Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 1:
Line 1: − My largest concern is of a huge hypocrisy between two articles. In the "Liberalism" article it mentions how liberals in the U.S. demand government intervention much like socialism. But then this article claims that Liberals do not want marijuana to be regulated by the government. So...which is it, more or less government involvement? Or is that not pertinent to their view because it is constantly changing between all the concerns?+ Line 142:
Line 142: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Reverted edits by PiousOne (talk) to last revision by DavidLReyes
My largest concern is of a huge hypocrisy between two articles. In the "Liberalism" article it mentions how liberals in the U.S. demand government intervention much like socialism. But then this article claims that Liberals do not want marijuana to be regulated by the government. So...which is it, more or less government involvement? Or is that not pertinent to their view because it is constantly changing between all the concerns?
Is this entry a joke? "Favored by many liberals, especially hippies"? Yes, I can guess I can envision some liberals liking marijuana, but that doesn't mean that they all, or even most of them favor it conclusively. And do hippies really even exist anymore? It seems to be an antiquated/obsolete/broad term. And I seem to recall our President having used marijuana and cocaine. Hrm. Essentially, this entry strikes me as a hilarious joke. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:17, 10 March 2007 (EST)
Is this entry a joke? "Favored by many liberals, especially hippies"? Yes, I can guess I can envision some liberals liking marijuana, but that doesn't mean that they all, or even most of them favor it conclusively. And do hippies really even exist anymore? It seems to be an antiquated/obsolete/broad term. And I seem to recall our President having used marijuana and cocaine. Hrm. Essentially, this entry strikes me as a hilarious joke. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:17, 10 March 2007 (EST)
== Marijuana is illegal to possess, cultivate or consume ==
== Marijuana is illegal to possess, cultivate or consume ==
I'm not sure this is strictly true. Whilst it is indeed illegal to possess and cultivate cannabis in a large majority of the world I do not believe there are laws dictating what one can and cannot put into their body, not in civilised society at least.
I'm not sure this is strictly true. Whilst it is indeed illegal to possess and cultivate cannabis in a large majority of the world I do not believe there are laws dictating what one can and cannot put into their body, not in civilised society at least. [[User:Sambiam|Sambiam]]
==Edit==
Removed information regarding 'amotivational syndrome' as reference did not exist.
==Psychosis in pre/early teens==
Pious, That's very interesting that even scientists admit what you posted! Do you by any chance have a source you can point to for that? --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 01:10, 17 July 2016 (EDT)
:EDIT: I did a little looking, and found that actually such reports are not hard to find. A couple I found are [https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/there-link-between-marijuana-use-psychiatric-disorders] and [http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/schizophrenia/cannabis-psychosis-link] If you don't have a citable source, maybe we should use one of these for support. In general, any source of information you used while writing should be cited. If there is nothing to cite, it is a good idea to find a source which you can use to support your claim, especially if it is controversial. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 01:16, 17 July 2016 (EDT)
==Dronabinol==
I'd heard of this drug some time ago, but forgot the name shortly after. I'm glad you added a mention of this--now I have a name to go with my arguments. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 01:31, 28 July 2016 (EDT)
:You're welcome, and I'm glad to work with you. If you visit the DEA's website regarding medical weed, they'll basically tell you you're an imbecile for trying to get it, and there's a legal way if you honest-to-God need THC. --Pious (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2016 (CDT)
== LPOV again ==
I've refrained from fully reverting your edits, DayDreamBeliever, but I'm still considering that option. Please refrain from inserting a liberal point of view here. For example, Marinol doesn't give a high, but offers the same benefits. Also, a few RINOs in support of "medical marijuana is not the same thing as conservatives pushing for this. Please check your facts, and feel free to discuss anything you are uncertain about. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 03:42, 17 February 2017 (EST)
:I appreciate the consideration of your thoughts and actions. I regret my statement about marijuana smoke and lung cancer (& pulmonary effects), as various findings support the risk, but the concern varies relative to cigarette smoking. (A French review states, "Cannabis exposure doubles the risk of developing lung cancer," but then also says marijuana is generally smoked mixed with tobacco. Go figure!)
:Marinol should be distinguished from marijuana. DEA rescheduled Marinol from C-II to C-III, but keeps marijuana C-I. The difference is that the THC (the single API) is dissolved in sesame oil, making onset slow, reinforcing effects infrequent and minimal or even negative (dysphoria). I am hoping true medical marijuana can be presented without too quickly discounting it as LPOV. Thanks again my friend, [[User:DayDreamBeliever|DayDreamBeliever]] ([[User talk:DayDreamBeliever|talk]]) 00:32, 18 February 2017 (EST)
== Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs ==
This reference should be removed as this refers only to narcotics and does not include any legislation on marijuana
:I think you only tried to Ctrl+F marijuana. In the actual document, it is referred to as cannabis, and it is certainly illegal.--[[User:Pious|Pious]] ([[User talk:Pious|talk]]) 01:00, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
== Objections to presentation of lead ==
The lead currently has one "cited" sentence saying tumors are on the rise in a demographic that is also a demographic some weed users come from, and then immediately follows it up with a sentence that says that maybe weed stops cancer. I checked the first cite, and all it says in cancer prevalence by demographic, the ties to weed are just an inference by some editor. How do we know that editor made a correct inference? Did they find some study that shows actual correlation (much less causation) or is this just "some men eat apples, some men are criminals, thus apples are a leading cause of criminality?" This kind of "this... but this" waffling is exactly why people turn from Wikipedia, so we should hold ourself to a higher standard and not have a lead paragraph that is a sum-total of "zero" with contrasting claims.
Next, there is a full lead paragraph in the lead which promises sweeping conclusions about weed causing mass killings, and then spend the next several sentences talking exclusively about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Does someone have a schoolgirl crush on the guy? It really weakens the whole paragraph to make a broad statement and then fixate on one example.
What I would suggest instead: Make a mass-killings section further down, come up with ''more than one example'' and once that section is properly fleshed-out, then put a summary of that section within the lead so the lead is a proper encapsulation of the full body of the text. Right now the reader gets "mass killings", then one guy, and then no further substantiation whatsoever. This undermines the credibility of the article, and is an easy fix. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] ([[User talk:DavidLReyes|talk]]) 21:47, 3 April 2018 (EDT)
:I agree. Two of the four paragraphs in the lead are pretty much ''post hoc ergo proper hoc'', and that kind of false liberal reasoning has no place here. I struck them and relocated the little bit that was not full of fallacies to the medicinal part of the entry. As for the harm to innocent people, I have no doubt that marijuana causes this, but I believe the adverse effects section would be a better place in which to cover that. The paragraph can't stand on its own with just ''post hoc''.--[[User:Pious|Pious]] ([[User talk:Pious|talk]]) 00:50, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
::I see that Northwest [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Marijuana&curid=7524&diff=1412346&oldid=1412214 reverted] (without any explanation). I'm not very interested in the content, so I won't take sides (at least for now), but both of you should discuss this. I will say, however, that the sources don't seem unreliable, so maybe the content can just be moved further down? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:33, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
:::Hello '''Northwest''', you didnt' provide an edit summary, so can you let us know where we're off here? The passage about cancer, as noted, has a liberal wishy-washy "maybe this, maybe that" and fails to cite appropriate medical literature. And the passage about murders makes a broad statement and then over-focuses on one fringe example without even a clear connection made. Inarguably we can find some documentation of crimes and accidents caused under the ''influence'' of marijuana (the point at hand) so we weaken our argument by supporting a broad sweep with a sole example, particularly given that the terrorist's motivation was Islamism, when we could easily find better examples of killers operating under marijuana-influenced psychosis. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] ([[User talk:DavidLReyes|talk]]) 21:26, 4 April 2018 (EDT)