather scientific. If you care to see how a page on an important lifesaving subject such as this one should appear, then check out the Nederlands version of this waste of space. [2] Please spare a thought to newly diagnosed persons and those that receive recommendations from their physicians to battle the symptoms of VERY SERIOUS illnesses. They get home and look up wiki on the suggestion and this is the shite they are greeted with. Referencing "refer racism" as a source ? omg Barentsz (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC) - Hi! Couldn't agree more. I don't speak Dutch, but Google-translate helped in getting an impression. It's quite similar to the German one (de:Cannabis als Arzneimittel). I tried to start a discussion this summer (see the archive), but was editwared and finally gave up. There are still the crazy 250 indications in the article, which I would consider a world-record for any known drug. Wow! →Alfie±Talk 01:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Then just do triage and notify the talk page of your edits. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I removed the 250 indications. The source is a self-published paper relying on doubtful references. See the archive. →Alfie±Talk 19:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's a good idea to place large chunks of removed content on the talk page for other editors to review, along with a diff. I'll do that below. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Viridatas! Fine; I thought that the link to the archive was enough. Anyhow, if someone feels that the section should be kept, IMHO it should be moved from "Indications > Partial list of clinical applications" to "History > Modern science". I added a ref-tag to the section below. →Alfie±Talk 12:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] 250 indications Disputed content removed here and copied below: Tod H. Mikuriya, a psychiatrist and an advocate for the legalization of the use of marijuana for medical purposes, has recorded over 250 indications for medical cannabis,[1] as classified by the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-9).[2] - ^ Mikuriya, Tod H. (July 13, 2005). "International Classification of Diseases 9 - CM 1996 Chronic Conditions Treated With Cannabis Encountered Between 1990-2005". http://www.canorml.org/prop/Mikuriya_ICD-9list.pdf. Retrieved August 10, 2009. [self-published source?]
- ^ Gieringer, Dale (2002). "Medical Use of Cannabis in California". in Franjo Grotenhermen & Ethan Russo. Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology and Therapeutic Potential. New York City: Haworth Press. p. 149. ISBN 978-0-7890-1508-2. http://books.google.com/books?id=JvIyVk2IL_sC&lpg=PA143.
as i see it, the lead is both too heavy on legal distinctions and a non-global, us-centric viewpoint. the stated focus of the article is medical marijuana, and the lead should introduce and summarize the main subjects that are related to the subject, such as description, indications for use, legality, history. I would say the first three and then the last article of the lead do a a good job of this(although the last might need some broadening), while the middle three seem overly specific (and US-oriented). I´ve tried to move parts of those sections down to the national availabilites>: united states section, but other editors evidently thought they were important enough for the lead, so i don´t want to do any moving again until there´s some kind of consensus on wher this information should be (i will try to fix the next to last paragraph, since i can´t see it making sense right now) also, i agree with people above that the lead image could be changed to something more current or removed, and barentz, if the netherlands page is a lot better, try integrating it in (i don´t speak dutch). I feel like another major problem is the article has gotten weighed down by people wanting to educate others about the benefits of medical cannabinoids, and referencing and describing every potential use of the drug, so you get the cure for cancer thing and sections like "partial list of clinical applications" that at this point includes every major disease. I do think the that some of these sections can be condensed with a reference to a new article that preserves the content that people want others to know about while giving a more concise main article. specifically, for right now, what do you think of the lead rearrangment idea Iowawindow (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC) - Hi! Yes, be bold and go ahead. Crude translation of Dutch and German articles may give you some inspirations. When I started the discussion this summer I considered the article by far too long (89 kilobytes then). Now it's 100… (WP:SIZE!) →Alfie±Talk 02:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- As for the lead image, why not simply move the current picture to the history section and meanwhile look for a better one... Tpipos (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Because that's backwards. The way it works is that we decide on a new image and then add it. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] "Medical" mariujuana This text was entered in Cannabis (drug) talk page: "I was some years ago supplier to a factory that manufactures a drug that is approved by the FDA for sale in the United States. I do not work for any drug manufacturer today. The drug was manufactured by fermentation (compare with fermentation of alcohol, but a very different product). All materials that came into the factory was controlled accurately before they could be used, even trivial things like water, employees in the production have clothing like the emergency department at a hospital, the air in the room, the water etc. must meet strict requirements for purity, there should be traceability back to the provider of everything. Every package that came into the factory, every raw material must come from an approved and reviewed vendor, supplied with a batch number which could be traced. Anyone who worked with the process must show proof that he was trained on the particular work situation. If you had visited the wrong area close to the factory the contract ordered you to go home for the rest of the day, take a shower and wash all clothing. Approximately 1 / 5 part of the workforce belonged to the powerful control department with the power to immediately reject the entire production from that week. All products that are shipped from the factory had a standard potency and purity. The product was used by patients with one very special defect. There was no doubt about very positive effect with no known serious side effects if you took recommended dose, not less and not more than the recommended dose. From a scientific view is almost all “medical” marijuana from another planet, a joke, compared with the factory above. Traceable raw material?, standard potency ?, purity ?, approved suppliers?, trained staff?, approved clothing?, tested?, batch number on all raw material in the process?, batch number on finished products? and so on." Dala11a (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC) - You raise valid points, but please consider looking for and citing sources to show that the issues you mention constitute a substantial barrier to the effective use of marijuana as medicine. If such sources exist it would improve the article to include them, perhaps along with discussion of the multiplicity of strains in use and their possible variability in the treatment of disease. Thank you. Ohiostandard (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] AMA endorsement Today the AMA reversed it's 72 year stance regarding medical cannabis. Do we need a better source before adding it to organizational support? [[3]]68.13.178.225 (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC) - Sounds interesting. I would wait until it's officially published on AMA's website and use it as a primary source. If you are in a hurry, use The New York Times as a source in the meantime. →Alfie±Talk 23:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I agree that it'd be premature, nor would I describe their policy shift as organizational support or endorsement for the use of medical marijuana. Ohiostandard (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- BTW, see page 14 of AMA's report. →Alfie±Talk 01:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
After some cleanup, I agree with the additional cite tag, but I think the neutrality tags can go, especially the one with the weasel words part. There really isn't a big problem with these (I'm not an editor of the article). Also, do you think a general cleanup tag, mostly the "Modern science" section is needed? Mjpresson (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC) - I don't know, I see lots of problems just scanning the article. Start with the "partial list of clinical applications" section and the statement leading from "Other studies have shown cannabis or cannabinoids to be useful in treating.." All of these things are picked from primary studies, and it is not clear if this is neutral or accurate. Let's see good secondary sources talking about what is useful treatment, rather than an editor picking and choosing. Do you know of any physicians who are treating alcohol abuse or ADD with cannabis? That's just to start. Please address the problems with this section first. One thing you could do is ask WP:MED to review it for accuracy. I think it is bogus. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I'm reluctant to get involved here, but I'd like the article to have at least a hint of authenticity. Unlike some, I'm aware that "what I know" isn't recognized here. I'll go ahead and make a few bold cleanups, expecting the usual result.....Mjpresson (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- On second thought, this is a bad article. Too much OR in this field. This needs deletion and a start from scratch by qualified and neutral editors. Adios. Mjpresson (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I wouldn't say it's a bad article, exactly, but I agree it's in a sad jumble. Much of the trouble is structural; there's some good material here, but we need places to put it that make more sense. Of course, the article also badly needs exacting attention from folks who are willing to respect the scientific method and to write carefully, regardless of their POV.
-
-
-
- In principle starting from scratch would be beneficial, beginning with the development of an outline, a fundamental structure we could all live with. Unfortunately, I just don't see that happening in practice. So it seems to me to be a case of working with what we have, trying to sort through the jumble, keep the good stuff, and generally put it into better order.
