Talk:Tetrahydrocannabinol

Pharmacology clarification

I'm not a THC expert, just a persnickety editorial type with an interest in the subject. I couldn't figure out the meaning of some of the sentences in this section, so I cleaned up as best I could. These sentences below I still find incredibly confusing.

THC has analgesic effects that, even at low doses, cause a high, thus leading to the fact that medical cannabis can be used to treat pain.

In the sentence above, I don't understand how analgesic effects cause a high and "lead to the fact that medical cannabis can be used to treat pain." I would think the painkilling effects themselves would be responsible, not their ability to cause a high at low doses. Plus, is the high caused by analgesic effects, as implied here? I kindly request that someone who understands this sentence please reword it to make it clearer.

It's just needlessly verbose. Analgesic covers the fact that it treats pain, & the high is an effect of the analgesia (among other things) and not a cause. -LlywelynII (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

CB1 activity in the hunger centers in the hypothalamus increases the palatability of food when levels of a hunger hormone, ghrelin, increase as food enters the stomach.

This is the sentence as I have cleaned it up, since it was a fragment before, with some verb agreement confusion and bad syntax. As far as I can tell from the ghrelin entry, I've got the action of ghrelin now described correctly, but what is the relation to cannabinoid activity? It is still unclear. Does cannabinoid activity trigger a release of ghrelin? Does it accompany the increase of ghrelin through some parallel process? Does it merely make food seem more appealing, with no relation to the hunger hormone itself? I kindly request a clarification here as well, or at least a note that the process is unknown if that's the case. Brooklyntbone (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of THC?

The article states that thc is a defence mechanism in plants. this seems unlikely as the seeds will not sprout unless the outer layer is removed via digestion in animals.

Removed via digestion by animals??? I don't know where you are getting your info from, but I do know for a fact that people who grow marijuana don't have to eat the seeds and then shit them out to get them to grow.--Metalhead94 (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Carboxylation process?

Any chemist would care to explain the transition from thc acid to psychoactive thc? Ksenon 19:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

See decarboxylation. Cacycle 17:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Psychoactive components

I think it is not one of the psychoactive componets rather than the only one...

Yup, there are numerous others. Remember me 14:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually THC seems to be the only psychoactive compound in hemp (with the only exception being the heptyl analog that is present only in very low concentrations). The propyl analog tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV) is devoid of psychotropic effects up to 100 mg. CBD seems to increase the action of THC but is itself devoid of psychoactive effects, as is CBN. Cacycle 17:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While tests have shown that cannibinol and cannabidiol (CBN and CBD respectively) do not show significant psychological effects even at high doses when administered by themselves, their impact on the psychological effects of THC are significant. The presence of CBD has been shown to delay the onset of the effects of THC, while simultaneously lengthening the effects, and altering the subjective feeling experienced by the medical patient. If you have ever talked to a medical patient living in California who has access to both marinol (a pill containing synthetic THC in a sesame oil base) and the plant cannabis, then you are familiar with the profound differences in subjective experience that exist between marinol and cannabis. The varying ratios of CBN/CBD/THC exert a significant impact on the subjective experience of the medicinal user, and many patients have reported an astounding range of effects created by different types of cannabis they purchased from their local Cannabis Club (review the current medicinal use of cannabis in the State of California for more information).

In addition to the psychoactive differences between created by the presence of cannabinoids like CBN and CBD (and many others), there are isomers of THC which exhibit different pharmacological/psychoactive effects. delta-3-THC (also known as delta-8-THC in the older nomenclative system) has anywhere between 1/3 and 1/6 of the psychoactivity of delta-1-THC (http://www.springerlink.com/content/h685591860942585/). Also, according to the book entitled "Marijuana Chemistry" (published by Ronin Publishing), analogs of THC which differ from those found in most cannabis have been found in cannabis local to certain regions of India. I, myself, have not seen spectroscopic analyses to either confirm or disprove the book's suggestion.

Drug legalization debate

Thank you for this page, it has helped me in my research for my debate; Should we legalize drugs in America? I am con.

I'm pro.. the "damage" done to the body is even less then what alcohol does.

This is the only page i've found with a structural formular picture. Its been a great help. Thanx.

