Talk:Long-term effects of cannabis - Wikipedia


2 people in discussion

Article Images
Error: Target page was not specified with to.

It seems like this article was written by a person who disapproves of the use of cannabis, and was then edited by a person who actively uses cannabis. Take the first paragraph from pregnancy, for example; it's basically "This is bad. But we're lying, it's everything else that's bad." This article needs to be cleaned up to have a scientific point of view, and not be written by someone who likes or opposes the drug itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.161.251 (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The reason it disputes itself is that it cites invalid studies that aren't actually about cannabis, but about cannabis AND other drugs, which biases the results as they realistically are not related. That's bad enough solely on the bases that this is not an article about drugs in general, but only about cannabis. Consider removing lines that cite studies which group cannabis with other drugs, and replace them with cited information about studies which separate cannabis from other drugs to compare and contrast them. A good example would be the infant mortality rate study, which compares cannabis, cocaine, opiate, and a drug-free control as entirely separate groups; (pick a source: http://www.google.com/search?q=infant+mortality+cannabis).
To make matters worse, the whole article is completely disorganized. Consider separating the article into sections titled, "Risks" and "Benefits," or clearly separating each existing section into subsections by grouping the information that suggests risk and benefit. Claims that are disputed can coexist in these formats by mentioning the study which disputes it, then going into detail about it in the opposing section. This should allow readers to fully understand the research that has been done on the subject. I urge writers to give details about a study's methodology to allow readers to draw their own conclusions about it's validity, especially when contrasting with one that disputes it; this is not an opinion forum.
72.59.101.135 (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

So I wrote and added a lead for the article. I think it's a pretty fair summary - in pretty much every section, pretty much every allegation made by one side is contested by another, so I basically just said that science is strongly divided on this subject, and very little consensus exists, with a couple of examples from the article. Feel free to adjust. Peace! The Disco King (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

You should consider writing about the possible link between cannabis smoking, and emphysema and secondary pneumothorax.

The study that concluded that heavy use of cannabis reduces brain size was cited twice. I deleted one of the paragraphs, then I added some of its info to the second paragraph about it. It's a terribly flawed study to begin with, considering how there were hardly any participants, as well as how nothing they found could have possibly proved their conclusion given how no actual shrinking of the brain was observed. I think it should be taken out altogether, but I'll leave that decision to someone with more experience. It's bad enough that it was mentioned once, but to see it twice in this article really smacks of a desire to misinform to further a hidden agenda. I'm also wondering how all these articles appeared practically overnight about how addictive it is and how cannabis use is a disease that needs to be treated. Dkrg (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate you explaining your actions here on the talk page, but the fact remains you removed two references from reliable medical sources. Shortening a section is one thing, but you are going to need a better reason than "doubting" the published journal article from a university to remove it entirely. Freikorp (talk)

Thanks for pointing that out. I definitely should've looked through the sources I removed more carefully. But I didn't remove them simply because I "doubted" them. There was a third source for the exact same study which I left in, and I thought it was a safe assumption that the information was the same for all of them. Isn't it better not to clog up the references section with multiple sources that all say the same thing? I'll admit I might've made a mistake; but again, I certainly wasn't deleting sources simply because I didn't agree with them. Dkrg (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

No worries. I see your point, but generally the more references the better, as online links are subject to link rot. Also the more reliable references you can find from different sources the more verified/reliable the information is deemed to be. Freikorp (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wait a moment! There is so much political controversy on this subject, that people are even paid to publish papers on the topic. Please go about this the scientific way, and have several confirmations on a paper, before approving it as a valid source. Anyone can become a PhD today - far from all are very good PhD's. I'm doing research on this plant, as a neuro-cognitve psychologist - and I do not agree that the use of Marijuana reduce brain size. I do not agree, that it lead to mental diseases and there is NO evidence to those claims. It is simply a political spin-off. Be very cautious around subjects that has political interest. You need to dig through a lot of bullshit before you get to the correct facts. 91.117.218.140 (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Would it even be worth my time to pull up conflicting studies, this article is not neutral in any regard...A better article would be "We would love to really know the long term effects of marijuana use, but unfortunately the scientific community has not had access to the plant for testing. " Also, x/150 is not a great sample margin at all, just seems like this could all be quoted better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.37.8 (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Possibly. The propaganda machine is in full swing this year due to all the new activism and possible legalization in CA. Yonskii (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
This article is very biased. For example take the sections on withdrawal and physical dependence. Note how the author talks about how "people used to think this", "people used to think that" (without citing anyone) then cites a load of articles that frankly don't correspond with the prevailing scientific opinion. I sense NIDA is at work here. I'd encourage anyone here to check IPs and try and track these people down. 188.220.169.56 (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Jadedspider (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC) I wanted to point something out in this Wikipedia article about the long-term effects of cannabis. In the section covering the addictiveness of cannabis it makes general comparisons to other illicit drugs in the chart that are much more harmful in other ways both physiological and especially psychological (LSD, psilocybin). I believe this comparison is also misleading, comparing cannabis to LSD and psilocybin in this area, where it is shown to be just as similar to caffeine in addictiveness. Maybe if caffeine could be included in the comparison it would be more fair and correct, as well as give the general reader a more recognizable understanding of its addictive potential.Reply

