This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine C‑class Mid‑importance This 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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Cannabis C‑class High‑importance 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.CannabisWikipedia:WikiProject CannabisTemplate:WikiProject CannabisCannabis articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs C‑class (defunct) This 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Alternative medicine C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles 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.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Alternative Views C‑class Mid‑importance 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.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is all over the place! Does this make sense to anybody for it to go from:

Indications > Recent studies > Medical compounds > History > Criticism > Harm reduction > National Availability (Which I don't even know what the hell that's supposed to mean) > Legal status

Oh my god. Who the fuck wrote this?! Anyways, I propose it go to something like this:

Indications > Medical compounds > Legal status > Criticism > History > Harm reduction > "National availability" (Merge with legal status or change to Synthesized cannabinoids or something that makes sense)

Tdinatale (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with most Wiki articles, who knows how many have contributed to this article, which is indeed a mess! I like your idea. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 07:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the article isn't a mess because of the order of the sections. it's a mess because most of the reliable sources are animal studies using synthetic cannabinoids, but these sources are being used to make claims for health benefits from humans smoking natural marijuana. you can reorder sections all day long, but you'll only be making superficial improvements.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 08:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but if you get the order right so that it flows better, and makes sense as one reads paragraph to paragraph.. then it'll become more clear as opposed to having random sections. Tdinatale (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's first put it in a real order first, then we can work on the nitty gritty bad refs stuff. Tdinatale (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent the last hour moving shit around and cleaning up some stuff. Tdinatale (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris brings up the reason we are discussing splitting this article (see section above). 72.213.23.110 (talk) 06:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 · 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)[reply]

Yes, this should be added to the article, in my opinion, asap. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been added to the further reading section.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 11:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone else agree this deserves a mention in the article? 72.213.23.110 (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here is another submission for inclusion in the further reading section: 2009 Conference on Cannabinoids in Medicine [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.178.225 (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this to the further reading section. 68.13.178.225 (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph in the "Criticism" section has been plagiarized:

"There are no FDA-approved medications that are smoked. For one thing, smoking is generally a poor way to deliver medicine. It is difficult to administer safe, regulated dosages of medicines in smoked form. Secondly, the harmful chemicals and carcinogens that are byproducts of smoking create entirely new health problems. There are four times the level of tar in a marijuana cigarette, for example, than in a tobacco cigarette."

Here is the source (which is cited by the person who put this paragraph in) - http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marinol.html The paragraph in question is the 4th bullet down. Sherlock (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the head's up, it was removed. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That should not have been removed. At most, if the text is large enough to warrant it, a note should be added indicating the source. US government documents (including the DOJ's site) are in the public domain. Adding such text to Wikipedia is a bit lazy, but there's nothing wrong with doing so. To quote the specific site you linked to as a source:

**NOTE** Information, including photos, generated by the Drug Enforcement Administration is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published, or otherwise used without the Drug Enforcement Administration's permission. However, citation of the Drug Enforcement Administration as the source of the information or photos is appreciated, as appropriate.

So, as you can see, there was nothing to fix, and the section should be restored. -65.47.145.206 (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are about three dozen major medical organizations that publicly support medical marijuana, and about a dozen major medical organizations that oppose it.

Should the "Organizational Support" section be renamed and redone to focus on those organizations that support AND those that oppose instead of just listing support which seems biased?

Here's a good place to get started (http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sources.asp - click on Organizations to see who is pro or con medical marijuana). I would add some of those organizations myself, but one Wiki admin has a problem with my using ProCon.org, so I'd rather have other people do what they think is appropriate than do it myself.

Regardless of the source used, I do think this section should be redone to show support AND opposition. It seems only fair. I also think that rather than focus on all organizations and their views, this list should focus on medical organizations (after all they should have the greatest expertise) or the list could get out of hand and become appealing ground for link spammers. Anyone with some Wiki experience and expertise want to step up and make changes? Redondomax 22 October 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redondomax (talk • contribs) 19:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the External Links section is totally biased towards proponents of medical marijuana. Other than DMOZ, every other source listed supports medical marijuana. Can someone besides me include a neutral source (you already know I think medicalmarijuana.procon.org would make a great add but one Wiki admin will just remove it if I add it), remove some of the pro sources, add a con source, or do something so this presentation has no biased POV. Redondomax 22 October 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redondomax (talk • contribs) 19:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the use of ProCon as a source, you might want to review the admin input [here] and do not promote it's use as a source until this matter is cleared up. 68.13.178.225 (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to ProCon, Redondomax is well aware that the reason its use is discouraged is because a) the site has been spammed extensively on Wikipedia by single-purpose editors; b) the site sponsored a contest to create a Wikipedia article about itself, complete with cash prize; and c) several admins (myself included) have noted that the site is not suitable for use as a reference source. It certainly can be used as a starting point for research for this article, as long as we don't use it as a reference or link to it. Any sites they happen to list can certainly be referenced by going straight to the source, that being the actual organization.

