Talk:Synthetic cannabinoids/Archive 1

Canada's Legal section

I have a very strong sense from this section that the author has taken personal offence at Health Canada's announcement, and has - for want of a better term - gone off on one, instead of merely allowing the facts to speak for themselves. No attempt at balance whatsoever. Moreover, I can't actually see anything about the drug's legal status in Canada - I may infer that it is disputed or unclear at present, but it ought to be clearly, objectively and unemotionally stated, but seriously guys, this shit gets you fuckin baked.

(Which is not to say that I disagree with the author's ire. It's just that this ain't the place to express that ire.) --77.97.189.110 (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; I removed on the grounds that I'm not able to find any official HealthCanada position on the matter, along the same lines that Cacycle removed this identical text from JWH-018. When an official statement is made we can add it in, albeit with less ranting and more factual basis. St3vo (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Smoking blend pages.

So we're allowed have a spice page now? It was deleted before.

What about the likes of smoke, skunk, zohai ect. They deserve pages aswell. Espeically seing as the ingredients of "smoke" and "skunk" are known (jwh-018 + oleamide + eugenol).

People deserve to know what's in legal highs. Wikipedia pages for those whose ingredients are known would be a great help to those who search for this information only to find online headstores saying it's "all natural herbs".

If someone does it (i might do it if i've got time) get behind them to make sure the page isn't deleted.

Living under a rock (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability for our inclusion criteria. Wikipedia is not a product guide and you have to prove the notability of a subject (which will be hard to impossible). Cacycle (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Switzerland Legality

I can find no proof whatsoever that Spice is is illegal in Switzerland. The news article quoted does not seem trustworthy to me. Please read this on the JWH-018 talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:JWH-018#legal_situation_in_Switzerland Spice and similar blends are for sale in Swiss headshops. --Malkuth1 (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It is almost certainly illegal everywhere under pharmaceutical law. Cacycle (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraph contains opinionated slant

The phrase "purportedly as an incense" is a form of weasel wording. And the segment "Even though the manufacturer officially warns against human ingestion of Spice, it is usually smoked for its cannabis-like effects which are believed to be caused by a mixture of synthetic cannabinoid drugs such as JWH-018. This synthetic smoking blend was designed for those subject to regular drug tests." contains no references to published materials and sounds like 100% supposition. How can this section be cleaned up to represent the unbiased view that Wikipedia strives for? 99.163.22.236 (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What is up with all the vandalism?

Seems people keep deleting and repairing this article. Not that I am against legitimate editing and contributions and while I appreciate the efforts of those who repair this article, I have to ask whats with the vandalism to this article??? What seems to be the target of the vandalism?BGinOC (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding a "Brands" section as we keep getting IP addresses wanting to add different names.