This is what is written-

"Despite cannabis being the most widely used illicit drug in the Western world,[19] controlled trials for cannabis use disorder have only been reported in literature in the last 15 years. Research has shown a substantial percentage of cannabis users develop cannabis-related problems, including dependency.[20][21] Overall, the addiction potential for cannabis is significantly less than that for tobacco, alcohol, cocaine or heroin, but slightly higher than that for psilocybin, mescaline, or LSD.[22][23]" (Wikipedia "Long-term effects of cannabis")

Jadedspider (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The study in question did not include caffeine. It compared recreational drugs both legal and illegal. Same reason you dont see paracetamol up there is why you dont see caffeine -anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.139.17.230 (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Since this article is about the fact that things are inconclusive as to the long-term effects, what benefit is made by putting up all the theories that are being tested rather than waiting for the facts to come through and record those? The cannabis drug use article should be edited to include a footnote about the long term effects being unknown and this article should be removed until we actually know what the long-term effects are. (-ferocioustick 18/09/2011 02:56 CST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferocioustick (talk • contribs) 07:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

The lead says that.--Metallurgist (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

My sincere apologies for not having the relevant scientific reports to hand but in the section here about cannabis use during pregnancy, the article implies that caffeine has a negative effect on the unborn child. This was recently proven inaccurate as only vast amounts of caffeine would produce this sort of potential fetal deformity. By keeping this section in, unmoderated and uncited, this likens a caffeine drink such as a cup of tea to a joint, an unfair comparison to make. Not that Wikipedia is responsible and I'm sure it was not the original authors' intention however, my experience leads me to believe that all Wikipedia articles have an assumed authority based on the fact that specialists and experts can edit away bad data. I hope someone here can find the articles (I'm not from a science background but do enjoy copious amounts of tea, though not cannabis nor babies) to correct the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.64.152 (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I haven't had the time to go back into the history to see whether these were once here and later removed, but there is now a substantial body of peer-reviewed research in major medical journals that finds not just lack of harm but actual positive effects in cannabis consumption, and this article currently omits discussion of the evidence altogether. This article does not seem to me to have the proper NPOV, which would present all the evidence, whether it is "good" or bad." The omission of cancer-protective studies is especially troubling given the number of places where the current article suggests that pot causes cancer. Examples of peer-reviewed studies in leading medical journals (which a Wikipedia article should be mentioning, rather than arguing with or dismissing, as I understand NPOV guidelines) include:

  • "A Population-Based Case-Control Study of Marijuana Use and Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma": http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2009/07/28/1940-6207.CAPR-09-0048.short, which concludes that "Our study suggests that moderate marijuana use is associated with reduced risk of HNSCC."
  • "Cannabinoids, endocannabinoids, and cancer": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22038019, which concludes that "the endocannabinoid system is a promising new target for the development of novel chemotherapeutics to treat cancer"
  • "Delta9-Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits epithelial growth factor-induced lung cancer cell migration in vitro as well as its growth and metastasis in vivo." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Preet%20A%202007, concluding that "Tumor samples from THC-treated animals revealed antiproliferative and antiangiogenic effects of THC. Our study suggests that cannabinoids like THC should be explored as novel therapeutic molecules in controlling the growth and metastasis of certain lung cancers."

there is other, IMO less robust, research suggesting a causal link between cannabinoids and cancer, often in vitro as opposed to in vivo (most of the above studies are in vivo) not cited here.

