From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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. --WOVcenter 18:17, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Where are the citations for this article? Marijauna was not illegal until the Roosevelt administration. Cracker 13:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Where to start? Firstly Marijuana, or more correctly, Cannabis, is a Schedule I drug in the United States because all Tetrahydrocannabinols aside from synthetic THC are Schedule I. Many conservatives and liberals alike favor the legalization of Cannibis, and I agree with Cracker about the term hippie being rather antiquated. The effects of Cannabis can include the effects listed, along with others. It is no longer considered a gateway drug by the majority of researchers, this label is primarily only used by those opposed to its legalization. It's medicinal use is still hotly debated, but I think that the current information on its use in medicine is rather limited and should be expanded. Lastly, why does in matter if Clinton smoked marijuana? This seems to be gossip at most. --ColinR 16:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It is well-known and well-sourced that legalization of Marijuana is a political position favored almost exclusively by liberals. Hmm, do you think perhaps they want to legalize it because they smoke it? --NVConservative 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm pretty sure NORML which is a advocacy group for the legalization of Marijuana includes many conservatives and Libertarians in its ranks. And almost all Libertarians seek the legalization of Marijuana on the basis of principle not because they're users, after all less government interference is what they seek. --ColinR 16:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Ron Paul, Larry Elder and William Buckley are not liberal.--Nomine Cervus 00:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Funny how the source given for liberals favoring legalizing marijuana is about Libertarians supporting its legalization. ColinR 16:32, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, I definitely take the Libertarian view on this issue. If tobacco is going to be legal, this should be too. Needless regulation. MountainDew 04:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Hooray for another supporter. ColinR 04:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Illegal drug

Who keeps calling it an "illegal drug"? It is possible to get federal approval for using it, under the Controlled Substances Act. Furthermore, many states allow it under medical marijuana laws. Yes, the drug is commonly abused, and sold illegally, but it is not an illegal drug. RSchlafly 20:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

In nearly every concievable use, it is an illegal drug. Lots of illegal things can be done by people with a permit/approval, but that doesn't change the fact that they are almost always illegal. --Hojimachongtalk 20:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
That is just not true. There are 1000s of legal medical marijuana users in California. There are some in other states as well.
The existence of illegal use does not make it an illegal drug. A lot of the Viagra use is derived from black-market purchases, but you would not call Viagra an illegal drug. RSchlafly 20:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
How about "illegal in most states", or "legal in some states with prescription"; or "has been decriminalized in some states". Something to that effect. RobS 23:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
1000s of legal medical marijuana users in California, as opposed to California's population of 33.8 million. The U.S. kills hundreds, if not thousands, of death row inmates every year, in a perfectly legal manner. This doesn't mean that wanton killing is legal. And I really think it's usually considered an illegal drug. --Hojimachongtalk 23:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Technically it is a "Controlled Substance" not an "Illegal Drug." That way some people can use it, but if you don't have the proper authorization, it is illegal.--Elamdri 23:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I think we can agree upon that wording? --Hojimachongtalk 23:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Perfect. And blatantly factual. RobS 23:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Actually, despite legalization by some states for medicinal purposes or private use in small quantities, it still remains a controlled substance by the federal government and is not allowed for medicinal or recreational use. Though it disappoints me, it still remains more or less illegal in the U.S. (see here) ColinRtalk 01:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

How can something put here by our Lord be made illegal? What grounds do we really have to override God? Marijuana has proven Medicinal, entheogenic and social benefits, and also promotes creative and abstract thought. In the Bible there is a possible reference to cannabis

“And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.” -- Genesis 1: 29-30

Doesn't it seem slightly blasphemous to make one of Gods herbs illegal? Entheogenicorder 16:53, 31 January 2008 (BDT)

Angel Raich

This section has been copied from wikiepedia and so I am removing it not only as a copyright violation but this is conservapedia and just brionging stuff from wikipedia defeats the point, SqueakBox 13:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

DOES NOBODY HERE OWN A DICTIONARY? "Colloquial" means "slang" or "casual speech." Marijuana is or is not an illegal drug, but it is not "colloquially known" as one. Marijuana is "colloquaily known"

as pot, grass, weed, etc.
As of now, you are correct. As of the 1930s, you are not. "Marihuana" was indeed slang around the time of the word's origin. Cannabis was considered to be the proper word, and in fact, the AMA took a while to realize that marihuana and cannabis were the same plant. Marihuana is actually notable in world history as "the first drug to be banned by its slang name".

Appraisal of its effects/consequences

RobS is on one, again. He just reverted this eminently sensible addition below. Does anyone else feel that this honest appraisal promotes its use?

