|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 11-Hydroxy-THC article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about 11-Hydroxy-THC.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 11-carboxy-THC was changed to 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC which is the correct name for the metabolite
-- Panoramix303 11:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- The references where fixed with the help of Pubmed and http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/
-- Panoramix303 08:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
"The effects produced are not necessarily identical to those of THC" contradicts the given citation?
I don't have access to the full text, but the abstract says pretty much the negation of the sentence for which it is the citation:
- Although 11-hydroxy-THC has unquestioned activity indistinguishable from THC itself, it need not necessarily be solely responsible for the pharmacologic activity of THC.
As a subjective user of both THC/CBD, and 11-OH-THC, the effects are VASTLY different; I don't think you really need citation on that. The entire cannabinoid using community here in California could tell you that out of their collective personal experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- We aren't interested in your subjective opinions and they certainly arent a substitute for refs; please read about how we do things here before making statements that undermine all the work we are trying to do here. The personal experience of editors is never a substitute for citations. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Although it may have effects identical to THC, not necessarily all it's effects have to be identical. You could say cannabis and opium have some identical effects due to the pain relieving effects they have, but they are not identical, obviously. (I understand I may be slightly off-point, but this is just to provide a somewhat "extreme" example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Oral is defined as anything that goes through the mouth; why would eating be considered oral consumption and smoking not? Strikes me they are both methods of oral consumption but it is very important that we distinguish here the difference between eating and drinking on the one hand and smoking on the other hand. I will edit the article to reflect this. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)