As for the external links section, it should be pruned rather than expanded. (The Open Directory Projectlink is intended to replace an extensive list of links, not complement it; DMOZ is recommended under the external links guideline as a viable alternative to link bloat.) That would address Redondomax's observation that the list being biased in one direction. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The utility or useability of ProCon.org is still very much subject to discussion. It is not a banned source by any means. Rather than rehash the reasons why I find CKatz to be completely wrong in his assessment of ProCon.org (a view also shared by other editors on Wiki), I agree that this article is not the place to have that debate.

My question was about whether or not to change the section to "Medical Organizations" vs. "Organizations" only and whether or not to include pro organizations and con organizations. I'm still interested in CKatz's and others' views on this issue. The External Links listed are mostly biased (except for arguably DMOZ) and should be cleaned up to reflect high-quality neutral sources. Granny's List and People United for Medical Marijuana as unbiased external links? Are you kidding me? I'd delete them but CKatz has been giving me a really hard time, and I'm tired of getting into Undo wars with him/her, so I regretfully leave meaningful edits to others. Redondomax 22 October 2009

The only thing we've been differing on is the ProCon issue, and that site's viability as a reliable source. (Note that other admins have also agreed it isn't.) If you want to clean up the links, I certainly wouldn't have any reason to object. Keep in mind that I'm here in an administrative capacity due to the ProCon problem, so I'm not planning on getting involved in other content-related discussions. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yay. That's great news. I'll get to editing. BTW, do you think I should raise the "ProCon problem" in the reliable sources discussion board (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard)? Another admin suggested that I do. or have you already done so? Redondomax 22 October 2009

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)[reply]

How does marijuana cure PMS (premenstrual syndrome) and cancer when it really causes irregular menstruation and has more carcinogens (cancer-causing agents) than cigarettes? I don't get it.

Qotsa37 (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How marijuana cures PMS [3]. (I am not aware of a relationship between irregular periods and PMS.)

How marijuana is different from cigarettes [4] and doesn't cause cancer [5]

Marijuana cures cancer [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpipos (talk • contribs) 17:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This article must be split, it is all over the place

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. [7]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Then just do triage and notify the talk page of your edits. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You raise valid points, but please note the language from the template at the top of this page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of Medical cannabis. Any such messages will be deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article." You may wish to (find and) cite sources to show that the issues you mention constitute a substantial barrier to the effective use of cannibis 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. If you're not willing to undertake that effort, then I'd respectfully request that you (or any other editor) would delete your comment, along with this my reply. Thank you. Ohiostandard (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today the AMA reversed it's 72 year stance regarding medical cannabis. Do we need a better source before adding it to organizational support? [[8]]68.13.178.225 (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Background: User Alfie66 added three separate templates to the top of this article on 10 Aug 2009, and then restored them on 6 Nov 2009 after another anon IP user deleted them the previous day. Each of the three templates discredits the article. I became curious about this, and carefully read all the relevant talk page entries, including the archives.

General Concern: The pharmaceutical industry is one of the strongest opponents of the proliferation of medical marijuana; it would lose many billions of money annually if the public came to prefer it over standard pharmaceutical medicines for the wide range of conditions in which it shows benefit. The industry also wants the opportunity to develop and market new drugs derived from marijuana. Thus it has a very large financial motive to discourage the proliferation of medical marijuana, and one way to do that would be to attempt to discredit claims of its efficacy. It's unlikely that Wikipedia, as one of the most frequently accessed sites on the internet, would be excluded from such attempts.

Specific Concern: User Alfie66 has disclosed previously that he works in Austria doing research on the pharmacokinetics and metabolic pathways of swallowed cannabis derivatives in humans. Salient among his remarks is the statement, "I don't see any reason to quote any indication which goes beyond the labeled one for Marinol, Sativex, etc." This represents an extreme (i.e. non-consensus) view concerning this article. It's my impression from this and other of his comments that he has little use for medical marijuana per se, and would much prefer to see its components isolated by pharma companies and sold as conventional prescription drugs after clinical trials of the same have been completed. ( Correction or clarification on that would be welcome, of course, Alfie66. ) If that impression is correct, it would be exactly the same preference the pharmaceutical industry as a whole maintains, of course. Finally, much (but by no means all) of his involvement with the medical cannabis article appears to have occurred during normal working hours in Austria.

Request for Alfie66: I value your expertise, but especially since many of your contributions appear to have been made while you were at work, will you please disclose the nature of your employment more explicitly, e.g. whether you work for a pharma or subcontractor interested in developing cannabis-derived compounds, or if at a Uni in basic research, then whether you're supported by pharma grants in your work? I'd also ask that you consider making such an explicit disclosure on your user page as well: I've seen WP policy recommendations elsewhere that any potential conflicts of interest should be so disclosed.

I do not intend the least disrespect in asking this or in making any of these observations, but (to continue a theme you began in a now-archived comment) if someone is writing about tort reform, it's only fair that readers should know whether he's a lawyer. Thank you. Ohiostandard (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]