Well, arguing based on there being even worse things out there doesn't help. Alcohol would probably be illegal if discovered today. As would cigarettes. But they're widespread and traditional stimulants used for so long that itis not politically feasible to try it, much to the chagrin of many health professionals. Although we're working on the cigarettes. The question that must be answered is why legalize cannabis when we're already struggling so much with the two we have legalized. AR 23:50, 25 April 2006 (CET)

Good points, but you're talking about a very slippery slope. So much of what we do these days, in some way, is not healthy for ourselves, our environment, or other people. Somewhere along the line you have to draw a line and leave things up to individual liberty. Fast food is not always healthy for us, but are we going to try to outlaw that? Guns and bombs kill people but will we stop making them? The list goes on... In America, we pride ourselves on having freedom, but it's hard not to realize how it has been selectively applied to things that are socially/culturally easy to "swallow." You are absolutely correct (especially since I work in the health sciences) that we don't always do what is best for our health. But is it really effective to curb our rights to liberty by having the big-business-governmental complex decide what bad lifestyles are acceptable and which are not? I can't help but think that it will be better in the end to allow people to decide for themselves, put in place harm reduction measures and treatment options when abuse becomes an issue, and provide objective education based on scientific evidence to reduce demand. As the old saying goes, the more you make something inaccessible to people, the more they want to do it: the War on Drugs, with its diminishing returns, is clearly an example of this. --Howrealisreal 14:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm pro as well. I think what people do to their own bodies should be their own buisness. Drug abuse(legal or otherwise), decreases with awareness and treatment far more than with costly persecution.

It's not as if Canibus was outlawed in the interests the people using it.

I'm pro (as my username subtly hints), basically for the same reasons listed above. Haddock420 02:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

If America were pro it would give other countries, and particularly countries like the one I live in, the impetus to be able to do so as well. They say cannabis causes insanity but the real insanity is the laws against it. I think this subject has more bullxxxt about it in society than any other we write about, SqueakBox 03:41, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

The Way I see it, there are two principal points for the legalization of marijuana. First, the ban on marijuana is comparable to prohibition, which as we all know did WONDERS for stopping alcohol consumption in America. In fact, legalizing it would do wonders for the American budget? (Dare I say, free college?) Secondly, put a man smoking cigarettes next to a drunk man next to a stoned man and evluate who is the least dangerous to both himself as well as the others around him. Surely the man smoking caniubus is the smallest threat. 21 December 2005.

The above is such a nieve argument, its a tired line and one trotted out by Bill Hicks far more amusingly before 1992, whos the most dangerous, who knows I've had experiences on cannabis with people who are so mild mannered in day to day life and turn into f*cking demons on pot, same goes for alcohol, but not for cigarettes, although I've turned into a demon when the local shop was closed and I'd stubbed my last Marlboro for the evening, the point is anything that has a pyshcotropic effect is not necessarily good for society as a whole but a great time for the individual or group of indivduals at the time, if governments could legislate moderation then we'd find utopia, unfortunately humans are a selfish bunch and ultimately the need of the one predomintely outweights the desires of the many, so governments have to have blanket prohibitions because a few people can't do drugs without feeling the need to murder, rape, mug or rob someone, the drugs aren't the enemy america and the world we are our own worse enemy ...... JDH 20th April 2006

Decriminalize it, package it, sell it, tax it and call it a day. Government would make money off of it and wouldn't spend money trying to fight it. It's not going away, so resistance is pretty much pointless. Fr0 23:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

i am a 8th grader so any mistakes made is not because im stupid but because im lazy. im pro on this one legalizing cannibis would not only give the people of america the freedom they were lied about but it would also stop all the hate towds cops, government, and well bacicly athourity.. the only reason this contry has thos probles is because the people feel jiped in a way. cannibis has not had one death considering the fact that all out leagle "privaliges" have had countless. a year. FREE THE PLANT and who said it was illegale in the first place who r the to take our freedom... we are living in a sober world and its not soppost to be.. the potsmokes have better plans for the world PEACE could only be accomplished is the whole world was stoned.... no one will ever no what it could of been like her is man would of taken the gift given by god instead of dinying it.. so it is now how it will be unless someone makes a change in the "law" if the even is one.

And that's exactly why your goverments doesnt aprove weed, it wants to keep control on the people.