-
-
-
- But "Adios"? If you can keep the drama from bothering you too much I, for one, would really like to see you stick around. I reviewed your edits, and thought them very constructive, as I know another editor did too, one who assumes (erroneously, btw) that I'm in his opposing camp.
-
-
-
- There's been so much contention over this article that I think it would be better to discuss proposed changes first, before going ahead with the "bold cleanups" thing. I appreciate your good will in thinking of doing so; cleanups are certainly needed. It's just that in a polarized setting such as this, performing them without first trying to gain consensus for the direction they take, and allowing sufficient time for that consensus to develop, can generate a firestorm of wikidrama. Thanks, Ohiostandard (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Why don't you present a a new outline here? Other editors have tried (check the archives) but they were too focused on advocacy rather than the sources themselves. Viriditas (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- What, and touch the third rail? ;-) As desirable as a rewrite from a new outline might be, I think we're likely to be stuck with a more incremental approach. ( I think I've read every word of the archives at least once, btw, and I agree with your observation re advocacy. We could certainly use more appreciation for the truth Grotenhermen & Russo (2002) point out here, that "the history of clinical use of cannabis and cannabinoids has demonstrated that the scientific evidence for a specific indication does not implicitly reflect the actual therapeutic potential for a given disease." )
-
-
-
-
-
- I will try to find time to present some less-sweeping structural suggestions, though. I'll present those in a new talk page section for that discussion, however, since - as I understand Mjpresson's intention - this section is primarily about the {{pov}}, {{refimprove}}, and {{weasel}} tags Alfie66 placed at the head of the article on 10 August 2009 (UTC), and then restored on 6 November 2009 (UTC), after another user had removed them the previous day. Ohiostandard (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] History section Mjpresson, I just took a closer look at the "modern science" sub-secton you mentioned. It seems to have been intended as a sort of culmination of the History section, to say something like, "So much for ancient history re medical uses of cannabis, here's what's been going on in the last 150 years or so." It would make more sense, and seem less out of context, I think, if the section were named "Modern history", or "Recent history". Statements that are more about efficacy than about its use in modern history, though, don't belong in the section, imo, but rather in the "Clinical Applications" section, assuming they can be supported by proper citations. E.g., most of the text below seems somewhat out of place to me, - "Later medical use has focused primarily on its role in preventing the wasting syndromes and chronic loss of appetite associated with chemotherapy and AIDS, along with a variety of rare muscular and skeletal disorders. Less commonly, cannabis has been used in the treatment of alcoholism and addiction to other drugs such as heroin and the prevention of migraines. In recent years, studies have shown or researchers have speculated that the main chemical in the drug, THC, might help prevent atherosclerosis."
and that last sentence just has to go, or (less controversially, I suppose) be moved to the Clinical Applications section, and properly cited or given a "citation needed" tag, at least. Likewise, Marinol is certainly historically significant, and thus appropriate for a modern history section, but this section doesn't seem to me to be the place to discuss its efficacy or to compare it unfavorably (or favorably) to smoking marijuana. Such a comparison may have a place in the article, but this isn't it. Thoughts? Ohiostandard (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC) - I'm not seeing the underlying problem you describe, as the points raised in that paragraph are a significant part of the history of medical cannabis. Later medicinal use, primarily beginning with the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, was historically focused on relieving the wasting syndromes and loss of appetite experienced by patients, and there was much funding, research, and clinical study focused on medical cannabis. The dispensary movement grew out of this research, as there was a need for a distribution point. I would strongly disagree with this being moved. Perhaps you could take a moment to look into it for yourself. It's entirely appropriate to the section, however a rewrite is needed to clarify chronology and sourcing. Viriditas (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Good point re AIDS --> Dispensaries; I was aware of that, and agree it's of historical importance. I was a bit careless to have included the first of the three sentences in the example I placed above, and did so mostly to preserve the context of the second and third one. But do you see the objection to the latter two? I know Mikuriya published very early about cannabis for alcoholism; did anyone else? If so, I guess you could make the case that the alcoholism mention belongs here. There are probably other early examples re migraines, heroin, etc, but were those applications ubiquitous enough that they rate mention in a history section? You may be more familiar with the history than I am; were those also early uses of historical importance? And ameliorating or preventing atherosclerosis was an early use that was investigated enough to make it prominent in history? ( The earliest mention of cannabis and atherosclerosis that I can find via PubMed, even using "stenosis", alternate spellings of marijuana that were in use early on, "THC", etc., is in 2004. )
