Talk:Synthetic cannabinoids/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

--Potguru (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Spice is NOT Marijuana

Spice is not marijuana. Not in anyway shape or form. As this article states, it is clearly a misnomer to label it as such. Continuing to call this heinous and dangerous drug "synthetic cannabis" is not only an indication of a lack of intelligence on behalf of the page contributors, but a disservice to the public due to such terrible misinformation. Every mention of "synthetic cannabis" should be changed to "spice" or "k2". The reason behind this is that smoking marijuana won't kill you, but spice almost always messes your day up. The ill-effects of the latter should not drag the former through the dirt--especially considering that the chemical compounds are not even the same. Wikipedia is supposed to be an information center and the mere fact that such falsehoods are allowed on one page bodes ill for the site as an entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.188.99 (talk • contribs)

I have explained the reasoning behind the title before. The use of 'synthetic' makes it clear that it isn't cannabis and I can't see why you think it is misinformation. We follow what reliable sources such as newspapers call something, whether or not we think it is correct or justified. SmartSE (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

DOES that make it clear that it isn't actually cannabis? Synthetic diamonds are still actual, real diamonds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.185.3 (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It is made clear in the very first sentence of the current article.MartinezMD (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Synthetic cannabinoids are not synthetic cannabis. The title must be changed to reflect the actual nature of the compound being discussed.XenoRasta (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not wish to split hairs, but cannabis refers to the plant and cannabinoids to the psychoactive compounds. As the drugs are analogs of the cannabinoids but do not mimic the plant itself, synthetic cannabinoids might be more precise as a title.Danwoodard (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I've set the answered parameter to no. Again, as others have pointed out, the components of spice and K2 are synthetic cannabinoids, i.e. THC-like compounds binding to the THC-1 and THC-2 receptors. Cannabis is a plant, or extracts from the plant. K2 and Spice are not plants, and they do not contain any of the psychoactive compounds present in cannabis preparations used as drugs. Therefore, they are not synthetic cannabis. I understand this sounds like quibbling but it is not. The misconception that K2/spice is similar in effect and addictive potential to common marijuana is one of the factors responsible for its devastating impact. I therefore request that the title, "synthetic cannabis" be changed to "synthetic cannabinoids" Danwoodard (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Danwoodard. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Addiction clearly refers to it as such. Synthetic marijuana is a controversial, politically charged term akin to assault weapon especially when the prohibition and medical application of cannabis is being contested in several places. I believe that references to synthetic marijuana/cannabis should link to synthetic cannabinoids. This article is about chemicals that attempts to mimic THC, not an engineered plant that mimics cannabis. Thirdeye616 (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

EDIT REQ: Proper Pharmacology Format

I would appreciate a proper pharmacological format for this drug including mechanism of action, pharmacodynamics, et al.

As a practitioner in the EMS field, I'd like this to become a concise resource for understanding how synthetic cannabinoids differ in action from THC.

Thank you kindly.

navkat (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That won't be possible. The point is that this substance is actually a varying mixture of other compounds meant to simulate the effect of cannabis. Cannabis is a plant containing multiple compounds within it (hundreds, thousands?). These artificial reproductions may or may not (likely not) be a true duplicate. So you have to read the article more carefully and read the articles about the included ingredients, and those are subject to change. MartinezMD (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Found some false information on this article

Under slang terms, it lists moon rocks. Moon rocks is a slang term referring to a form of "ecstasy" which comes in small crystal like rock shapes idealized to market as a more "pure" form of mdma. There is no nor has there ever been any brands of "spice" called moon rocks and the slang is ONLY used to reference ecstasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.174.194.165 (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Aminoalkylindole

I have started the stub Aminoalkylindole; I would appreciate it if someone could give it a quick sanity check to ensure I have the basics right. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Two small observations

Firstly I wonder why low risk is in speech marks under the NZ legal status. It makes the article seem skeptical of what will be a scientific process of testing (akin to medicines, well actually based on the testing process of medicines). While it is admitedly a vague definition currently, it will also likely be based on scientific harm scales, or at least a specific standard. Currenltly, the interim law based approval on reporting of side effects, scientific journal articles and a general collation of safety data, ranking each drug by a points system. If it scores no higher than a 2, it is approved (although the final system will be far more complex). According to the local ministry of health, these standards and the new law should come in sometime early 2014. And it also applies to legal highs other than synthetic cannabis.

Other countries such as the UK, and australia have expressed interest in how things go with this NZ law, because so far blanket bans have been ineffective in every country that has passed them, regarding novel research chemicals.