It doesnt want to become a Rasta state, it doesnt that much care about your freedom, but mostly about your Tax collection for them, imagine the violance reduce by weeds (compared to alcholics) In the Netherlands once there was a TV sketch, they did (for a joke) test driving with weed compared to drugs.. The ones with weed drived only 10 mph and talked about the flowers he saw, he was in no hurry at all :)) quite different then the people who where using alcholics and drived much to fast —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.217.143.153 (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

The spelling errors in this section alone should serve to illustrate the damage done by chronic Cannabis use. Bulbous 21:22, 15 May 2007 (UT

Drugs have only been made illegal within the last hundred years. The movement to illegalize Marijuana was originally started by using false propoghanda and scare tactics. It isnt right to generalize everybody who uses marijuana into one group. They come from all walks of life. Bulbous, did you read the article? THC could actually protect the brain and help it regenerate. Substances that humans created have incited a substance abuse epidemic and the government is putting people in jail for something that grows out of the earth. Most prescription or over the counter drugs have a much longer list of side effects than marijuana. I can go buy a bottle of Tylenol that could kill three to five people for under $10. If there have been any deaths associated with marijuana they are due to the fact that illegalization has made prices so high that marijuana has become worth killing for. A person with a spouse and kids and a good career who just wants to relax and smoke a joint after work can be thrown in jail, fined, and loose his career and family just for doing it. THC has been used for thousands of years and will be used untill it no longer exists. Just let it go. [(abrad755])

Abrad755 has a good point here. You can't die from cannabis use, it may actually help prevent cancer and Alzheimer's, among other things. And yet, have you ever seen a birth control commercial? "Warning:May cause heart attacks or strokes, may cause life-threatening skin rash, may cause internal bleeding, may increase risk of sudden death, may cause blood clots, etc., etc. In fact, I could die from a deadly skin reaction from the Lamictal I'm taking. Most people are too biased against a near harmless drug, THC, which has been made taboo just because of it's short-term mental effects, while drugs that are not taboo, and have risks of orders of magnitudes greater than THC, are seen as fine and are perfectly accepted by society. It's just not right at all. Yes, leave the cannabis users alone and shut up with the negative stereotypes. Just try to maintain a decent, non-biased article about THC.--Metalhead94 (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Cannabinoids in the human body

Since cannabinoids are not naturally produced in the human body, the search began for the endogenous substance that normally binds to this receptors

In one of the recent American Scientific magazines, there is an extensive article showing that there are cannabinoids that are naturally produced in the human brain. I wish to God I had this article with me so I could rightfully change that line, and add the appropriate information.

Could someone who knows more about this find out which cannabinoids are produced in the brain? There are about three or four of them, I believe. I'll start searching, but I doubt I will find anything...

--Ddhix 2002 20:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

link to scientific american article unfortunately you need a digital subscription to read it, anyone have one? --Heah 20:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Heah, for correcting my mistake. Scientific American, lol. Did a Google search, and turned up the full article; The Brain's Own Marijuana. --Ddhix 2002 04:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Forgot to mention. In the original article (that is in the magazine), they had chemical structures of these occouring cannabinoids. This would probably be very helpful to the expansion of data for cannabinoids on Wikipedia. --Ddhix 2002 04:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One thing not mentioned in the article is what mechanism in the body triggers the release of endocannabinoids. If there were a vitamin, when taken in large doses, that could trigger this, then we would have new "natural" way to "get high", and the government couldn't make it illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.235.41 (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting thought about the pro-endocannabinoid vitamin hypothesis, but actually introducing THC into the body to create psychoactive effects would be just as "natural" as introducing a vitamin into the body to do the same thing (they are both chemicals). Anyway, I doubt such a "vitamin" exists, but it may be worth some research.--Metalhead94 (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Overlap with Marinol

There seems to be considerable overlap between the two articles in reference to legality in the United States. 24.54.208.177 23:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

This is true. Ratification 00:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

American centredness

This article was too US centred, and I have removed te reference that implied this drug was just controversial in the US, as well as NPOVing the alleged negative long temr efects, SqueakBox 17:27, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Hyperbole

I removed the highly from in front of disputed and politicized, the hyperbole makes it harder to read and makes an otherwise good article sound less than encyclopedic (it is a little amusing, but not entirely appropriate). While I was there I was bold and put some section headings in that seem to make the article flow a little better. -- pcr^talk 07:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

THC under the Convention on Psychotropic Substances

I'm confused about THC's current international legal status. I thought it was transferred to less-restrictive Schedule awhile ago, but this says it's in Schedule I of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances: http://www.incb.org/pdf/e/list/green.pdf . Remember me 12:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see now. Dronabinol (specifically, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and its stereochemical variants) is listed there as a Schedule II drug, while THC is listed in Schedule I. I wonder what the difference is. Remember me 12:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I notice the footnote says something about trans-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Remember me 12:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only difference between THC and dronabinol is that THC is synthesized naturally in the cannabis plant whilst dronabinol is synthesized synthetically in a laboratory. They are the exact same thing, though, reguardless of the source. How the DEA justifies this scheduling difference between the two is beyond me. They can't justify it, and they won't, because they have no basis for the scheduling difference to begin with.--Metalhead94 (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Isomerisation

Should it be "is a product of isomerisation of cbd (cannabidiol)" or "is an isomer of cbd"?

