Talk:Drugs:Fact and Fiction/Marijuana

Cannabis
I think we should rename this page to Cannabis. This would bring it in line with the Wikipedia article (which is also called Cannabis). Furthermore, "cannabis" has become the preferred term for many, because of the negative connotations of the term "marijuana", especially its racist usage in the past to help criminalize it. (The "marijuana" term was originally used in the US by newspapers to cause fear of a "demon drug from Mexico" in the populace.) PurplePieman (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove/Rewrite Myths section
Does the "Myths" section need to exist in its current form? First of all it is very unprofessional and reads like a forum reply: "Let's bust some myths about marijuana here".

Secondly, the arguments it presents are mostly regarding the legality of marijuana: "its [sic] up to the user". Those arguments don't relate to the "facts" from freevibe.com. e.g. "It's Unsafe" gets the reply "its up to the user". That doesn't refute the argument, it just claims it should be legal. The "facts" seem to be arguing that you shouldn't smoke pot, not that it should be illegal.

Finally, a number of claims are made without any facts: "And when is 'the last year' in that study? How many people did they survey? Did they just choose the typical looking stoners to make the results come out how they wanted?" This doesn't refute anything, it just claims the studies could be wrong without offering any evidence. (Floydian[?] then argues that "Not all marijuana users are loners, in fact most aren't" without offering any evidence of his own.)

I vote it be removed or rewritten.

I agree with both comments. The opening section on Description was plagiarized from a site called Erowid:http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_basics.shtml

The author has clearly then interpreted information from this site and created their own conjecture without any form of research citation to support their postulations. The original Wikipedia document on Cannabis (cited above)is far more professional and presents a thorough understanding the subject.

I would go further and recommend the removal of this document as it comes across as a personal opinion and I now wonder if the author sought permission from Erowid to reproduce the information as no citation refers.

"Hemp is renewable and can be used to make paper and textiles. (Citation needed)"

I don't understand why this one needs citation... Let's use logic.

1) Plants are renewable. They procreate. 2) Hemp clothing exists. 3) Hemp paper exists (And for reasons only the US knows, is not used in place of cutting trees down)

Therefore by combining 1, 2 and 3, we can conclude: Hemp is renewable and can be used to make paper and textiles