Currently this article gives a very different impression of the overall science on long-term marijuana use, especially its impact on cancer, than does searching for "Cannabis" in PubMed. I would think the impression should be close to identical. Wichitalineman (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Gateway drug hypothesis study does not take into account rats and people are not even close. Many factors take into account whether a teenager who smoked cannibis will or will not eventually lead to more harmful drugs. Rats do not have the choices because they are in a cage with limited interaction and nevermind they are freakn rats. This study is pointless and this section should either find a study that does link the Gateway hypothesis or remove it competely. 18:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.147.3 (talk)

I thought this was worth adding. It specifically deals with marijuana and intelligence, attention and memory. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120827152039.htm

205.217.239.56 (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

This small study with better methodology shows no effect. They actually tested for marijuana usage whereas in the New Zealand study abstinence was self reported.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2140-marijuana-does-not-dent-iq-permanently.html "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults" http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/7/887.full?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cannabis&searchid=1025853946146_44&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=cmaj

Would it be possible to have some kind of definition as to what "long-term" is. Are we talking about a month/year/decades of smoking daily for instance? Perhaps there should be some discussion of this on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.12.149 (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I would say any effects that last after the chemical is no longer present in the body in significant amounts and any rebound effects are over is a long-term effect. Exercisephys (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

There was no reference given for this material. petrarchan47tc 20:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

"The term cannabis-associated respiratory disease can refer to neoplastic (tumor-forming) processes or structural damage in the lung. Note, Cannabinoids have been shown in vitro to have antineoplastin activity, however, inhaling vapors of any vegetative matter, heated to near its flash point, regularly, can be shown to cause malignancies, as carcinogens are found in high concentrations specifically in the particulate residues, but also the gaseous products of oxidative decomposition."

Nor this petrarchan47tc 20:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Research has shown a substantial percentage of cannabis users develop cannabis-related problems, including dependency"

This section needs a secondary source, otherwise this is a set of primary sources strung together to make a claim that may not be made elsewhere, and may not be an accurate assessment of the studies cited. This was the only reference from the section that I was able to access. petrarchan47tc 08:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Smoking cessation" Cannabis is the most widely used illegal drug in the Western world. There is plenty of documented evidence to suggest a need for users to find ways to assist them to stop using cannabis and the demand for treatment for cannabis dependency is increasing internationally. There are a number of ways to quit cannabis and increasing evidence-based treatments for cannabis users wishing to change the patterns of their use. This article deals with the different interventions to assist in the cessation of cannabis use.

This change was made per the following line from WP:MEDRS ".... edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge". petrarchan47tc 23:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

This page has become a matted net of cruft and I'm trying to comb it out. It's definitely a little bit of a rough way of doing things but it needs desperately to be done. I'm essentially copy-editing the whole thing: changing what formatting needs to be changed, checking sources for validity and finding new ones where necessary, keeping the analysis fair and conservative, and above all trying to develop a little coherence. Please message me if you have any concerns before reverting anything, as most of my edits are dependent on one another at this point. Thanks. Exercisephys (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See WP:OR" petrarchan47tc 05:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Don't you feel that this has severe limitations, especially with topics related to drugs? News sources in particular tend to embellish statistics and inject POV, while providing a seriously insufficient summary of the study. Exercisephys (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
It's probably not a perfect scenerio, but these articles are written for the layperson, per WP:TECHNICAL, as are news sources. If good WP:RS show a source to be misleading, it can be removed or new information can be added. petrarchan47tc 00:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

In a study of ten smokers with mild respiratory issues Hii et al. found evidence of lung disease in the form of severe bullae (fluid-filled, thin-walled blisters) of different shapes and sizes. Despite such lung disease, the patients' chest x-rays were normal and lung function was only mildly reduced in nearly half of the patients. The cannabis-smoking patient group was, on average, 41 years old—considerably younger than previously research tobacco-smoking patients with lung disease, who had an average age of between 62–67 years. The researchers conclude that the younger age of lung disease and poorer lung function may be due to different smoking patterns demonstrated in cannabis smokers,[Hii, S.W., Tam, J.D.C., Thompson, B.R. & Naughton, M.T. (2008). Bullous lung disease due to marijuana. Respirology 13, 122-127 ] who have been found to inhale larger amounts of smoke, which is held in the lungs for longer periods of time.source

Just finished the merge of content from Cannabis-associated respiratory disease. This above is the only sourced claim that was not merged here. A study of ten people does not warrant mention, imo, but wanted to leave it here in case others disagreed. petrarchan47tc 06:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