Both is true, but that compounds are isomeric does usually not mean that you can isomerize one into the other. So the first statement would be better. Cacycle 10:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

cannabis can't be patented; synthetic thc-analogues can be patented

how convenient that where cannabis (which is illegal) cannot be patented and exploited for financial gain by pharmas, thc-analogues can be patented by the researchers (and some of these are legal)

That's often heard but it is a misconception (or maybe a conspiracy theory?). I something is not patented is does not mean it can't be financially exploited. Moreover, new production processes, dosage forms, and related inventions can be patented. There are several companies that produce dronabinol for medical purposes and every physician can prescribe it to you. Beside that, it is usually better to use pure or standardized compounds or analogs for medical purposes in order to minimize unwanted side effects. Cacycle 11:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see Sativex for an example of non-patented medicine can be profitable. Anarchist42 18:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Overdose and death

didn't mean to revert, i wanted to leave an edit summary . . . anyways the toxicity of marijuana is in absolutely no way a contentious issue. If you can document a death go for it, but i can garuntee you won't find one. check out cannabis (drug)#Lethal dose. --He:ah? 05:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There may have been no recorded deaths from cannabis use, but certainly there have been hospitalizations. In my experience as a pharmacologist i have come across several case reports of young children being hospitalized with sedation and respiratory depression following ingestion of either capsules of cannabis oil, or cake prepared with large amounts of cannabis oil. In addition i have come across a case of an epileptic individual suffering an extended seizure subsequent to the consumption of cannabis, and another case of an individual suffering an acute psychotic episode after smoking cannabis and then running out onto a busy road where they were hit by traffic and seriously injured. Any of these cases could potentially have resulted in death. Furthermore this article cites instances of fatality following intravenous injection of cannabis oil;

Kochanowski M, Kala M. Tetrahydrocannabinols in clinical and forensic toxicology. Przeglad Lekarski. 2005;62(6):576-80.

Presumably these deaths occured as a result of cardiac embolism following the injection of such a thick, non-water soluble substance as cannabis oil, but while these may not be THC overdoses per se, they are still acute deaths from misadventure associated with the consumption of cannabis. Also i would note that rats and mice are generally far more resistant to drug overdoses than humans on a weight for weight basis, so citing the high LD50 values found for rodents does not necessarily constitute proof that THC overdose in humans is not possible. Certainly the fact that there is an LD50 value shows that mammals can be made to overdose on this compound, and with CB1 full agonists such as HU-210 lethal overdose is quite possible. I would conceed that it would take a huge amount of highly pure cannabis oil ingested orally to overdose an adult human, but a very small child would require only 1/20th the dose of an adult. Any substance which has the potential to cause both sedation and vomiting, has the potential to cause death through aspiration of vomit if the person goes to sleep on their back and vomits while unconscious. Drug-associated deaths do not only occur because of overdose. Finally i would note that the LD50 values cited are for oral THC, where not all of it will be absorbed. LD50 values for intravenously injected THC are much lower, e.g. 27.5mg/kg (mice); J Med. Chem. 1978 Oct;21(10):1079-81. This value would corrolate to a lethal dose of only 2100mg for a 75kg animal, a challenging amount to inject but by no means impossible.

Meodipt 06:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any data showing what the toxicity is using the FDP? Also, would it be more helpful to list the LD in monkeys? The LD in monkeys for oral administration is >3150mg/kg and the LD₅₀ for intravenous administration is 125mg/kg. See: http://chem.sis.nlm.nih.gov/chemidplus/jsp/common/ChemFull.jsp?MW=314.466 Earthsound 19:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And what effects would one experience while undergoing a lethal dose of THC? I've often wondered what one would experience under a lethal dose of LSD, although, it has been generally accepted that there is no such lethal dose of LSD, per se.

First cannabis-based prescription drug?

The last paragraph states that Sativex (approved in 2005) was "the first cannabis-based prescription drug in the world." Wouldn't that honor belong to Marinol (dronabinol), which has been available by prescription in the U.S. for decades? ZZYZX 13:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Marinol is a synthetic molecule similiar to THC, whereas Sativex is a mixture of real THC and CBD molecules collected from natural sources. Anarchist42 19:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Not true. Dronabinol is synthetic Δ⁹-THC, one of the primary cannabinoids found in natural cannabis (but not the only psychoactive one). Sativex, being an extract of botanical cannabis, is a mixture of various cannabinoids (including delta-9-THC). Some believe this to be therapeutically superior to dronabinol. --Bk0 (Talk) 19:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Spectrographic analysis of cannabinoids in human fingerprints

Does anybody know if there has been much research into the detection of cannabinoids likely to be present in the fats or lipids deposited in the fingerprints of marijuana smokers?

Since the dermal ridges in fingerprints are kept constantly wet and oily from certain eccrine glands present on the skin of the fingers and palms, and since the fats and lipids found in fingerprints tend to reflect the unique dietary intakes of particular human individuals, it makes sense to inquire into the saturation point, after which cannabinoids can be successfully detected using spectral analysis of the lipid deposits found on or in a fingerprint.

How much THC would an individual have to be fed (or have to eat) before its presence could be found in a fingerprint? If THC is taken in by smoking, is there such a kind of affinity between the lipids of the fingerprints, and the smoke molecules of marijuana smoke, that the molecules would preferentially bind to the exterior of the fat molecules, but would otherwise be found to be left wanting, that much deeper in?

Spectrographic analysis of lipids is a kind of analysis using low wattage laser light, such that surface and subsurface components can be examined, in turn, according to the frequencies of light transmitted, and the frequencies of light reflected.

Biosynthesis of THC

beginning to add the enzymatic pathway to the frontpage, wanted to get some feedback first....

How to grow THC enzymatically seems a bit long winded. It need to be more succinct and also evaluated more thoroughly.

From olivetol to cannabigerol to tetrahydrocannabinol I think everyone can more or less agree on (there is some room for debate from olivetol to cannabigerol though?) and so it should really be investigated. There are a lot of sources in there too.

That Can't be Correct

I assume when this article states in the toxicity section the LD50 for rats is 1270 mg/kg of body weight eaten for males and 730 mg/kg for females it means in pure THC. But in the marijuana article it makes the same statement, I assume meaning in mg's of cannabis (not pure THC). Does the dissolving of THC in sesame oil dilute it and make up for the lack of plant matter? I think this needs some more explaining, but I'm not in the position to make changes. BeefJeaunt 20:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The marijuana article now says it's the LD50 of THC. Since the composition of THC in marijuana varies, you obviously can't have a LD50 for marijuana, you can simply estimate how much marijuana you have to take to get the LD50 of THC which the article appears to do, at least for smoking Nil Einne 15:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Solubility in water

Please recheck this infor: Solubility (water) 2.8 mg/L (23 °C). Thats not true. Some stoners after read this started to drink water from bongs:DDD Feeeeeeeee217.17.86.86 20:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

2.8 mg/L is actually quite insoluble. --Bk0 (Talk) 02:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw a discussion where someone misread it as 2.8 g/L...Twin Bird 18:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

I think one of those neutrality banners should be on here. because it only seems to say the good things and benefits about thc and none of the risks. sure there are benefits but it must be illegal for some reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.226.151 (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

An unsubstantiated feeling is not enough to place a dispute banner on an article, therefore I will remove it. You might want to check out the petitio principii article... Cacycle 00:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree we need more negative things about THC in this article. For example, yesterday I was stoned and ate all the cereal. Now I have nothing for breakfast. Why didn't I listen to the government! 71.68.17.141 17:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

But dont blame THC for your personal problems (greed in eating all the cereal mixed with laziness or poverty in not going out to buy some more), SqueakBox 17:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You know he was joking, right? But in all seriousness, the legal status of Cannabis/THC has no bearing on its health effects. A substance is not required to be dangerous to be illegal. 76.242.40.144 23:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)BlackHoleSon

just to add to the statment that it has to be illegal for some reason. The history channel ran a program on how it became illegal about a week ago. since i dont remember the exact name of the show (caught it as i was channel surfing), i have looked up an article on the marijuana tax act. This states in it how the actual illegalization was tied into fears of mexican imagration at the beginning of the Great depression. It is alot of information and i will not try to explain it. So here is the site for those interested http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/history/mustomj1.html 69.250.191.120 18:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea I think it is really sad that we have these biased clowns called the DEA in the way who continue to ridiculously claim that cannabis has no medical purposes. It's schedule 1, which means supposedly it is not even safe to use cannabis under medical supervision. Anyone who believes that is either insane or VERY gullible IMO. It's a joke, you can't even OD on it and yet there's a lack of safety even for use under medical supervision??? Yeah right, the DEA should be laughed at. Aside from that, the article THC seems perfectly neutral and balanced.

There are numerous articles on marijuana's legal status & its highly dubious history; they're linked from the marijuana page. THC should address the chemical and its research. What doesn't make sense is that THC (100% active compound in marijuana) is schedule III while marijuana (~3% THC) is schedule I, a disparity which possibly should be addressed in this article, but would introduce bias. Better to cover all that hoopla on the mj pages. -LlywelynII (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Poor citation

The information content of this page is great, as is the tone, however, citation needs to be much tighter, especially considering the potentially contentious subject matter. I didn't want to flag the page but could someone tie particular statements to particular sources, and also list those sources at the end of the page. --82.47.208.137 19:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, in particular I would like to see a citation for the claim that THC has analgesic effects. Perhaps I could find it easily online but the cite should certainly be in the article and someone more qualified than I should add it. I personally do not find that THC has analgesic effects, I find that it just makes pain easier to ignore. Many other drugs with that property are not considered analgesics. 128.232.246.186 12:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out the prescription medication Sativex, which has been through several successfull trials showing analgesic effects. Anarchist42 17:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, there is this: [1] "The purpose of this study is to find out if cannabis-based medicine compared to a dummy medicine (placebo that contains no active ingredient) can help the central neuropathic pain patients experience as a result of multiple sclerosis." The discription on that page uses the word "analgesi{a,c}" multiple times, but since it is specific to MS, it seems odd to call the effect one of analgesia. The fact that it is only a specific type of pain which is being relieved suggests that it is not the pain itself which is being stopped, but rather some other process is being stopped which was causing the pain. If this is true, which seems logical given other things that we know about THC and the diseases it cures, then to call THC a neurpathic pain analgesic would be like saying that my allergy medication is a sinus pain analgesic. It's simply not that straightforward. Allergy medication causes a different immune response, THC relieves muscle spasms; I doubt that either one acts on pain receptors. According to my own perception, people seem to enjoy thinking that THC is an analgesic because it goes along with their beliefs about the supposed abuse potential of illegal drugs; or perhaps because the pain which is being relieved is internal in origin, they fail to realise that the cause of the pain could be different from the pain itself... I think it would be good if we could decide to change the wording on Wikipedia so as to avoid perpetuating this misconception. I would like to solicit more serious justifications for use of the word "analgesic", and if none are forthcoming then I would like to propose to change the text of the article. A5 23:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

THC Presence in Plants other than Cannabis varieties

The article currently states that: "...found in a variety of plants; most abundantly so in the Cannabis plant." implying that it is also present in other plants. In the past I read information contrary to that: that THC is only known to be present in Cannabis. Is there a source with information about other plants containing THC, or is the article to more correctly state something like: "...found in varieties of Cannabis/Hemp plants; most abundantly so in drug varieties (differentiated from varieties better suited for hemp fiber, or seed oil production.) -az —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.248.86.178 (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

"Cannabinoids are a group of molecules found only in the cannabis plant." However, there are a number of cannabinoids that occur naturally in animals, called endocannabinoids. I believe (and the Cannabinoids article agrees) they meant to convey that the 66+ different cannabinoids are found in no other plant. 64.126.64.197 15:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Is THC an alcohol

it has an OH group linked to a chain of hydrocarbon, but does the extra oxygen stop it from being an alcohol?

The hydroxyl group linked to the phenyl ring makes it a phenol. The heterocyclic oxygen, in the "B" ring, also makes it a pyran.

Vaporization Temperature of THC

The table at the top of this article has a vaporization (Boiling) point of "155-157 °C (vacuum, 0.07 mbar)".

The article, http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v06n3/06359mj1.html#note , has this at the end:

---

Contrary to the initial version of this article, which erroneously stated that THC vaporizes at 155º C, the Merck Manual lists the vaporization point of THC as 200º in vacuum. The vaporization point at normal atmospheric pressure appears to be unknown, but is thought to be in the range 250-400º.

---

Anyone know where the "155-157C" figure comes from? It seems to be on the low side. I found a copy of a THC Material Data Safety Sheet (here: http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/thc_data_sheet.shtml ). It also lists the 200C number but at ".02 mbar" (vs. 155C @ .07mbar this article). I don't know if the .05 mbar is important. I would think it odd that they would list a boiling point of anything at .02 or .07mbar (vacuum conditions). Is the ".02/.07 mbar" relative to standard pressure (1 atmosphere = 1013.25 mb)?

Either way, I can't see it being at 155-157C @ .07 mbar and 200C at .02 mbar. I didn't want to make any changes, as I don't know for sure which is right, but I've seen the 200C use elsewhere. I can't verify 155-157C being used other than here. Athena 06:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason that the boiling is done in a vacuum, is that the material will burn before boiling when done at atmospheric pressure. Boiling point will vary with impurities, but the Merck Index is a reliable source.

References

Hi,

I don't have time for it right now, but if someone could go and fix all those PMID refs using, for example, the wikipedia template filling tool, that would be cool, and shouldn't be too hard. --Slashme 09:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Use with AD(H)D

---

Recently, cannabis has even been prescribed to adults and teens who are diagnosed with ADD & ADHD due to the drug's relaxing and calming effects.

---

Are there any resources to this from the research group(s) who studied this? Who is/are the research group(s) and do they have any published pages supporting this?
Then again, I suppose the drugs "relaxing and calming effects" are a fact anyway, but it would definitely improve the quality of the article to cite who has prescribed THC/Cannabis for AD(H)D.
Isangaft220 16:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

a few ideas

has anyone ever made an anolouge where one or both of the oxygen atoms are replaced with sulfur? or a alkyl ester? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.0.236 (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I remember, check the Beilstein database in your next chemistry library, there is a huge amount of work on THC analogs. Thiols are very different from hydroxy functional groups, e.g. they do not form hydrogen bonds. The SAR of THC shows that the OH group is essential for activity. Cacycle 13:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

==========================================================

Who ruined the nice table of physical data for THC? I need it now, and it is gone. Can someone please replace it as it was originally?

toxicity

What in the world does all that mean? Layman's terms, please?--Ioscius ^(talk) 03:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, it means THC cannot kill you. THC is nontoxic.--Metalhead94 (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

wording

Changed "Episodes" to "Symptoms" to match cited article 11. Flying Hamster 07:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hatched wedge vs hatched line

Hi Cacycle,

I see you replaced the png because you preferred the hatched wedge for stereochemistry. IUPAC disagrees, so I replaced the svg diagram. --Slashme 14:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As was pointed out on the structure drawing workgroup page, the new IUPAC recommendations favour wedges for hatched bonds, so I fixed up the svg and re-uploaded it. If it still looks wrong for a bit, that's just because the thumbnail still needs to be updated. --Slashme 06:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Cats

There is a myth that cats cannot metabolize it. Can anyone refute that? Barcovelero (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard anything like that. Sounds like psuedo-science junk to me. Cats do have some compromised liver function compared with many other mammals, as small amounts of paracetamol (acetaminophen) can be fatal even in small doses do to the fact that cats lack an enzyme to metabolize it. There are a few other drugs that may cause this toxic reation in felines, however, to the best of my knowledge, THC is not among these.--Metalhead94 (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nomenclature: Change to dronabinol?

Should we change the article name to dronabinol? That is the International Nonproprietary Name. Tetrahydrocannabinol gets 849 unique hits, vs. 657 for dronabinol. See:

• here and
• here

-Ron Duvall (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Tetrahydrocannabinol is usually abbreviated as THC and this gives orders of magnitude higher Google hits than dronabinol. Throughout the scientific literature it is called tetrahydrocannabinol - only in the context of prescription medicine it is called dronabinol. So we should keep it under the current article name. Сасусlе 15:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Second the no. -LlywelynII (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Unclear wording

I'm having trouble interpreting this sentence:

New scientific evidence is showing that THC can prevent Alzheimer's Disease by counteracting the activation of microglia and thus inducing the inflammation of microglia binding to amyloid protein.

Microglia induces inflammation (this is desired), but if THC "counteracts the activation" of microglia, that would seem to mean that the microglia can't do its job of inducing inflammation, wouldn't it? -Pete Davis (19:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

You are right, I changed the sentence. Hope it is now clearer to people who are less familiar with the topic. - Panoramix303 (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Half life

This is the old value for the half life time. 4.3-12.6 days Please read the articles before posting such things because it is totally misleading. The value was the terminal half-life time and not the half-life time of THC itself. This makes a huge difference. -- Panoramix303 (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the "Pharmacology" section

From the first sentence onwards it is mainly just pharmacological history related to, but not about, THC. Not really fitting for a first paragraph and maybe irrelevant as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.240.155 (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Propose that Dronabinol be merged to Tetrahydrocannabinol as they are the same chemical with different names. NJGW (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Full support. Cacycle (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

From me too. Icek (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. NJGW (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Similarity to opioids

