Jump to content

Talk:Synthetic cannabinoids

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

comment on Page title section below

[edit]

The following conversations are preserved from when I created the merged article here which is a combination of the poorly named article "Synthetic Cannabis" which should now redirect to this more correctly (post merge page) named "Synthetic Cannabinoids". --Potguru (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page title

[edit]

Cannabinoid research chemicals refer to psychoactive artificial cannabinoid families (eg JWH, CP, HU) that are used as designer drugs sprayed on herbs claimed by the manufacturers to contain a mixture of traditionally used medicinal herbs. When consumed, they produce psychoactive effects similar to the effects of cannabis. Synthetic Cannabis is considered a misnomer, because the ingredients contained in these products are mimics, not copies of THC.[1] --David Hedlund (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. As far as I can tell it is not possible to verify that 'synthetic cannabis' is a misnomer. It's original research to say that it is if there are no sources to support it. Please see this previous discussion that took place when the article was moved to it's current title. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular qualms with the current title, but here a medical doctor seems to say explicitly that it is a misnomer.--cyclopiaspeak! 21:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC) - Another--cyclopiaspeak! 21:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we could include that it is a misnomer, but I hope that we already make it clear enough to readers that it is chemically and pharmacology distinct from cannabis. WP:NC is obviously relevant to the correct title and I don't see any reason at the moment to change it from the current one, misnomer or not. SmartSE (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Synthetic cannabis is probably still the most commonly used term in the medical literature. The link you refer to, Cyclopia, uses the term too. as does the letter it is referring to as well.[1] So until the medical community redefines it or the category, there are plenty of reliable sources to back up the use of this name currently. We know it's a misnomer. They aren't making marijuana. They're trying to, but the end product isn't. Part of the issue is the intent. The producers would like it to be like marijuana but either be legal or be able to circumvent legal restrictions.MartinezMD (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see some of the sources are converting to the term "Synthetic cannabinoids". Our discussion is divided with another section above, but I'd be supportive of changing it to that, and linking "synthetic cannabis" to this article.MartinezMD (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Roland Macher. "Synthetic Marijuana". FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Retrieved 22 July 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

comments on misnomer??? section below

[edit]

Preserved from original articles pre-merge --Potguru (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misnomer????

[edit]

I am not sure why there is a paragraph named Misnomer. There seems to be people upset with the name. As far as I know synthetics are similar but not the same as natural items. People are upset that we use the term cannabis. I am sure there are some people who don't like the term synthetic diamond either. In the end synthetic cannabis appears to be a valid term that clearly states the product is not a "natural" product.

Regardless the meat of the paragraph is about the dangerous of the synthetic cannabis, why is the paragraph title misnomer. I would suggest removing the odd debate about the name entirely. Its pretty clear synthetic cannabis is accurate in that the substance is not Natural and has been made to mimic the use of natural cannabis. Mantion (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Cannabis" is the plant, "cannabinoids" refers to the psychoactive chemicals, some of which have no structural relationship whatsoever to the natural substances. "Synthetic cannabis" is therefore a misnomer; the fact that it's a common one seems to be the rationale for using it, but it's rather like calling heroin "synthetic opium" rather than a synthetic opiate. Speaking as a Ph.D. medicinal chemist, I would strongly suggest "synthetic cannabinoids" as the page title, as a simple matter of scientific accuracy, with "synthetic cannabis" redirecting here. -Jim Demers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.231.23 (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The current name is not correct but it is in common usage, sadly. Testem (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"synthetic cannabimimetics" might fit even better. Aethyta (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more WP:NPOV to give the section a name like "Nomenclature." --Nbauman (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever it is ultimately called, please have a link from the current name to the new title. Too many articles out there call it synthetic cannabis.MartinezMD (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

natural cannabinoid & its semi-synthetic derivates (exception to the MISNOMER)

[edit]

The Natural Product Magnolol as a Lead Structure for the Development of Potent Cannabinoid Receptor Agonists. Magnolia has natural cannabinoids that are used to create synthetic cannabinoids as per the aforementioned article; compounds such as magnolol & honokiol are natural. Nagelfar (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

proposal to merge content from Synthetic_cannabinoid article

[edit]

I propose that Synthetic_cannabinoid be merged into Synthetic_cannabis. I think that the content in the Synthetic_cannabinoid article can easily be explained in the context of Synthetic_cannabis, and the Synthetic_cannabis article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Synthetic_cannabinoid will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Then I propose the final article be placed in the Synthetic_cannabinoid namespace, where it belongs. Please discuss on other page -> here.

--Potguru (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a month - gonna merge the pages...