-
- My thought re the structure of the thing was that we could throw much that occurs in the "Clinical applications" section into this one, too. ( No, I'm not suggesting we should. ) In other words, as we talk about more and more recent history we converge more and more with the "Clinical Applications" section. But aside from that, you're fine with the sub-heading "Modern Science" in a history section? Seems to me that most or all of sections 1 & 2 of the article is "Modern Science", too. That's why I suggested the admittedly less-than-elegant sub-heading name, "Modern history". Although I think the change would be a small improvement for that reason, I don't feel particularly strongly about it. What do you think? Ohiostandard (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Why don't you go ahead and change it to your preference? If someone objects, we can always modify it or change it back. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Did you mean you agreed with the a change from "Modern science" to "Modern history", with dropping the last two sentences I quoted above re alcoholism, heroin, migraines, and atherosclerosis, or to both? ( Note that those uses are all well-discussed previously in the article, along with literature citations, which they didn't have in the "Modern science" section. ) I thought "both", and was about to make a corresponding change, but then noticed (only via the article's auto-generated toc) that the "Modern science" section was not, as I'd assumed, actually a sub-section of "History" at all, but an independent section that follows it. ( I don't understand why the "Modern science" section heading showed up as much less bold than the subsection "Medieval Islamic world" that appeared immediately above it, as can be seen here. That seems backwards to me. ) But I didn't want to talk the thing to death, so I went ahead and made the change I inferred was agreed upon anyway. If my inference was incorrect, or any other user objects, free to revert and discuss here. Cheers, Ohiostandard (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Good work. I have not had a chance to read Appel's article, but it seems that you have. Is it significant enough to include here? I see that you removed the bit on migraines, but I recall that there was significant research results in this area, but I could be wrong. Should we consider re-adding it with sources? Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks. The two sentences I removed that mentioned cannabis use for migraines, alcoholism, heroin, and atherosclerosis didn't carry any citations, and each of the four conditions is mentioned (with citations) elsewhere in the article. More specifically, migraines are already mentioned in the "Partial list of clinical applications" section, with a citation, and also in the second paragraph of the "Modern History" section (which used to be the "Modern Science" section, of course.) Will reply below re Appel's article, in the talk page section entitled "Medicinal alcohol paragraph changed". Ohiostandard (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Oh, also: If anyone gets around to a cleanup of the just-renamed "Modern history" subsection for chronology and other remaining issues, I'd very much like to see something included about the point Viriditas raised above re AIDS --> Dispensaries. In my previous edit to the article I thought about including his talk page statement (see above), "Later medicinal use ... (snip) ... The dispensary movement grew out of this research, as there was a need for a distribution point." I didn't include it because I don't have a supporting citation ready to hand, but it seems so non-controversial and well-known a fact to me that I think it'd be fine in the article, even without a citation. Ohiostandard (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- A more careful reading of your (Viriditas') comment re migraines leads me to believe I might have misunderstood the suggestion. The question was about whether there was enough early research to qualify that research as historically significant, yes? In a very brief search via PubMed I didn't find much early research on cannabis to treat migraines at all, just a 1987 paper entitled "Marijuana and Migraine". There's another relevant paper, though, one that talks about the long historical use of cannabis for migraine. That paper is a 1989 review article entitled "Cannabis for migraine treatment: the once and future prescription?". In it the author appeals for more research into its efficacy for migraine.