Secondly, the article does not distinguish between various forms of the drugs. It's likely different chemicals will have differing safety profiles, and similar with dosage. As well as a different incidence of adverse effects. IMO, some effort should be made to point this out.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2013

There is a link referenced on this site to: http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2011-04428_PI.pdf

The Federal Register only keeps the current Public Inspection List posted so this is now a dead link.

Please replace with https://federalregister.gov/a/2011-4428, this is the link to the final rule. Woo 24 (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Mlpearc (open channel) 20:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"Allegedly"

The word "allegedly" in the first sentence is not only unnecessary but outright misleading. It can just go. There is no doubt that these products contain synthetic cannabinoids, it has been proven that those compounds have significant binding affinity for the cannabinoid receptors in the brain, and every single bioassay demonstrates that smoking and inhaling these products produces subjective psychoactive effects similar to those of cannabis. The word "mimic" also doesn't really fit because the effects shouldn't be and don't seem to be exactly identical to cannabis. See: every single reference in this article. Therefore, I propose that somebody with the necessary permissions go ahead and reword the first sentence to "...produce psychoactive effects similar to cannabis." I don't understand why whomever wrote that would try to insert ambiguity when there is none. It's a terrible start to the article and could seriously give some people the wrong idea. --Catrape666 (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and your wording is very good. I've made the change, although you could have too.MartinezMD (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Similar withdrawal symptoms to narcotics? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

I call to your attention Section: Safety, paragraph three, sentences two and three.

"A user who consumed 3 g of Spice Gold every day for several months showed withdrawal symptoms, similar to those associated with withdrawing from the use of narcotics. Doctors treating the user also noted that his use of the product showed signs associated with addiction."

Uh, that's not what the reference says. In fact, it clearly says "The physical withdrawal syndrome closely resembles that seen in cannabis dependence." "CANNABIS DEPENDENCE. Which of course make a whole lot more sense, and is exactly what I would read into their data. This study has a lot of complicating factors which they acknowledge, such as the fact that the guy was diagnosed with ADHD as a kid and was prescribed zopiclone by his pripmary care physician for symptoms of his "addiction," but their central point is probably accurate. If you don't think cannabis dependence and withdrawal can happen, it does and has been demonstrated in controlled settings many times. It would follow that certain synthetic cannabinoids that have higher binding affinities for CB1 and CB2 receptors than natural ones would carry higher risk of these complications. The second sentence is kind of redundant but could be combined with the first one to form something like

"A user in one case study who consumed 3 g of Spice Gold every day for several months showed signs of withdrawal symptoms and dependence syndrome, similar to those associated with withdrawing from the use of cannabis."

Also, the first sentence in that paragraph I think would be better of somewhere else, like at the top of the section, but is definitely relevant somewhere in this article (although it is a very bold, opinionated, and biased statement). The first chunk of that paragraph put together the way it is seems to violate NPOV; kinda sounds like a Partnership for a Drug Free America ad. And at least the second sentence is a blatant lie.

I don't readily have access to the source for the last claim in that paragraph but it seems plausible enough and fairly well-worded. --Catrape666 (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Page title

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. --David Hedlund (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

I have no particular qualms with the current title, but here a medical doctor seems to say explicitly that it is a misnomer.--cyclopia^speak! 21:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC) - Another--cyclopia^speak! 21:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

References

Redundant information

Under the safety section:

"Compared to cannabis and its active cannabinoid THC, the adverse effects are often much more severe and can include hypertension, tachycardia, myocardial infarction, ..., Other symptoms included epileptic seizures, acute psychosis, and heart attacks"

Heart attacks and myocardial infarctions are the same thing.

Shea241 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2014

The slang term used in Turkey is "Bonzai". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpanaytekin (talk • contribs) 07:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing words in sentence - Removal?

At the end of section "Artificial Cannabinoids", the sentence starts "However, non of those drugs ." but then ends. Brownboybilly (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. I reviewed the last edits by User:David Hedlund. It looks like an incomplete thought of his. I've removed it for now and notified him. MartinezMD (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

European Judgement now treatens Synthetic Cannabinoids no longer as medicine/drug

This in fact means, that some of the questionable substances are now legal...

Source: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130de1a6d7079b7a24dcfb8ede02f963e5ece.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4Ob34Se0?text=&docid=154827&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=22490

--.=talk=. (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2014

Sentences reading "If cannabis had been legal, there would have been little incentive to develop or use synthetic cannabis. These casualties are an indirect result of the War on Drugs" are not neutral point of view. The citations refer back to articles written by supporters of drug legalization. Comments should be prefaced by "Advocates of cannabis legalization contend that..."Pelhalm123 (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Pelhalm123 (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It's definitely not neutral, and the sources are primarily opinion pieces. I've moved it here for now to discuss with the editors.MartinezMD (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Synthetic cannabis may be more dangerous than real cannabis. If cannabis had been legal, there would have been little incentive to develop or use synthetic cannabis. These casualties are an indirect result of the War on Drugs.

References

I moved the rest of the paragraph that was added by @Deisenbe:. It doesn't make sense to leave it there. Since this is a contended paragraph, We need to rephrase and get consensus before putting it back. The paragraph as it stands presents itself as conjecture instead of as opinion. How should we re-phrase to show it is opinion? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Explaination of family

I added dubious tag to accident which happened to some girl. Article clearly states that her family believes it's caused by synthetic cannabis. We don't know if family knows the whole truth, if it's not some kind of rationalizing. Doctors had fought with stroke as with every other stroke, as far as I understand article. So there's no any link except allegations by per se non-objective persons, i.e. family. Krzysiu (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Speculation by people with no expertise on the subject has no place in an encyclopedic article. Unless there's some actual, scientific evidence of a link between the stroke and the use of synthetic cannabis, this story should be removed entirely. 62.78.230.2 (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree and removed it as both an anecdote and non-professional family opinion. There is a WP policy that applies. WP:INTERVIEW#reliability

"Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewees said something, but not necessarily for the fact that what they said is accurate."

MartinezMD (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

black mamba

This seems to be the most common of these in uk right now, especially in the prisons. In the article it appears to be identified with Turnera diffusa, which I don't think is correct, maybe someone could look at this.86.144.209.135 (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Source did not corroborate this claim so I removed it.Testem (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Misnomer????

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)

"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)

Agreed. The current name is not correct but it is in common usage, sadly. Testem (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

"synthetic cannabimimetics" might fit even better. Aethyta (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be more WP:NPOV to give the section a name like "Nomenclature." --Nbauman (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

INACA class needs coverage

There is yet another class of synthetic cannabinoids, the indazole-carboxamide (INACA) class that includes species like AB-PINACA, MAB-CHMINACA and AB-FUBINACA. All have been found in "spice" products in the past year; MAB-CHMINACA is implicated in a recent spike in hospitalizations, and one death, in the US. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/health/surge-in-hospital-visits-linked-to-a-drug-called-spice-alarms-health-officials.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7130:8000:A899:5A5C:67D5:F9AD (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

NEJM 2015

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1505328
Perspective: Synthetic Cannabinoid–Related Illnesses and Deaths
Jordan Trecki, Roy R. Gerona, and Michael D. Schwartz
N Engl J Med 2015; 373:103-107
July 9, 2015
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1505328

Mostly descriptive epidemiology. Lists number of cases and number of deaths from clusters around the country. Jordan Trecki is from the Drug Enforcement Administration. --Nbauman (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully suggest

…that the cannabis infobox be removed from this page. Ill-informed, even malevolent commercial forces have sought to continue the association of this relatively harmless name with this emerging recreational drug "class". But (i) the preparations in these classes keep changing, as producers attempt to stay a step ahead of legislative controls, and (ii) the risks are unknown in most cases, but when they are known, are significant. Moreover, as producers attempt, in scientifically slap-dash fashion, to keep producing agents that are marginally legal (ahead of the regulators that a re playing catch-up), the chemical, pharmacologic, and other scientific aspects are increasingly only tenuously related to cannabis science, real science. The name can and should remain, because it reflects popular usage. But when popular usage reflects ignorance, offering a misnomer as a name, we need to correct perceptions, as we are trying to do—and we don't need to underscore the underlying ignorance by propagating the poorly based association, and fundamental ignorance that underlies it. Le Prof 73.210.154.39 (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

agreed and removed. This does NOT belong in any "cannabis" related discussions and the tile is, as far as I can tell, incorrect. I've personally never heard the term "synthetic cannabis" though I've heard the term "synthetic marijuana" abused by American media repeatedly. --Potguru (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

value of citation "Spice Report Psychonaut Web Mapping Research Project"

Is this a legitimate citation? When I tried to read it by browser said hackers were attempting to hijack my connection. Spice Report Psychonaut Web Mapping Research Project. If you agree that the link is no good, please remove it and the related sentence from the body. --Potguru (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)