|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 CP 55,940.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
There are invididual articles for each cannabinoid... why not this one? --Thoric 21:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
low potential for abuse?
Original research template +
I love the work done on this article, however it keeps making unreferenced claims such as dosage, effects, and the whole thing about it's temperature stability - "suggested that the claim was put forth as propaganda to dissuade recreational cannabis users from purchasing the substance". I'm not here to say which is correct, rather to inform readers that this article may contain original research. If you choose to remove it I would appreciate a note, especially if you fixed the issue. All the best.--Astavats (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
More original research? Specifically, LEGAL STATUS
I don't see how this is any sort of analog to THC from a purely chemical standpoint. OK, sure it binds the receptors, fine, but from the standpoint of chemistry itself, its actually rather different than THC and a lawyer in conjunction with expert witnesses should have absolutely no trouble making the point that if this is "related enough" to THC to be scheduled, then so would far, far, far too many other compounds.
There is a bit more resemblance to Cannabidiol than THC, however Cannabidiol converts to the controlled substance THC in acidic conditions (not sure if this happens in the stomach or not) and the functional group that makes this conversion possible simply isn't present in CP-55,940, there is no phenolic hydroxyl to attack a double bond present, so its not going to be converting into something "more like" THC, even. Basically, this is its own ligand; if it is to be a controlled substance then it ought to be addressed as such in the legal code.
The Analogs Act was written in 1986 and because of its vagueness (necessary at the time) it's only ever been used in really clear-cut cases, where the chemical is all but the same or clearly has the same functional subgroups with only minor variations. Really, someone ought to get around to updating it to address what humanity has learned over the last 20+ decades; the fact of the matter is that with increased efficiency provided by greater scientific knowledge, it may soon become possible for someone intending to produce a truly novel designer drug to engineer substances based on the intended receptor targets in much the same way that pharmaceutical companies currently produce new drugs intended for other receptor targets with the intention of deliberately evading patent law. This was probably first blatantly on a worldwide scale seen with some of the clones of the drug Prozac, but has happened many, many times since at the corporate level.
It is silly to think that as the ability to predict activity goes up and the ratio of tested by failed compounds to compounds worthy of the next level of trial goes down, that such techniques will not be attempted by those seeking to evade the controlled substances act in much the same way that pharmaceuticals companies seek to evade patent law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaphraud (talk • contribs) 18:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)