-
-
-
-
- I think a citation for this second paper should be added to the already existing mention of cannabis for migraine in the newly-renamed "Modern history" subsection's second paragraph, although doing so would require a little rewriting of the paragraph. Do people think it's also obligatory to add the same citation to the mention of migraine that occurs in the "Partial list of clinical applications" section, as well? I'd add it to one or both places migraine is mentioned in the article myself, but I'm not sure how to do that quickly (uncertain, too, about which ref format should be used to to cite PubMed abstracts) and I'm out of time for now. Ohiostandard (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] confusing sentence This sentence appears at the start of the second paragraph. "Some studies show a positive correlation regarding its use in a medicinal context.[2][3][4][5]" I am not sure this means anything at all. Marijuana use has a positive correlation with what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.131.22 (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC) - I agree it is pretty silly, but this is the kind of prose you get on Wikipedia, when you have two factions fighting to write an article, both from different POV. It can probably be rewritten to simply state what the correlation and context is, instead of talking around it. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Yes, it is silly. I've made a temporary "de-uglification". Only temporary because the change is admittedly a quick and inadequate fix, and since "benefit" is mildly stronger than "correlation". ( I thought it was just too silly to let it stand as it was. ) The sentence doesn't really belong where it is, either, but I have no time now to find it a better home. Wouldn't want to see it just deleted, though, since some of the refs it carries would be orphaned without it. ( Those refs are useful ones, although useful in what context or section of the article remains to be discussed. ) In the same edit I fixed an error at the end of the second paragraph, concerning synthetic cannabinoids: I restored the erroneously-truncated sentence to its intended meaning, based on a previous article version, and preserved the inline links that had been added since. Ohiostandard (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I see Iowawindow finished the job very nicely. (Thanks!) No connection, btw, despite the similar-sounding user names; I was a bit startled to see that myself when I first noticed the user name a while ago. The refs still need attention and proper formatting, but we'll all get to those, and the refs weren't anything that were addressed by the changes documented in this talk page section, anyway. Unless anyone objects, I'd say this talk page section could be archived soon. Ohiostandard (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- These issues are not yet resolved, so I don't think archiving is needed right now. Viriditas (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Medicinal alcohol paragraph changed I made this change because the wording that was used didn't accurately represent the thrust of the essay it relied upon and cited. I'd actually prefer to see mention of the medicinal alcohol movement dropped from this article entirely, for brevity's sake, but if we're going to mention it at all then we need to reflect the meaning of the source correctly. The paragraph would be fine if we were to break out the "History" section to a new article, and just briefly summarize that (new) "History" article in this one, as has been suggested. Ohiostandard (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC) - I agree with this. Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- If you're saying you'd also like to see it dropped, then please go ahead and strike the paragraph. It's an interesting comparison, certainly, an interesting commentary on history. But it's not really history itself, and we're very tight on space. Besides, I haven't seen the entire paper, just the abstract, and my rewrite was based on my observation that the article's language seemed rather at odds with the paper's abstract. In performing that rewrite, though, I relied too much on the say-so of a previous editor who evidently had seen the whole paper. See diff I provided above. The previous editor's wording was at odds with the abstract, and (relying on his wording) my initial revision said more than I'm personally aware of, i.e. more than the abstract says. I've since revised my previous revision to try to ameliorate that (see this diff) but the paragraph still says more about the paper than I personally know, and I'd be happier just seeing any mention of the cannabis-alcohol comparison dropped altogether, or at least dropped until someone who has an Athens login can retrieve the full text of the paper and sort this out. Ohiostandard (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Coincidence or not, this annoncement was published today: "Answer to booze problems may lie in cannabis"[4], and "Is cannabis the answer to Booze Britain's problems?"[5]. Reiman, Amanda. "Cannabis as a Substitute for Alcohol and Other Drugs", Harm Reduction Journal. Unfortunately, the journal article does not appear to have been published just yet.[6] Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] National and International Regulations I'm not sure why this section heading was changed, but in any case, the entire section should be split out to the legal and medical status article and replaced with anywhere with 2-4 paragraphs of summarized status, mentioning the most important points related to legal status and regulations. We do not need any of the detailed information that we currently have in this article. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC) |