There is no mention in this article about THC and the immune system. Since immune cells, like the brain, have cannabinoid receptors, there should be an effect. 2602:306:CD65:6650:E198:7324:9AFC:FB49 (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article in the intro says that the science is contradictory, but it cites two studies that studied completely different diseases. You can't say that the science is contradictory and then show one article that says marijuana may increase the risk of heart disease and then another that says it found no effect on schizophrenia. This isn't contradictory!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.39.231 (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure how any of these meet WP:EL:

Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

None seem on topic about the long term effects of cannabis♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was reading the section on the effects on the lungs, and the first paragraph in particular seems really meandering, a lot of detail but no real coherence. And for the length of the section it'd be nice to learn something new.

Maybe I'd look for some research and contribute myself but I'm high and also lazy.

Kickflipthecat (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

These sections have been chopped, pasted, and copy-edited sentence-by-sentence a handful times. I agree that someone should audit articles like this to be more coherent and linear, but someone needs to make a significant time commitment for that to happen. Exercisephys (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Not only is it impossible to tell whether some editors use cannabis but it makes not the slightest difference whether they do or not, we simply respect the privacy of all editors and base ourselves on the edits and not on what we think of the editors♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

A now deleted student essay on epilepsy and cannabis, led me to have a new look at medical cannabis (which was almost exclusively cited to primary sources), which led me next here, where I find not only an overreliance on primary sources, but also blogs and a letter plus a clinical trial used to contradict a secondary reviews.[1] Original research is generated by stringing together primary sources to draw conclusions. Please review WP:MEDRS, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOT (news). There is a good deal of cleanup needed in here-- too much for one day, or one week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sources

This article relies almost exclusively on primary sources. This source:
  • Gordon AJ, Conley JW, Gordon JM (2013). "Medical consequences of marijuana use: a review of current literature". Curr Psychiatry Rep. 15 (12): 419. doi:10.1007/s11920-013-0419-7. PMID 24234874. CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
will be helpful in replacing them. (It doesn't cover pregnancy.)

I suggest that once Long-term effects of cannabis and effects of cannabis are sourced correctly, they can probably be combined into one article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

More:

  • Budney AJ, Moore BA (2002). "Development and consequences of cannabis dependence". J Clin Pharmacol. 42 (11 Suppl): 28S–33S. PMID 12412833.
  • Gordon AJ, Gordon JM, Carl K; et al. (2010). Physical illness and drugs of abuse: a review of the evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I certainly support the merging of Long-term effects of cannabis and effects of cannabis, it has always seemed odd to me to have this subject split into two articles♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Once we get the text down to what can be reliably and correctly sourced, we should probably look at that. There is too much duplicate text in all of the articles linked via {{cannabis}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

The cannabis in pregnancy article should be merged here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose. I don't see any reason why the article should be merged other than that its not presently well developed enough to stand alone. I can understand though why one would want to temporarily merge it, but there is no reason that I can think of why a perfectly good article couldn't be made out of the effects of cannabis on pregnancy. Better to improve cannabis in pregnancy rather then merging it in my opinion.Chhe (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • I'd assumed we would re-build after the current round of emergency removal of bad material; whether there's enough here for a standalone article, or just a more substantial section in a parent article, I'm not sure. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Nvr mind, I realized article has been reworked since I looked at it before. Lesion (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've worked in briefly what I can from those that have free full text available. There is a wealth of information and I can't begin to add all of it, so I have basically only added the conclusions from the reviews. I think an article can be developed there, so unless anyone objects, I will remove the merge proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'm removing the merge proposal, since I've incorporated a number of new sources, and have barely scratched the surface of the content that can be gleaned from those sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Cannabis_(drug)#Other_effects is a poor summary of this article, out-of-sync, and needs to be shortened, synced, and rewritten to use summary style, with any salvageable content moved here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