I know this may be a little off-subject, but has anyone else noticed that THC has a similar structure to morphine and other opioids. The only difference is the carbon chain on THC and that it lacks a nitrogen atom.--Metalhead94 (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is not much resemblance, neither in 2D nor, much more significant, in 3D (beside the basic fact that both contain a phenol substructure). Cacycle (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the similarity this guy is talking about. You know, since THC has been shown to activate certain opioid receptors, maybe this resemblance has something to do with that, and there is more resemblance than the simplistic phenol substructure. Look at THC, cover the carbon chain with your hand, and it looks like you have a nitrogenless morphine molecule.--206.28.43.251 (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

THC does not "activate certain opioid receptors" and there is no similarity if you take into account the three-dimensional structure. Cacycle (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

THC dosen't activate certain opioid receptors? Are you sure? I remember reading one article that says THC activates Delta opioid receptors, and I, too, see the similarity it has to opioids, which is interesting.--68.217.167.115 (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Aha, you are mistaken cacycle. Right in the pharmacology section of this article it says cannabinoids activate opioid pathways via the delta-1 opioid receptor, and I still see the similarity with opioids.--68.217.167.115 (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that opioid antagonists can block the effects of THC.--Metalhead94 (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This data proves that THC shares similarities with opioids, not only in the structure, but in its pharmacology as well. There is a glaring similarity to opioids, it is founded by scientific evidence. This debate is hereby officially closed.--68.217.167.78 (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

THC does not activate opioid receptor directly at the receptor level but indirectly through neuronal pathways that involve opioid signaling. And I guess if you have no experience with chemical formulas they all look the same. Feel free to believe what you want - but either come up with some rational, educated, and referenced arguments or questions or stop messing up talk pages with half-baked original thoughts. Cacycle (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the hard working gents in this debate have already given you a rational, educated argument. They have brought up a peculiar chemical similarity, pharmalogical similarity (rather THC stimulates opioid receptors directly or indirectly is irrelevant, it shows a similarity nonetheless). These thoughts should be reguarded as truly interesting rather than "half baked". Yes, I'm singling you out, Cacycle. Can't we get any other person to comment besides you?--206.28.43.138 (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed there is an interesting similarity here...--N2 opiates (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The structural formula of THC and opiates does not share any commonality, except for lines which can be found in any other organic molecule, too. A similar pharmacological profile of THC and opioids is nonsense, too. THC has to many properties, taking a single property and claiming similarity does not work. The same kind of "similiarity" is true for THC and cocaine (increase in dopamine levels), THC and ethanol (anticonvulsive properties), THC and benzodiazepines (antiepileptic properties) and ..... --Panoramix303 (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Panoramix303, your rebuttal is very flawed. First of all, nothing has been said to imply that THC's actions are restricted to opioid activity. That is obvious. But the fact that it does stir changes in opioid signaling is evidence of some sort of chemical or pharmalogical likeness, rather distant or not. You said "The same is also true for THC and ethanol (anticonvulsive properties)". That is a weak comeback because THC and ethanol have no pharmalogical likeness, not even distant resemblance in the mechanism of action. THC acts primarily on cannabinoid receptors, and ethanol acts as a GABA agonist. Now, here's where the similarty should be obvious. THC activates the delta opioiod receptor through changes in opioid signaling. That is a pharmalogical similarity, not mere likeness of effect. The same applies for benzodiapines, too. I don't know where you got cocaine from, though...--68.217.167.78 (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like this debate to stop. We have clearly heard both sides of the argument. However, this entire section is worthless to the article and was a mistake on my behalf. Therefore, I would like this to be the end of it all.--Metalhead94 (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Does the article have a bias?

It looks to me like this article has a pro-marijuana bias. The article reads as if it were written for a stoner convention, to refute the claims of the "establishment". Seriously, does anyone else think that the article may have derailed after the first section? 74.183.138.133 (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any bias. There are very straight forward facts about published studies as far as I can tell, much like you would expect to see at the entry for any pharmacological chemical. I do think some review studies should probably be cited for context on some of the studies, like the 2008 Melbourne one with only 15 test cases... and really, how do you find matched controls for the type of person that smokes 5 joints a day for 20 years?! NJGW (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no bias here. This article presents only referenced scientific findings.--Metalhead94 (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Biased. The LD50 section is way too detailed, any other pharmacological entry would just get a number. The whole article is a collection of bits and pieces and very hard to read, even for people familiar with the subject. Giving a proper reference does not mean something can't be biased, you just have to select the references carefully. -- Panoramix303 (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused... are you saying the article is biased towards detail? towards poor writing? Please be more specific so we can fix what you see as problems. NJGW (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)