Talk:JWH-018

Inaccurate legal info

Just a minor point, jwh is legal in the US and also there is no such term as "pharmaceutical law". That term sounds like something coined by an interested party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.137.216 (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

New Picture to Replace the Molecule

I don't think that when most people want to view this page that the molecule diagram is going to help them visualize this compound. I propose that we change that picture with an actual picture of the chemical itself. This way people know what it looks like without an electron microscope.

No. The chemical info boxes have a standard format that includes the chemical structure. Also, a random picture of a white powder more or less lacks encyclopedic value and serves mostly illustrative purposes. Please add new talk page sections to the bottom. Cacycle (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Austrian ban

it should be included the austrian ban on "spice". sources are yahoo uk GMA news and others. --neolandes 22:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neolandes (talk • contribs)

"Transdermal Delivery" Research Claim

The claim that it's being studied for transdermal delivery should be removed. It's a shameless ploy by a recreational vendor from New Zealand (selling a very inferior and polluted product, I might add, that has no basis in fact. The mere inclusion of a drug in a patent as such does not mean it is actually being researched for such a use as it implies. The patent's aim is to prevent others from delivering ANY cannabinoid transdermally without paying the owner a high fee. As such products are likely in the future, they have great incentive to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.96.159 (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a wiki, go ahead and remove that sentence :-) Cacycle (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, JWH-018 is not mentioned once in the citation for that statement, I'm removing it now. 11:41, 17 January 2010

legal situation in Switzerland

moved here from the article page:

JWH-018 is "banned" in Switzerland.

This information is incorrect, I have deleted it previously but someone insists. You can check out the complete list of illegal drugs here:

http://www.swissmedic.ch/produktbereiche/00447/00536/index.html?lang=de&download=NHzLpZeg7t,lnp6I0NTU042l2Z6ln1acy4Zn4Z2qZpnO2Yuq2Z6gpJCDdH1,fWym162epYbg2c_JjKbNoKSn6A-- (sorry if the link doesn't work find it yourself, it's pretty easy to navigate).

I can assure you that JWH-018 is currently still legal in Switzerland - and we have no idiotic analogue laws. At most they could prosecute you for selling an unapproved medicinal substance or dangerous food additive or something like that (there have been precedents) but the punishment is nothing compared to illegal drug dealing (fine vs. prison).

So please delete this BS once and for all - that is until JWH-018 is really illegal in Switzerland (it will happen, probably when the EU puts out a directive as they did for 2C-I, 2C-T-2 and 2C-T-7).

And please edit this post to make it "serious" - I am not a wikipedia editor just an expert in narcotic laws.

As far as I know, JWH-018 is not banned in Switzerland, though selling the product "Spice" is a problem due to local smoking laws. As this article isn't about "Spice", I have to agree with with the "expert in narcotic laws". ;)

Soon to be delegalized in Poland

This substance is on the list of 18(?) Substances soon to be delegalized (criminalized) in Poland:

Argyreia nervosa - Hawaiian Baby Woodrose, Banisteriopsis caapi - Ayhuasca, Calea zacatechichi - Dream Herb, Catha edulis - Khat, Echinopsis pachanoi - San Pedro (cactus), Piper methysticum - Kava Kava, Leonotis leonurus - Wild Dagga, Mimosa tenuiflora - Jurema, Mitragyna speciosa - Kratom, Nymphaea caerulea, Peganum harmala, Psychotria viridis, Rivea corymbosa, Salvia divinorum, Tabernanthe iboga - Iboga, Trichocereus peruvianus, Benzylpiperazine - BZP, JWH-018 - Spice

the bill (author of the bill: Grzegorz Sztolcman?) was accepted by Polish Sejm (for - 404, against - 5, and 2 abstent)[1] [2], Polish Senat [3] and the President of Poland [4].

Ttg53 (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide Legal Status

Section in question: "In most other countries JWH-018 remains legal at present, although it might potentially be deemed a controlled substance analogue in certain jurisdictions where very broadly worded drug analogues laws are in force. JWH-018 is unlike any known illegal cannabinoid, and thus is not subject to various analogue acts."

It is unknown whether JWH compounds are subject to analogue acts, because as stated right before that, broadly worded analogue acts may cover JWH.

I don't think that "JWH-018 is unlike any known illegal cannabinoid, and thus is not subject to various analogue acts." should be here, because it is misleading, and is a very important legal topic for those dealing with possible legal ramifications. I believe a trial must come to pass that states whether or not JWH 018 etc., are or are not subject to the analogue acts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TiredTendencies (talk • contribs) 04:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent article about JWH-018

excellent article with references available - we could possibly integrate alot of the information here?

Topics include:

• 1Introduction to JWH-018 (1-pentyl-3-(1-nahpthoyl)indole)
• 2Pharmacology and Pharmacokinetics of JWH-018
• 3Using JWH-018
• 4The health risks of JWH-018
• 5Producing JWH-018
• 6Forms of JWH-018
• 7The legal status of JWH-018
• 8The history of JWH-018
• 9References

link: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90909#The_health_risks_of_JWH-018

PlasticShark (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The health risks section would be very helpful. --Malkuth1 (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Many sources would not be considered reliable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). Cacycle (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please be responsible people, don't be putting health risks and other subjects related to consuming a research chemical on Wikipedia. Very stupid.Yetiwarrior (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well that's your opinion. A person considering consuming this compound is not likely to decide against it simply because wikipedia doesn't detail health risks for them. You might as well educate them with what information is available and then they may use that info to decide against it. True that is also an opinion but seems equally valid if not more so if the main concern is to reduce harm that is likely to occur otherwise. Adimus28 (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In "spice"?

This article: Auwarter, V. (2008). Spice and other herbal blends. J. Mass Spectrometry. Suggests this is doubtful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.91.158 (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

UK Status

Apparently this is going to be illegal in the UK as of 23rd Dec 2009, however I'm not sure which of the 2 statutory instruments covers this specific substance for the reference (and therefore haven't edited the article for now, there are articles about "legal highs" being banned, but none mentioning the actual chemicals) - they made 2 orders with different substances listed in each, and the chemical names are different to the ones in the article, any chance someone with some chemistry knowledge could have a look and see which chemical in the orders matches this chemical?

I believe it's either the whole Dihydrogen Monoxide thing with chemical names, or they've listed a variation of this chemical with the "or variations by changing..." part covering this chemical as well. It might also be useful to do the same for the other JWH articles at the same time (Order 3135 and Order 3136) 77.99.248.157 (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Should Reference 8 be regarded?

The article linked to says: "Also, like I said before, we don’t know where this data has come from, clouding the issue even further."

Shouldn't it be disregarded then? Especially cos JWH-018 might be harmful the information from this source make it sound quite harmless possibly affecting peoples decision to try it. 78.48.152.131 (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Should some mention be made to it's forms

It can be bought online in herbal blends but also the sale of the pure formula is available which are 2 very different things. The pure formula is very concentrated (1mg is alot for instance...) and likely to be far more dangerous than spice which is said to have around 2-3mg in a whole packet, mention to this should be given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.38.80 (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)