Talk:Cannabis

Less than helpful illustration subtitle

The illustration in the section "recreational use" has a description reading: "Comparison of physical harm and dependence regarding various drugs". However, the graph there shows active/lethal dose ratio (i.e. how much you'd have to consume for fatal effects, vs how much will do to get you the desired effect) and potential addictive qualities of several "drugs". Meaning that physical harm as such isn't adressed but onyl potential lethality, which obviously can be pre-faced by a lot of physcial harm short of dying. This isn't necessarily the case for Cannabis but as the the section in general could benefit from some more research as to the psycho-social impacts of cannabis consumption, this comes quite close to intentionally confusing the reader. Even reducing the discussion of adverse effect to bodily harm proper is reductive to the point of being apologetic, but boiling it down even further to lethality is flat out denial. Hello people

revert required

can someone please revert the last three edits made to this article by the user Deisenbe? they've uncapitalised the genus name at various points in the article. the genus is Cannabis and a specific species would be Cannabis sativa etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.200.164 (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thank you very much! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

thank you!! :) 82.3.200.164 (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Outdated taxonomy (redux)

The taxonomic debate of whether the genus Cannabis is monotypic, or if any genetically distinct subspecies/varieties of Cannabis sativa are recognised, has previously been raised on these talk pages (most recent discussion in 2016, and the issue raised again without response in 2021).

In addition to the 2021 genomic study provided earlier, the 2023 literature reviews (here and here) and some major taxonomic databases now support a single polymorphic species concept for Cannabis without recognising any subordinate taxa (FNA, POWO, WFO), and others split to ssp/var (CoL/GBIF, EoL, ITIS, NCBI) or separate species based on Hillig, 2004 (GRIN).

Previous discussions focused on renaming C. indica and C. ruderalis as ssp/var. Recent evidence suggests that they are now best considered as synonyms of C. sativa. Should the various articles now be merged to reflect this view?

Pinging previous discussion participants: @Plantdrew, @Peter coxhead, @Nosferattus, @MCEllis, @zzz, @Dennis Brown, @120minutes, @GeorgeLTirebiter, @Chondrite, @Centrx, @Djlayton4, @Simonapro, @Salix alba, @HighInBC. Loopy30 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Rather than merging all the articles, perhaps it would be best to treat C. sativa, C. indica, and C. ruderalis as cultivars. Regardless, we really, really need to update our taxonomy to reflect the consensus view that all cannabis is a single species. Nosferattus (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's becoming impossible to maintain articles on separate species when the marijuana industry (at least in the US) uses "Indica" and "Sativa" with opposite meanings from how botanists have applied the terms. Potential readers are more likely to encounter the industry definitions than the botanical ones. My other concern with the industry terms is that they are used with genetic ratios that are biologically impossible (although this seems to be becoming less prevalent in recent years, AK-47 (cannabis) cites a 2001 source for it having a indica/sativa ratio of 65:35). Plantdrew (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I see that Plants of the World Online now treats Cannabis as a monotypic genus with a single species Cannabis sativa. I think we should do the same. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Based on the discussion above, I propose merging Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis into Cannabis. The most recent literature on the subject no longer supports splitting Cannabis sativa into separate subspecies or varieties and the genus is now accepted as monotypic by the primary database for flowering plants (Plants of the World). Loopy30 (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree and think they should remain separate so there can be a dedicated article of focus for each. These species are clearly different and need to be separated as such. There has been hundreds of years of documentation that they are uniquely separate. They are physically distinct (size, shape, leaf, physical appearance) from each other and the grow differently from each other. The instructions for growing a Cannabis Sativa is not the same as growing a Cannabis ruderalis because they're different. Not to mention how much longer of a book Cannabis would need to be to further explain all these differences unless your saying we should pretend they're all the same thing, but they're not the same thing. Gettinglit (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree 2601:C7:4203:8AB0:D5A2:6494:ADC6:116C (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. These are completely different subjects, and should NOT be merged. The article Cannabis is about the plant, itself. The three "species" articles, Sativa, Indica, Ruderalis, are about three major, broad varieties, and they warrant separate articles, themselves, whether or not agreement exists about the three (actually four, let's not forget Feral cannabis) actually belonging to the same species classification, scientifically. - The Hammer of Thor (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I would support merging the three, or otherwise renaming the pages for C. sativa, C. indica and C. ruderalis to indicate that they are varieties of one species. 2604:3D08:7582:300:A113:552F:B7D8:71AB (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep them separate! Redefining the level of a taxon doesn't alter or remove relative distinctions between their constituents. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The difficulty with these counter-proposals that seek to retain three distinct articles at either the species, subspecies, or variety level, is that none of these concepts of a divided Cannabis species is still supported by modern science. To continue to retain separate articles on a plant demands at the least that reliable sources be provided that could describe the botanical differences between these formerly separate species. @Gettinglit, @The Hammer of Thor, and @UpdateNerd, what sources could you suggest that would support this three-way separation? Loopy30 (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Classifications by...

Lamarck 1785

Paxton and Lindley 1868

Delile 2849

Hooker and Thompson 1855

Johnson 1868

All describe them as separate species with a distinctly different look and cultivation and claims they are separate species. Ruderalis doesn't grow on the same schedule, doesn't look like sativa or indica, it's not the same species and needs to be classified separately so we can all tell them apart and learn their individual history.

Granted, you can also find influence as far back as the 1800s for disputing if they should all be lumped into Sativa although i've seen articles that have it debated as an arguably racist culture issue from some early British colonists refusing to accept anything but Sativa and incorrectly lumping Indicia and Ruderalis in with Sativa, not to mention modern influence with laws that bans Sativa specifically meaning if Indica and Ruderalis is its own species lots of peoples rights have been violated.

The choice to lump them all together as if they are the same species when they have so many distinct differences from physical to cultivation is bizarre, this is like lumping in Leonotis leonurus and Leonotis nepetifolia together or Mentha aquatica and Spearmint together, but we have a way of lumping them in together, it's called the family of Lamiaceae and for Cannabis, the family of Cannabaceae. Gettinglit (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment It seems to me that there are two different issues. (1) Is there botanically a single species? Reliable sources are overwhelmingly clear that there is, and that the scientific names Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis are synonyms of Cannabis sativa, so my answer to this question is "yes". (2) Should there be separate articles on the cultivated forms that have been described in the past as Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis? I think this can be justified, but the issue is what the article titles should be.

(This is an example of a more general problem that comes up repeatedly with cultigens that have in the past been described as separate species, but turn out to be just selections of a single species.) Peter coxhead (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Cannabis ruderalis is maybe covered by Feral cannabis and Autoflowering cannabis (I don't think feral cannabis occurring outside of Asia is ruderalis, but the article for C. ruderalis has (non-scientific) sources that treat feral cannabis from other regions as ruderalis). Given that current popular usage (as detailed in Cannabis#Popular usage) has "Indica" and "Sativa" essentially reversed from botanical usage (e.g. in terms of THC/CBD ratios discussed in scientific publications vs. cannabis industry publications) it is very to difficult to maintain independent articles on the putative species. There are a bunch of competing alternative classifications that aren't based on species/subspecies names. Wide-leaf/narrow-leaf, Hemp-type/drug-type (sometimes with multiple drug-types recognized). It's easier to address the different recent classifications in a single article Cannabis article where they can be compared (or perhaps in a Taxonomy of Cannabis article), rather than spinning them off into separate articles where comparisons will have to be contextualized in each article. Plantdrew (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

When were the supposed subspecies described, and when was their status as synonyms accepted? We might have enough material for a taxonomy article. Dimadick (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Illegal Plant

My edit was rolled back by a bot, which was incorrect. It included valuable and highly relevant information, possibly the most notable in the article. It's quite extraordinary that a living organism is prohibited almost globally. There is no country where it is entirely legal, with only 3-5 countries where it is somewhat tolerated (semi-legal). In all other countries, this organism is destroyed wherever it is found. This is indeed something very special and more then noteworthy (central). Helpi679 (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Cannabis has been entirely legal for adults (much like alcohol) in Canada since October, 2018. Thoric (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand, but in 99% of all countries, it's NOT legal. Even in Canada, I don't believe cannabis plants are allowed to grow wild in local parks. So, the plant is illegal there as well. That's the point. The plant itself is banned across the entire planet, and even if there are 2-3-5 places in the world where it's legal or tolerated, it makes no difference.

It's very unusual and abnormal to say "organism xy is banned on the planet," regardless of its use. Think about it: it's a living organism, and this organism has essentially been denied the right to exist. Naturally, it would grow wild and live everywhere. But we don't allow it and instead, we pursue and destroy it. If that's not a significant, major, and unusual point, then I don't know what is. Helpi679 (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that no plants should be illegal or criminalized. It is a crime against nature, and a cruel and unusual oppression the constitutional rights and freedom of people. This is not limited to cannabis, but certainly cannabis is one of the main controlled substances around the world, thanks to the UN Convention on Narcotics (despite cannabis not being a "narcotic"), which is thanks to the American "War on (some) Drugs". These plants are not criminalized and destroyed because they are deadly or toxic -- there are plenty of highly deadly plants which are perfectly legal to grow and possess, but they are illegal because they are perceived to be a threat to the core industries of Government, Church, and Patent Medicine. These industries are also associated with those relating to policing, national security, law and order, and the industries built around chemistry and petro-chemicals, thus also having a strong connection to the oil industry. It's all connected, and much of the natural world is threatened by extractive and exploitive capitalist consumerist industries and practices. Our entire economy, ethos, culture, and even our state religion is built around this. Any substance which has the potential to encourage free thought is considered to be highly dangerous to the State, and hence why those most likely to encourage free thought (cannabis, MDMA, psilocybin, LSD, DMT, mescaline, Ayahuasca, Iboga, etc) are under the America Controlled Substances Act in Schedule I -- untouchable, forbidden and unprescribable. All the "dangerous street drugs" (such as cocaine, methamphetamine, and opioids like fentanyl) are in Schedule II -- dangerous, addictive, but have a prescribable medical purpose. Please note that most of the substances in Schedule I are the visionary sacred plant medicines of all the indigenous peoples from around the world. Thoric (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Its not about its right or wrong. Its about its a VERY special point! There are not much orgaism what are banned on the entire planet. So this point should be made in the article - central. Helpi679 (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, what this article (and ones abut other controlled substances) should have is a summary paragraph stating that Cannabis is a controlled substance, and a link into the Controlled substance article. Thoric (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)