[edit]

It's been a month and there appears to be no discussion so ... nobody will mind when I BOLDLY merge the two articles... which I intend to do shortly. Here's a recent article on the subject which needs to be incorporated: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2016/02/synthetic_marijuana_is_a_weird_and_confusing_drug_here_s_what_you_need_to.html

--Potguru (talk) 13:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Potguru (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the "merged" result of the combination of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_cannabinoid + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_cannabis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potguru (talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 March 2016‎

The last versions of those articles are Synthetic cannabinoid 5 May 2016 and Synthetic cannabis 15 May 2016. I just gave these a look over - I think all the content was transferred into this article, except for the picture in the lead, and now I just restored that picture. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improper copypaste move

[edit]

@Potguru: Thanks for executing the merge. It was a fine idea.

Some improper things happened during the move. I think I have everything fixed, but I want to review what you did and what I did. Moves are confusing on Wikipedia, so when things go wrong, there is no blame. Still - please try to mind details next time or ask for help.

The problem was that when you wanted to merge content, instead of moving content from one old page to another old page, you created a new page called Synthetic cannabinoid. What should have happened to be more clear is to separate the merge process and the rename process. First do either process, then the other, and a mistake will be less likely. When you copypasted content from both old articles into one new article, you lost the history of who contributed content and you lost the talk page. These things should be preserved for copyright reasons and as a record of historical development of the article.

To address the issue, I did this -

  1. I moved the newest content into the oldest article. The merged content is now in the article that has always been most developed. I also moved talk page comments here.
  2. I tagged the newly created article for deletion. Nothing is lost, because all that content came from the oldest article originally, and whatever new content was added is here now also.
  3. I tagged this, the oldest article, to have the new name suggested.

Here is the policy about the kind of fix that I just did - Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves. This policy describes why copypaste moves should not happen and what to do to undo them. I am going to request a history merge so that the changes made in the last two weeks can appear here. Let's see how that works. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History merge

[edit]

I requested a history merge. The copypaste move happened March 2 2016, so one page's history mostly ends then, and another page's history mostly starts then. Unfortunately it is a little messy. It would be desirable to preserve the history of the edits since March if possible, and to add them to the much longer history of the older page. Both histories are useful. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anthony Appleyard for the history merge. Everything is in order now - all history is preserved on both this page and the talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

natural cannabinoid & its semi-synthetic derivates (exception to the MISNOMER)

[edit]

The Natural Product Magnolol as a Lead Structure for the Development of Potent Cannabinoid Receptor Agonists. Magnolia has natural cannabinoids that are used to create synthetic cannabinoids as per the aforementioned article; compounds such as magnolol & honokiol are natural. Nagelfar (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for reform of this article

[edit]

Looking this over, here are some problems I see -

  1. Sources on medical science are outdated. Much of what is cited here is from 2012 or earlier, and the medical information has changed rapidly from 2012-2016.
  2. There is no medical sourcing for effects
  3. There is no sourcing at all for the list of chemicals which are supposed to be synthetic cannabinoids. Most of those chemicals have their own Wikipedia articles, and might have their own sourcing, but right how, the quality control on that list in this page is lacking
  4. Legal information might be WP:UNDUE. It might be better to fork Legality of synthetic cannabinoids into its own article, just like Legality of cannabis is
  5. Use of this is seen as a problem. I do not think there is a counterpoint to this, and I am not sure this drug has any advocates who publish advocacy messages, but if any exist, it would be useful to present the perspective of the most respected advocate for any kind of use. Otherwise, it would be useful to confirm that Wikipedians cannot identify any such advocate.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the article remains out of date. The issues around these drugs are quite different in 2018 than they were a decade ago when SCs were mostly legal. The user populations are different, and there is a lot of evidence that the drugs themselves have changed. They have become endemic in prisons and amongst the homeless in the US and UK, and probably elsewhere too. Google "spice zombies" for some disturbing video. --Ef80 (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Synthetic cannabinoids. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overdoses?

[edit]

I see articles online saying over a hundred people within a week have overdose on K2 in New York City... or over 30 within a day in one hospital... (http://www.wsj.com/articles/k2-patients-put-emergency-rooms-to-the-test-1469150923[1]). But if it is that dangerous and that likely to result in death, it doesn't appear so from reading this article, where only 4 or so cases in history are cited and it doesn't come off as quite *that* dangerous. Am I missing something?

  1. ^ http://www.wsj.com/articles/k2-patients-put-emergency-rooms-to-the-test-1469150923. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

108.54.64.213 (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of saying you are missing something, I will say that I think something is missing.
I have been unable to find any statistics or counts of positive experiences with this drug. There are records of overdoses, but without some report somewhere saying something like "50% of uses result in an overdose", it is difficult to make sense of the size of the problem.
So far as I know, there is no organization which produces or distributes synthetic cannabinoids which has ever published a safety claim. This is a product which might not have any community, company, activists, or any public supporters of any kind backing it. The odd part is that it seems that many seemingly reputable companies packaged and distributed this product, based on the evidence that it seems to have been sold openly in typical consumer product packaging. I get the idea that hundreds of thousands or millions of packages of this product have been sold, seemingly all through storefronts, and I am not sure how that happened or if anyone ever approved this happening. All the reports say the drug is dangerous - I cannot see anything published by any reputable organization which said this substance had any safety record. But if there were any report that said, "this many people used it without dying..." then that missing information would allow the Wikipedia article to describe something about usage and incidence of problems. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Assistance requested, could an admin please include this link:

Habatchii (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be an appropriate addition as from the article itself "The cause of death hasn't been determined pending toxicology tests on Taylor's body, however." MartinezMD (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adverse Effects

[edit]

I think the article can use some more precise discussion of the pharmachologic differences between K2 and THC as many users are unaware of the reasons the drug can be hazardous. THC is a partial agonist for the THC-1 receptor.it quickly binds to all the available receptors but causes only moderate activation. Consequently inhaling more THC has little or no effect and overdoses are essentially unknown. Moreover the very long half-life of the drug minimizes withdrawal effects. Several forms of K2, in contrast, have both high receptor binding and strong agonist effect, producing an immediate sense of euphoria similar to IV narcotics, followed in ~30 minutes by distinct withdrawal symptoms including depression and paranoia. The rapid onset, dramatic effects, and equally rapid withdrawal together make K2 far more addictive than THC despite binding to the same receptors.

"Although most synthetic cannabinoids exhibit only the typical cannabinoid effects when used at appropriate doses...."

I've seen a fair number of users and I just don't believe this. All the users I have seen reported effects distinctly different from marijuana. I haven't found anyone who did not prefer marijuana if it were available. K2 is popular because it is cheap, laws against it are seldom enforced, and it is (compared to marijuana) highly addictive. I have personally seen a patient with a persistent psychosis that lasted six weeks after completely stopping the drug. Apparently this is due to irreversible binding. I'm unaware of anything similar in users of marijuana. I just don't see how we can claim it can be used "appropriately".

Danwoodard (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Dan Woodard, MD[reply]

Yeah ? Rilly ?

[edit]

" For example, AKB-48 is the name of a popular Japanese girl band; 2NE1 is the ..."

You don't have to be some kind of rocket scientist to know that "2NE1" are [South] Koreans! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lathamibird (talk • contribs) 12:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Are you making a proposal to edit the article? MartinezMD (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicity

[edit]

I'm trying to update some links here, and I just changed the Toxicity section, and I want to explain why. It seemed to focus on potency differences as to why there's more danger with the synthetics, but the literature points more to 1. stronger intrinsic activity (the full vs. partial agonist thing), 2. non-CB actions (esp. NMDA and 5-HT), 3. active metabolites, 4. adulterants. Being more potent means you'd get the exact same effects as weed, just at lower doses, so potency can't be the main driver here.

Phellad (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)phellad[reply]

There is one line misleading

[edit]

Under the section "Contents of synthetic cannabinoid blends" it says: "In 2010, nine people died due to the combination of O-desmethyltramadol, a μ-opioid agonist and analgesic drug, and Kratom, an Asiatic medicinal plant containing mitragynine, another μ-opioid agonist, in a synthetic cannabinoid product called "Krypton."[12]" This is wrong because Krypton Kratom has from the very beginning been referred to as "Krypton Kratom" it didn't contain any cannabinoids just Kratom, O-Desmethyltramadol and Coffeine. It was so deadly because people thought it would only contain Kratom and they weren't used to O-Desmethyltramadol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosoph7921 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ingredients labeled on herb blend packages

[edit]

I have sampled many of these products over the years, and of the herbs listed I've only encountered the use of marshmallow. By far the most common herbs used as a substrate are mullein, hyssop, and horehoud because of their relatively non-irritating smoke. 2600:1700:5DD0:3E40:79FD:28F:F4B5:544 (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing language

[edit]

The last sentence of the leader reads: “Severe illnesses and death have resulted from this contamination.”

The sentence preceding that describes rat poison being added deliberately, so it is wrong to label this as ‘contamination’.

I propose that ‘addition’ might be a better word to use. Ugyballoons (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabinoidmimetika: Cannabinoid discovered in violets

[edit]

A research team from MedUni Vienna has now discovered a phytocannabinoid in fragrant violets (Viola odorata) that could be used to develop drugs: https://science.orf.at/stories/3224789/ (🇩🇪/🇦🇹, April 29, 2024, 1:41 p.m.).

See also: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Cannabinoidmimetika (🇩🇪).

Sorry, I don't know if this is the right place. If you switch the German Wikipedia article to English, you will get here. If it's wrong, maybe please install it somewhere else. 91.96.189.207 (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological dependency redirects to addiction page

[edit]

Is this a mistake (as there are separate pages for Psychological dependence and Addiction)? Ybllaw (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is under Synthetic cannabinoids#United States 2 in the sentence "North Carolina banned synthetic cannabis mimics by a unanimous vote of the state senate, due to concerns that its contents and effects are reasonably similar to cannabis, and may cause equal effects in terms of psychological dependency" Ybllaw (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Synthetic_cannabinoids&oldid=1250363231"