You have completely destroyed this article SandyGeorge. It is pretty obvious you are sharply anti-marijuana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyden (talk • contribs) 23:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
No I haven't; I'm still working. Removing original research, synthesis, and text duplicated across multiple articles. Since there are good sources available, I recommend using them. Good sourcing has nothing to do with being pro- or anti-anything, except that is, pro-good sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Previously the article had evidence for and against each claim. Now, in the name of removing primary sources, the article mainly lists detrimental effects of marijuana. Leave in the primary sources unless you can find a secondary source making the same claim. Don't eliminate the claim entirely. For example, you removed the reference to one of the largest peer-reviewed studies of it's kind in regard to lung, oral, laryngeal, pharyngeal, and esophageal cancer. This study, done by a leading expert in the field, concluded that "the association of these cancers with marijuana, even long-term or heavy use, is not strong and may be below practically detectable limits" when adjusting for confounders including tobacco and alcohol use Tashkin study. There is nothing complicated about this conclusion. Any "lay" person can understand it. It is not really open to interpretation. You removed that study but leave in the ridiculous claim by the BLF that implies marijuana is 20 times more carcinogenic than tobacco Cannabis 20 times more carcinogenic than tobacco? . While the effort to clean up the page is appreciated, it does not seem you are approaching this in a balanced way. Psyden (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Primary sources, whether for or against, should not be used, per WP:MEDRS. It matters little about how big the primary source is, Wikipedia's medical content should be based on reviews, ideally systematic reviews, and mainstream textbooks. Primary sources should particularly not be used to contradict secondary sources. Position statements from major, mainstream organizations are also sometimes useful. Wikipedia's medical content should reflect the mainstream view, even if some people feel that the mainstream view is incorrect. Lesion (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, a significant scholarly view that contradicts the scholarly mainstream should be represented here, too - but such a view must be supported by the types of sources Lesion mentions, as outlined in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), and given about the same relative emphasis it is given in scholarly overviews. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Re. same relative emphasis, please see WP:UNDUE. Lesion (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Psyden, what was there previously was synthesis from primary sources. That is not acceptable under any circumstances, and although I'm working as hard and as fast as I can to replace primary sources with secondary, it is not possible for one editor to clean up a mess this big in a day or two. I have included secondary sources that can be used for expansion, and you are welcome to find more or to expand text further than I have based on secondary sources. Yes, my work is somewhat sporadic as I'm proceeding according to the sources as I locate and read them. Help is appreciated; at this point, there is no rhyme or reason to what has been replaced and what has not, other than which sources I have located so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Psyden, please explain your removal of maintenance tags, and a revert that removed text cited to WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary sources to reinstate text cited to primary sources and containing original research and synthesis. This is the version you reverted from, which had replaced about half of the primary sources with secondary reviews, and this is the version you reinstated, with tag removal and with a personal attack in edit summary. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's medical sourcing guidelines? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Agree secondary sources are required per WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. Please do not restore primary sources as this is against consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Psyden, there are ample what one might call pro cannabis reliable secondary sources out there, relying on primary sources as a way of making the article seem neutral is absolutely NOT the way to go, I dont believe that what Sandy is trying to achieve is going to make the article anti-cannabis but it may be down to other editors to add good secondary sources for material that is kind to cannabis. Its not like pro-cannabis is fringe and anti-cannabis is mainstream, perhaps ten years ago but not in 2013. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Agree some secondary support certain indications and others are more hesitant. The minimum is that all use high quality secondary sources from the last 5 years or so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Agree with SqueakBox, and I am trying to rebuild as much as I can, using what secondary sources I can access, but I will be disinclined to continue trying to build good content if my efforts will just be reverted. There are plenty of good sources available-- it isn't a matter of pro or con-- it's more a matter of getting this suite of articles to a place where they can be more easily cited and maintained, by using summary style correctly so that text is in one article rather than four. Right now, there's a lot of poorly sourced text, that is duplicated across sometimes five or six articles that are not in sync. It will take some time to correct all of this, but it is doable, and I don't believe the text cited to secondary sources at medical cannabis is coming out either "pro" or "con"-- it's coming out factual. I will continue trying to work if the work won't be reverted-- in many cases, this means paying or traveling to get access to full journal articles. Medical cannabis has now been fairly well cited and organized, and it would be helpful if folks would fill in the missing citations there so all tags can be removed. It's got a good start now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I thought this (or similar information from another source) could possibly be of interest for this article, since the section on intelligence seems to be very one-sided in this article (if anything, a quick cruise around Google makes it apparent that most sources seem to agree that it does impair intelligence long-term). http://www.medicaldaily.com/marijuana-use-causes-brain-damage-confirmed-241869 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.242.49.60 (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, 172, but please review WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT (news) along with our medical sourcing guidelines. Medical content is ideally sourced to secondary reviews of primary studies, and rarely to press reports. We do have numerous secondary reviews in this realm, but the article is currently being developed to cover what reliable medical sources say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply