Jump to content

Talk:Tetrahydrocannabinol

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.




Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

FDA source needed for US policy

This revert was necessary because the IP editor used non-official sources for the status of US policy on THC and all cannabinoids. Only FDA decisions regulate medical uses of cannabis. The latest FDA position is here, #s 3-6. Zefr (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Zefr has misapprehended the edit. First of all, the edit did not address U.S. policy as a whole, but individual U.S. state policy. "Only FDA decisions regulate medical uses of cannabis" is patently incorrect by all credible sources - states have the authority to pass, and have passed individual state laws regulating medical cannabis. Therefore, the "states" allow it while the federal government (e.g. the FDA) does not. Second of all, Zefr also fails to cite any Wikipedia explicit policy requiring the use of "official" sources. Rather the policy is to use reasonably credible sources. Therefore, the edit will once again be reverted for that reason pending call for majority consensus. 2600:8804:7100:4000:5D4B:71DA:2CC1:208F (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supplemental note to previous edit: WP:MEDRS is intended to apply to citations for scientific facts and references, not issues of policy, law, etc. - such that the use of WP:MEDRS does not correctly apply to the nature of this edit. 2600:8804:7100:4000:5D4B:71DA:2CC1:208F (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With this edit, I improved the wording and updated the references with official government sources.
There are areas of potential for confusion with this article and discussion here. 1) the topic is THC, but the state and federal laws for medical uses are about cannabis generally. Some users of cannabis may expect effects from THC, whereas others may be seeking effects from CBD or other cannabinoids. 2) As the US federal agency regulating the science and government position on all marketed drugs, the FDA position (written in 2021, but unchanged in Dec 2022) is here, #s 3-6. However, 37 states, 3 territories, and Washington DC have enabled medical use of marijuana (cannabis), but this is for medical cannabis generally, and does not specify for THC. 3) Regarding the note added by the IP above, FDA is both the MEDRS science and the law behind the regulatory status of cannabis and THC, which together remain illegal schedule I, non-approved drugs in the US. I'm asking Jamesy0627144 and Bon courage - regular editors on the article, Medical cannabis in the United States, for comments on the revised THC article text and this discussion. Zefr (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the IP edit was not worded correctly in saying that THC is a schedule I drug. It is actually schedule III because THC is sold in the U.S. as dronabinol which is listed under schedule III. So I would go with Zefr's edit except I think the "and THC" could be misinterpreted to imply both cannabis and THC are schedule I, so I made this edit to clarify things.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made this edit to further clarify because there are two different forms of dronabinol with two different classifications.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Safety Concerns

Surely this article should have a section on the safety of THC as it is a major point of disagreement among experts that directly affects the FDA's consideration of THC as a drug candidate. Other pharmaceutical articles clearly have sections on safety and side effects, but this article appears to limit discussion of safety to toxicity. We wouldn't want to appear biased on the matter, as though safety were something to be overlooked, would we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.54.219.172 (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fair bit of information addressing the safety concerns throughout the article. It is not collected in one place. It is also stated that very little research has been done to study this issue, and that its legal status in many countries prevents it from being studied for safety (short- or long-term) or efficacy for medical or other use. For now it's still a schedule I controlled substance in the US (i.e., unsafe for any human use), and the NIH hasn't been terribly friendly to research grant proposals that might contradict their administration's political position. (I suspect that will be changing, if it hasn't begun already.) However, there are sections in this article addressing toxicity, overdose, the WHO's position concerning its potential for dependency, and interaction with other drugs to the extent that such things are known. Dcs002 (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacokinetics - absorption - sublingual or oral spray?

Does anybody have any sources for absorption, bioavailability, peak levels, and/or half-life if consumed as an oral spray or sublingually? These forms are available OTC or by prescription in many locations. The info should be out there, right? Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesized and studied as early as 1942, fact keeps getting removed ==

Delta-9-THC and Delta-8-THC was described, synthesized and studied as early as 1942 by Roger Adams but this fact keeps getting repeatedly removed. Roger Adams synthesized and studied THC over 20 years prior to Raphael Mechoulams study on Cannabis and THC.[1][2][3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettinglit (talk • contribs) 23:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed researcher by Adams who identified CBD in 1940 but Adams and his teams did not identify it or focus on it, which only happenned when Gaoni and Mechoulam re-researched it. It's how science works, one can't just find it all or one sometimes has strong feelings but not yet solid grounds to prove anything… and sometimes 23 years need to pass before more solid information can be added by others. Teluobir (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also it was a mixture of the different isomers, if I am not mistaken, and the isolation of the isomer delta-9 (initially names delta-1) was indeed Gaoni and Mechoulam. Teluobir (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://patents.google.com/patent/US2419937A/en
  2. ^ https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja01255a061
  3. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1933888/

Merge articles THC and Dronabinol.

Although many people have thought and continue to think Dronabinol is "synthetic THC"… it is not. It is just the INN for delta-9, and this is something that does not justify two articles. We don't have separate articles for the chemical name and the INN of the same molecult, generally. Worst, there are different bits of information and at times this article, at times the other, contain better or worst bits on specific topics. It would be really good to merge these articles (I think merging Dronabinol onto this one) taking the additional information and summing it up. This article would also deserve some update since I saw the information on WHO had not been actualised since 2003. Teluobir (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tetrahydrocannabinol&oldid=1243130997"