In low doses, marijuana induces mild euphoria followed by a sense of general relaxation and well-being. Users often report heightened perceptions of music, colours and taste. Its effects at these doses are best likened to those of moderate alcohol consumption, but without the same degree of motor impairment and without the disinhibition towards aggression. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to start a fight when stoned.
In higher doses, marijuana can induce mild to moderate hallucenations. Unlike the direct distortions of sense perception produced by LSD or psilocybin, these hallucenations are mostly "internal," i.e. they are simply functions of the user's hyper-stimulated imagination. There is a small risk of adverse side-effects and their likelihood increases with the dosage. They range from the merely inconvenient (short-term memory loss), through to the somewhat unnerving (paranoia/anxiety) and finally to the downright unpleasant (overwhelming disorientation/vomiting).
Chronic misuse of marijuana has been widely recognised as a significant risk factor for those with a predisposition towards developing various mental illnesses, particularly schizophrenia. Even for those without such a predisposition, chronic misuse oftens results in the user becoming both very bored and very boring. The key seems to be remembering what the word "recreational" means and moderating one's level of use accordingly.

--Robledo 18:07, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is not going to use sales pitches to induce people to use illegal drugs. RobS 18:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

What the sweet ____ are you on about? I simply say what it does - from direct first hand experience, I might add. Have you ever been stoned, RobS? One of the key things in teaching kids about drugs is that you need to be truthful about why people use it. If you focus purely on the negatives, then your message is flatly contradicted by a wealth of anecdotal evidence from the child's peer group. You end up looking like an idiot and being completely ignored. --Robledo 18:32, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree: you really can't start a fight when stoned, just try the "left handed cigarette" once! MiddleMan

Allegedly harmful affects. Would somebody please make the change. Unfortunately it would be unethical to perform an experiment that could conclude its harm, as it is a controlled substance. Kind of convenient for conservatives, eh? --TrueGrit 22:44, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Can we unlock this article now so factual information may be added? It is rather annoying to see an article as important as this be locked for so long for reasons that amount to nothing.

Yeah, most of the stuff seems... suspect. Especially the driving claim. A comparison against legal things, such as, say, alcohol would be nice. Barikada 19:13, 16 January 2008 (EST)

"harmful medical and emotional effects and its likelihood of harm to third parties due to drug-related crime and reckless driving" citation needed citation needed a thousand times CITATION NEEDED


this page is locked, but I wanted to make a few changes. I wanted to remove the link from Larry Elder, as that page does not exsist. I would also like to add a few things about the referendums in Colorado Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 18:40, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Reefer Madness

You should add in something about the film "Reefer Madness" into this article. There is, in fact, a page on it. You can get there by clicking here. I think that this should be added because there is too much, well, negatives on the drug, and, I think that it would be humorous to add something about a very crappy, yet funny film. --Rocky

Why locked?

The sections on this page about marijuana effects is incomplete (it seems that there are only unpleasant effects listed). There is also very little information about the chemical compound THC itself, which I think would add a lot to the article.

Yes, why is this locked? The article is missing lots of info; marijuana has already been decriminalized in parts of the U.S. Fantasia 19:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Reference no longer exists

It says the page no longer exists. Someone should remove or replace it. FernoKlump 19:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

This article needs to be unlocked. Now. Jirby 19:05, 16 August 2008 (EDT)


When will this article be unlocked?Jirby 23:40, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Allowed in the Bible

"every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." (Gen 9:3).

"He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth" (Psalms104:14)

This should be added for approval, or at least interpretation, for legalized Marijuana use, seeing as this is a Christian encyclopedia.


I spotted some silly mistakes:

1. Marijuana is not a drug and neither is Cannabis. THC is the most active drug compound and 'Marijuana' is Mexican-Spanish slang for the Cannabis Sativa plant.

2. The full name for THC is more correctly known as Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol.

I feel the page is somewhat biased towards belittling the subject and why are no positive effects listed? Why only the supposed negative effects? Brum 21:25, 16 November 2008 (EST)


I don't have a pony in this race, but both sides might find this funny.

Cannabis is primarly a plant

This article lacks about the plant cannabis sativa l. At least you could add some information about origin, growth and historical use. The state of this article could lead to something like the extasy-plant.

Edit request on protected page

Please will an administrator change the first paragraph to the following.

'''Marijuana''' is a drug that comes from the ''Cannabis'' [[plant]]. The main active ingredient in marijuana is [[Tetrahydrocannabinol|THC]], or tetrahydrocannabinol, an [[organic chemistry|organic chemical]] compound.

Reason: To direct link regarding an organic chemical to the appropriate page. Also correct typo.

Thanks. Barclay 16:32, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

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. Sambiam


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? --David B (TALK) 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 [1] and [2] 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. --David B (TALK) 01:16, 17 July 2016 (EDT)


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! --David B (TALK) 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! --David B (TALK) 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, 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.--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. 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.--Pious (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
I see that Northwest 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? --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. DavidLReyes (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2018 (EDT)