Talk:11-Hydroxy-THC/Archive 1

Archive 1

Potency

Removed: "11-hydroxy-THC has approximately four times the potency of Delta-9-THC with an extended duration of action at higher doses and faster onset of effect when used intravenously (injected directly into the bloodstream)." As no citation had been given and the closest known research was added which involves ingestion and metabolism to enter the blood stream.

Added: The pharmacokonetic equivalency was studied in 2015 comparing Delta-9-THC with 11-Hydroxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and found "The base pharma- cokinetic equivalency ratio is 1 to 5.71. This means that one milligram of THC in edible form, is equivalent to 5.71 milligrams of THC in smokable form."

Desette (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

There's some problems with that source. it's not peer reviewed, and it's not published by any kind of scientific organization. It's published by a department of revenue, and wasn't even written by staff. There's more specific problems I think I see with the calculations which make me think the "pharmacokinetic equivalency ratio" is pulled out of thin air. I can go into detail if you want. But it's really talking about smoked THC compared to edible THC products. The colorado report might belong at cannabis edible if it's made clear it's basically a consultant's marketing advice.

I'll add a couple sentences with good citations that were in the colorado report. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes that sounds more than reasonable and very helpful! Desette (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Changes

• 11-carboxy-THC was changed to 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC which is the correct name for the metabolite

-- Panoramix303 11:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• The references where fixed with the help of Pubmed and http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/

-- Panoramix303 08:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"The effects produced are not necessarily identical to those of THC" contradicts the given citation?

I don't have access to the full text, but the abstract says pretty much the negation of the sentence for which it is the citation:

Although 11-hydroxy-THC has unquestioned activity indistinguishable from THC itself, it need not necessarily be solely responsible for the pharmacologic activity of THC.

(Emphasis added). Suboptimal Username (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Your emphasis is an erroneous inference taken from someone who can be objectively demonstrated as incorrect due to other studies that show different efficacy of the two substances in various processes. When you don't have access to the full text, try not to be ignorant making guesses from the abstract, yea?

As a subjective user of both THC/CBD, and 11-OH-THC, the effects are VASTLY different; I don't think you really need citation on that. The entire cannabinoid using community here in California could tell you that out of their collective personal experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.198.21.205 (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

We aren't interested in your subjective opinions and they certainly arent a substitute for refs; please read about how we do things here before making statements that undermine all the work we are trying to do here. The personal experience of editors is never a substitute for citations. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Without further context there's no justification here, since we don't have a reference to which activity it's referencing it does not suffice to say that it doesn't have different effects. Particularly when https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08923978509026487 is a reference that they do have *cue dramatic music* some set of different effects "The 11-hydroxy metabolite is much less suppressive in this system than the parent compound." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.47.167.119 (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Although it may have effects identical to THC, not necessarily all it's effects have to be identical. You could say cannabis and opium have some identical effects due to the pain relieving effects they have, but they are not identical, obviously. (I understand I may be slightly off-point, but this is just to provide a somewhat "extreme" example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.17.37 (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Oral

Oral is defined as anything that goes through the mouth; why would eating be considered oral consumption and smoking not? Strikes me they are both methods of oral consumption but it is very important that we distinguish here the difference between eating and drinking on the one hand and smoking on the other hand. I will edit the article to reflect this. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Oral has a specific connotation with respect to the administration of drugs of being either absorbed through the mouth, such as the cheek or under the tongue, but also includes enteral absorption, things swallowed and absorbed through the intestines. Smoking involves absorption through the lungs and hence isn't oral administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.47.167.119 (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

11-Hydroxy-THC vs. 11-hydroxy-THC

Is there a reason the 'H' is capitalized? It seems improper to capitalize it. Michipedian (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 26 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Good consensus result, and we are all learners here. Andrewa (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

---

11-Hydroxy-THC → 11-hydroxy-THC – The 'h' in 11-hydroxy-THC should not be capitalized. Michipedian (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: WP:CHEMNAME is pretty clear on the issue:

When the chosen article title starts with a prefix including positional identifiers [...] or numbers, the first letter after the prefix in the name should be capitalized: hence titlecase 1,1,1-Trichloroethane not 1,1,1-trichloroethane. A redirect from the uncapitalized version should be created to simplify linking from other articles.

This is also standard usage in chemistry literature; when a name starting with a prefix appears at the start of a sentence the first letter after the prefix takes the sentence's initial capital.86.130.177.238 (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for this clarification. So the 'h' should only be capitalized as if it were the beginning of the word, meaning the uncapitalized version is appropriate if the term appears in the middle of a sentence. Do I understand this correctly? Michipedian (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I understand the format now and no longer wish to see this article moved. Michipedian (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.