Create section so that we needn't be constantly fixing this page. Am open to discussion regarding this idea.BGinOC (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Come on folks - How difficult is it to add the brands ALPHABETICALLY? Does this stuff burn out so many brain cells that one can't remember their ABC's?BGinOC (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neither a product guide nor an advertising platform for non-notable me-too products, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability. I will remove the section. Cacycle (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be a product guide, however just as the Coca-cola article contains the various brands manufactured by Coca-cola, so should this article list the various products referred to as "Spice" upon the market. As a perfect model example, I refer to the article Cigarette in which many brands of cigarettes are listed with links to individual articles regarding most of the brands. Information is information and it is my opinion given the many brands and styles of 'spice' available on the market today, as it is the closest thing to synthetic marijuana available that is sold in smoke shops, the basis of the article is relative to the general street term "spice." (rather than the specific brand of "Spice" that the included image withing the article infers) Spice is not only offered and diustributed under the 'Diamond' brand as the article's image portrays and as the various additions to the brands list has shown unequivocally. I believe once such a list remains stable, articles regarding each brand will be written and linked to as has happened with the article Cigarette. As I respectfully disagree with your supposition on the matter and do not wish to enter into an editorial reversion battle with you over this topic, I have listed this for editorial intervention and determination as well as discussion on the matter and request that the article remain as is until said determination by our fellow Wikipedians can be made by consensus. It is my hope that others will give their input on this matter to settle our 'dispute'. Respectfully, BGinOC (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that the list belongs in article. The list is completely unsourced, but even adding sources to it really wouldn't help. Unless the company that produces it or the product itself is notable enough for an article the list is just a directory. If the list remains this will become a place that for everyone's favorite variety of spice. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 02:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the list needs some verification and upon doing some initial research in preparation for defending my case for inclusion of a 'brands' section, I have been able to determine that while there are more companies manufacturing "Spice" than there are that manufacture cigarettes, the verifiable varieties (not including flavors) are about the same as with cigarettes, perhaps a little less. As withCigarette, while Camel is listed, it does not break down into Camel 99s, Camel Wides, Camel Lights, Camel Non-filter, Camel Ultralights, or Camel Crush - these varieties of the brand being instead listed within the article of the brand itself. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco is the manufacturer of Camel cigarettes but also manufactures other brands such as Kool (cigarette), which again has its varieties listed within its respective article. Being that this is such a new 'drug' to the market and is often sold as incense (though used obviously for other purposes), most of the manufacturers are not going to be very notable at this time. Additionally, depending upon legislation, many will likely become non-existent due to the issue regarding the legality of their product in various jurisdictions. So by listing Brands, we can have the opportunity for expansion into manufacturers and articles covering them if they are noteworthy of such inclusion but do agree that the flavors need to be restricted to a separate article regarding the brand if and when written.BGinOC (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The important points are Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. These are long establishe rules on Wikipedia. We have to follow these rules unless there is a good reason and a consensus not to. That is what Wikipedia:Be bold means (which you used as the justification in your email to me). All these brands in the list lack notability and reliable sources that would prove notability. In fact, to me they look like random, short-lived me-too products looking for some cheap ad space. Unless you can prove notability for each of these products, this list must go. Also, please no not continue to remove any mention of synthetic cannabinoids in these products from the article. Cacycle (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up list of brands so that ONLY those reported in news media are included - added some additional facts regarding the passage of laws in Mississippi as well. I am not trying to be an a$$ over this, but as a parent, I would want to know what to look for and brand names help those concerned parents who may be looking at this article be aware of what to look for in their child's backpack, dresser or pants pocket as laundry is done.BGinOC (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Those links are either promotional websites or newspaper articles that list a number of brands as an aside without reference (they might have been taken out of this Wikipedia article...). Not a single of those links establishes notability. You might have noble objectives for adding this list, but this is an encyclopedia in the first place. And unless you can demonstrate notability by a reasonable measure (e.g. products have their own article, they are market leaders,...) the list should go. Not the least reason being that it is a magnet for product spamming. Cacycle (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing notable about any of those brands that I have been able to find. A passing reference in a news article or a website selling something does not say they are notable. I see no encyclopedic value from having a list of possible brands of this drug. I think the list should be removed from the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 20:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I still stand by my grounds, using the article Cigarette as an example: What is so notable about various cigarette brands that the self-rightious objectors can not see the direct comparison of relevence regarding the brands of spice. To me it simply makes no sense whatsoever to have brands of cigarettes listed in an orderly fashion without any such argument as going on over this article and then claim the opposite in regards to a new and controversial product line that has competing brands as well. In my opinion, the matter is getting ridiculously blown out of proportions when there is already a proven and documentable precedent set by such articles in addition to the previously mentioned Cigarettes but also Chewing tobacco, Motor oil, List of automotive fuel brands, Pale ale, List of vodkas, List of whisky brands just to name a significant list of examples - many of the brands listed for the previously listed articles have some historical notability but many do not. I am certain if one were to spend a more time, one could find many more articles using the same format I have used to list various brands or a list that is broken out as a separate article altogether (of which I would not be opposed to that comprimise). As stated previously, "spice" is such a new and controversial product on the market that I doubt anyone can tell which brands will survive, if any at all if continued testing proves the product to be as harmful as some studies are showing and the ongoing passage of legislation banning its use, possession and sale. As for notability, several of the brands are referenced in articles that were written before said list was included and other brands have been the subject of subject of governmental and independent scientific testing to determine what the product actually is as well as what active ingredient contained within provides the "high". As for the list being a magnet for spamming, provide an example to prove your case - as I do not see any of the articles I listed above being spammed and tobacco or alcohol usage, while at one time socially acceptable are just as controversial today as drug use.BGinOC (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because lists exist on other articles doesn't mean similar content belongs here. There is a big difference between this article and the articles you are using as examples. Those product articles have notable manufacturers/brands of products with articles. This product article does not have any manufacturers/brands that have articles. I have searched to try to establish some kind of notability for a couple of the different brands that were in the list but I can not find anything to say they are notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 21:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The difference is notability - the lists in those articles are wikilink lists. Have you read the guidelines? Cacycle (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have read the guidelines and in the case of this product, it is simply too new to the the market for ANY brand, distributor or style to have a true notability as there simply has not been enough history regarding the product in and of itself. The fact that these brands are among those cited by the legislative powers that be who have passed laws banning the sale of said products is the basis of their notability in and of itself. That point is inarguable even to a five-year-old. I have made my point and the arguments against compared to the facts given by me as well as the presidents set by the examples have re-enforced my point. I plan to stand my ground firmly on this and as such have saved said list within my personal user pages and WILL continue to enforce its inclusion upon the hour if need be upon discovery of its deletion - Period.BGinOC (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So it sounds to me like you don't care what anyone else says. It appears that you are going to try to force your opinion on the article no matter what others say. This makes it appear that you think you own this article. Not a very good attitude to have. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now cited the respected Journal of Mass Spectrometry as well as information from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Both respected agencies specifically list variations and brands within their respective documents. These documents, which have been now cited within said list, are also available on line for review in detail via the included links to online versions of said documents. Perhaps my point will be respected now and not looked upon as being dictatorial or seen as promoting the claimed "potential spamming" of said list within this article. In reference to not caring about what anyone says, that is incorrect. I have put forth this effort in an honest and academic manner. I have argued my case logically and in each rebuttal, followed up with improved references and citations in support of my viewpoint on the topic. I am not cramming anything down anyone's throat: I have given cited sources from respected news agencies and governmental references to the various brand names as well as adding the reports of scientific testing upon specific brands that has been published within respected academic journals, thereby FIRMLY establishing said notability of certain specific brands listed within this article. How much more encyclopedic need I get in order to have my point accepted? I have offered to compromise by creating a separate article which was practically ignored. As I have found such valuable and detailed information regarding the testing of specific brands and styles, I can do further research upon the specific brands listed and potentially create articles that would link to the this apparently controversial list so that its inclusion within this article, or separation as a separate list can better match up with the styles used by the articles I listed previously as precedent for my position on the matter. Respectfully and firmly,BGinOC (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw the post at requests for editor assistance, and I've been following your discussion. FWIW, I can see both sides here. While there is good sourcing for many of the brands listed, the information in the references isn't being very well utilized by just listed the brands. What if there were a table, listing the data on each variant, perhaps with column listed compounds, a column for street/brand name, side effects, etc. Be a lot of work but I think the results would be equally impressive. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If someone can point me in the direction I need to go to research and learn the code usage needed to build said table, I will gladly work on it. Thank you for an excellent recommendation that I hope settles this "dispute" which has taken up far too much precious time from our writing of articles by forcing oneself to defend said work and effort.BGinOC (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's hear from GB fan and Cacycle before anyone does anything, and see if there's consensus on the basic idea, and if there is, let's also get consensus on what we'd want in the table and how we'd want it arranged. For example, if there are classes of compounds that span brands, that might be a logical way to organize the table. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay - sounds good. I have the data gathered and am reviewing it to organzie the data per your recommendations if the others agree to said plan.BGinOC (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No comments on the tables section mentioned above???

I have researched and am ready to build said table if consensus is agreed upon. I'm not going to do a crapload of programing/editing to set up the table just to have it deleted -- Though good work User:GB fan on keeping the unsourced brands out of the equation. BGinOC (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Even though I am still not convinced it even belongs, I am not going to remove it because it is not worth arguing over. If you want to make it into a table you will have no argument out of me. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 11:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the Synthetic cannabinoid ingredients section is unacceptable

Please do not remove section regarding Synthetic cannabinoid without discussion. Thank you. Valoem ^talk 03:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What about the title of the article?

There has to be a recall on the title of the article because the JWH is the drug, the product is an incense, not marketed as a drug. Perhaps the people who started this page didn't realize what they were buying and were so fucking ignorant of the fact that when you call something a drug it just makes the god damn police get involved. This world is fucked because of ignorant douche bags. Roracle82 (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Roracle, please remain civil in your comments. But you have an interesting point. Anyone care to weigh in? Nuujinn (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It is an interesting point. I think we can all agree that the JWH is the active ingredient in Spice and and an herb blend is most likely an inactive ingredient. In other drugs, legal and illegal, the whole thing, active and inactive ingredients, are considered the drug. Just because it has inactive ingredients combined with an active ingredient does not make the mixture something other than a drug. Just because the manufacturer and marketers call it an incense that does mean it isn't a drug. They both have reasons that they wouldn't call it a drug. They would get shut down so fast, even faster than they already are, if they called it a drug. I think it is a valid name, there are probaby other names that are also valid. That said I think this is the best name for the article. As I was thinking about this, the question I asked myself was, what is the notability of this product? The only thing that makes this product notable is because of the mind alterting effects of it, in other words, drug. So I think drug is the correct disambiguation for this page. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

How about it being called synthetic cannabis? This does away with the problem of the article currently being the brand name of one particular product, rather than a generic name. There are a fair few google news hits of "synthetic cannabis" being used to describe it. Smartse (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support that idea, as it not only clarifies the core topic but makes sense given the proposed merger with the K2 article. I suggest we keep Spice (drug) as a redirect. Any objections? If there are none, I'll make the move in a few days. Nuujinn (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been bold and gone ahead, I've also made redirects from fake weed and fake pot as these have also been used by sources, and changed synthetic marijuana to redirect here instead of to Cannabinoid#Synthetic_and_patented_cannabinoids. Smartse (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A very astute deduction, though poorly stated as the average person will outright reject the premise stated upon reaching the vulgarities within the statement. However, the article is about the usage of these "herbal blends" as a drug. In particular, in regards to its use or being marketed as a form of incense, there is nothing special about this product that makes it unique among incense other than its "recipe".BGinOC (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Reported brands

I'm not sure whether we need this section - it constantly attracts spammers and encourages people to add more brands without reliable sources. There appear to be so many brands, that I can't really see what a list of them adds to an encyclopedic article. If any are particularly notable (I guess that spice is) then this should be mentioned as prose rather than simply as a list. Am I missing something? Smartse (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree there is nothing encyclopedic about the list and it should be removed from the article. This is the same point I made two month ago, see the discussion above. ~~ GB fan ~~ 11:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, oops didn't see that! Looking closer at the sources, it's not like they directly discuss the brands, just name them. I don't think it's right that we give an air of authenticity to these brands just because a journalist happened to pick some brands over others when writing an article (like here). As discussed above a table would be good, but I don't think the sources exist to make one. This paper discusses spice in Japan but states "Forty-six herbal products being sold in Japan for their expected cannabis-like effects were purchased via the Internet from June 2008 to June 2009. All products had different names and were contained in different packages." This clearly demonstrates that a list of brands is unsustainable in the article. Smartse (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Smartse that this section has to go. Please see also the discussion above. Cacycle (talk) 06:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty clear consensus, so I've removed them, here are the references that were used in case they are of use elsewhere in the article. I suggest that we once the article has been renamed, we mention spice and K2 as they have often been mentioned in the media but I don't think that any others should be mentioned. Smartse (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed references

Kasarda, Bob (2010-06-08). "Legal 'drug' a hit locally". Nwitimes.com. Retrieved 2010-06-19.Zaniewski, Ann (10 June 2010). "Ban on synthetic pot on hold". Daily Tribune. Retrieved 2010-06-19."King, Mary. Teenagers Smoking K2 Have Authorities Incensed: Kids Who Smoke Incense Have Easy Access to the Legal Drug. Suite101. 2010-03-01. Accessed: 2010-06-17". Webcitation.org. Retrieved 2010-06-19.""Mississippi Briefs: SOUTHAVEN AND HORN LAKE - Cities ban sale of certain herbs". The Clarion Ledger. The Clarion Ledger, 17 June 2010. Web. 17 Jan. 2010". Clarionledger.com. Retrieved 2010-06-19.By Sarah Aarthun, CNN (2010-03-24). "Aarthun, Sarah. "Synthetic marijuana a growing trend among teens, authorities say - CNN.com". CNN.com International. CNN, 24 Mar. 2010. Web. 17 June 2010". Edition.cnn.com. Retrieved 2010-06-19. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)"Understanding the 'Spice' phenomenon,EMCDDA, Lisbon, November 2009" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-06-19.

These have come from K2 as well, but can probably be used here for something else. Smartse (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC) "Drug profile: Synthetic cannabinoids and 'Spice'". EMCDDA Drug Profiles. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. 2009. Retrieved 2010-04-21. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/03/03/fake-pot-panic.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Merger proposal

I've propose that K2 (drug) is merged into this article. Although K2 does appear to be notable by itself, it is essentially the same as what is discussed in this article. Smartse (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, per above, let's first move this to synthetic cannabis and then merge K2 to this article. If there is enough coverage on specific brands in the future to warrant individual articles, it will be easy to do. Nuujinn (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the right direction for this also, change the name and merge the two articles together. Neither one of these two articles are really about the specific product of the title. They are more about the general class of product. ~~ GB fan ~~ 02:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree! K2 is an entirely different product and subject from Spice with different issues, different laws, different effects, etc. The K2 brand also sells a lot of products which do not contain cannabinoids and are entirely different from the Spice brand. Please, don't redirect again to the inappropriate Spice article. Spice has been banned for years in most of the world. K2 is only starting to get attention from the law, so keeping its own article is essential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.144.69 (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we know that they are different products, but they are both brands of synthetic cannabis and it makes sense to cover it all in one article. Can you point to an independent source to back up "The K2 brand also sells a lot of products which do not contain cannabinoids". It isn't redirecting to "the inappropriate Spice article" because I'm working on making this article about all forms of synthetic cannabis, not just K2 and Spice. Spice was only made illegal in any country within the last year and K2 has already received a lot of media coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartse (talk • contribs) 10:26, 26 August 2010

For me, the question of whether to cover them as one article or two is whether or not the two are treated separately in the real world, and whether or not there are sources that are evidence of that. As far as I can tell from the previous article, Spice was an older version, which tried to skirt cannabis laws, and eventually was ruled illegal (or governed by existing laws). K2 appears to be the same basic principle, but newer. So, if, in 6 months time, K2 is also going to be covered under existing drug laws, just like Spice, it really doesn't merit a separate article. Can the IP who really wants them separate please point to reliable sources that indicate that they should be treated separately? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Spice appeared earlier, and has received most coverage in Europe, whereas K2 appeared a bit later and has mainly been sold in the USA. Judging from a google search for "buy k2 uk it's not sold here and that's almost certainly because it was made illegal at the same time as Spice. Smartse (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Page move to "Synthetic cannabis"

I do not agree with the essentially undiscussed page move to "Synthetic cannabis" [1]. The name "synthetic cannabis" is misleading and confusing, even if there are some Google hits for it. Until we find a better solution, I think we should return to the old title "Spice (drug)" and discuss better names before we move the page again. Here are a few quick suggestions to start a discussion: Cannabis mimic, Cannabis substitute, Cannabinoid preparation, Cannabinoid mixture, Cannabinoid herb mixture, Synthetic cannabinoid mix. Cacycle (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I was a bit bold, it just made sense to me along with merging K2. I agree it would be better if there was a widely used name but there doesn't seem to be. Synthetic cannabis seems clear to me, in part due the use of synthetic cannabinoids. It's complicated by the fact that its only been recently discovered that they contain these compounds so a lot of earlier sources talk of spice herbal blends and the like. Synthetic marijuana has a lot more hits (including use by The NYT, but per our naming of cannabis (drug) I assumed that there is a precedent to call it cannabis rather than marijuana (I guess because marijuana is almost exclusively used in the US whereas cannabis is used everywhere). I feel that renaming it as Spice would be misleading since the article should aim to cover all the products. It doesn't seem like any of the titles you've suggested are in use any more than synthetic cannabis AFAICT. Anything with cannabinoid in the title is misleading, since the products are not just cannabinoids but plant material as well. Smartse (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I endorsed the redirect and merge of the K2 and Spice articles. The Spice article had become a target for lots of folks trying to add a variety of brands, and it seems to me starting with an article covering the general topic of synthetic cannabis is a better notion. I do also like the idea of creating a redirect from Synthetic marijuana to this article, however, nor would I object to moving the current article to Synthetic marijuana. Nuujinn 22:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Smartest and most logical decision I have seen made on this article since its inception.BGinOC (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)