From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Myocardial infarction[edit]

Ok. From a suggestion by Mark Miller [1]. In relation to an edit made, there is a a significant amount of literature devoted to this topic. What WP:MEDRS secondary sources are available and relevant to discussion that people think are relevant and most reliable? This is to help establish the rarity of myocardial infraction as established by the literature. Second Quantization (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's "established to be rare", is it? And if so, how rare is rare? It will also depend on the context. If you are talking about relieving nausea in terminal cancer pts, a risk of 1 in 5,000 of an MI may be an acceptable risk. If you are talking about non-life threatening indications in 50 year olds, that high of a risk would never be accepted by FDA for a prescription drug. And the stroke risk looks higher than the MI risk.

I'll come back with some references later, gotta go to work. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"a risk of 1 in 5,000 of an MI." Where have you derived that figure from? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Did not mean to imply that is the number for cannabis.just used as an example of how a risk that is acceptable in one indication is not in another I think we meed to be careful here and be clear that the absence of appropriately powered phase 3 RCTs means that very little can be said about the safety or efgicacy of this drug with certainty Remember MEDRS discourages using phase 1 and 2 trial data, and we don't even have that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly 98 (talkcontribs) 18:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Things can still be said based on the evidence that exists, while highlighting the limitations of the conclusions. I fixed the spaces in your comment, I hope you don't mind. Second Quantization (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Again, where are the references, people?! The article is riddled with primary sources such as this one. Of eight people with multiple sclerosis treated with THC, two showed improvement. Is this really a suitable reference? The whole article needs to be gutted and re-written. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Needs a cleanup[edit]

I agree with the tag. Any medical claims urgently need to be backed up with proper sources or else we are unable to use them. This applies whether the claims are negative, positive or ambiguous. --John (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Since there is an Rx form of THC available, it should be written up like any other drug in the pharmacology style guide form and using MEDRS compliant references only. Since there is a separate article on cannabis, and the majority of the cannabis references cited herein are not MEDRS compliant, I suspect that most of the discussion of cannabis in this article should come out. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this article should focus on THC. There's much duplication across the cannabis "suite" of articles which needs to be fixed. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I bet User:SandyGeorgia could help with this. I wonder if there is any way she has time to look at it? --John (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Move request: Tetrahydrocannabinol → THC[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

TetrahydrocannabinolTHC – [WP:CHEMNAME#General rule]: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."; [WP:ACRONYMTITLE]: "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject"; [WP:NC]; [WP:UCN] — Jaydiem (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I for one have no idea what THC is. Move THC (disambiguation) back to THC. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Do you know what tetrahydrocannabinol is? If not, then it doesn't matter whether you know what THC is. What does matter is, which term is most likely to be used by someone who is seeking information about this molecule? I would submit that there are many, many more members of the general public who know and refer to this substance as "THC" than as "tetrahydrocannabinol". And that is the criterion that WP:COMMONNAME guides us to use in choosing the article title. — Jaydiem (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't, but I can work out from the current title that is a four-water-cannabinoid, which is more helpful than THC to anyone with a bit of knowledge of chemistry. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - in my line of work, THC is sort of street talk or slang, I call the compound Tetrahydrocannabinol. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per common name. Calidum Talk To Me 03:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Smokefoot. Better to have this spelled out. -- (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per In ictu oculi, but I'd love to have a discussion with sources, etc., regarding the current redirect (THC) Red Slash 08:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per In ictu oculi. Dennis Brown |  | WER 21:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


I am currently debating whether or not I should advocate the moving of this page to dronabinol, as it is the INN. I know that its current name is more chemically correct, as it is more generalized, i.e., it includes isomers other than Δ9, but, still. As I doubt I'm the only person that's going to think this I think it's a good idea to add this idea so as to start a dialogue, in case someone else has some comments. Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 20:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Restored large removal[edit]

I've restored a bunch of material that was removed, as it was seemingly sourced properly. As for studies being "old", that doesn't necessarily disqualify them unless superseded by newer studies, something that is hard to do in the US at least. Not sure how these studies failed MEDRS. Per WP:BRD, I think some discussion is needed before we carve out huge chunks again. Dennis 14:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dennis,
Nice to meet you and thank you for your note.
I believe that there are multiple violations of WP:MEDRS here. WP:MEDRS does not allow for the use of primary sources in the presentation of material related to human health. Nor does it allow the use of in vitro data or animal data in a way that implies that these data are directly extrapolatable to human health.
1)Diff 1: This is a description of a 10 patient clinical trial examining the usefulness of THC (not cannabis) in PTSD. The results have actually been published here (just found this, I apologize for the error). The problems here are that
a) Even the published results cannot be used per WP:MEDRS, which requires the use of secondary sources. Given this, how can the listing of a clinical trial in be notable?
b) We have a separate article on THC, so if it were a useable source, it should go there.
2) Diff 2: This is a primary research paper describiing a trial in 5 patients. According to WP:MEDRS:
a) "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources" (my underlining)
b) " Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. (bolding in original)
c) "Primary sources should generally not be used for health related content, because the primary biomedical literature is exploratory and not reliable"
3) Diff 3: Per MEDRS
a) All of these are primary sources. Please see the comments in item 2 above
b) "Where in vitro and animal-model data are cited on Wikipedia, it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical, and the article text should avoid stating or implying that the reported findings hold true in humans....Use of small-scale, single studies make for weak evidence, and allow for easy cherry picking of data. Results of studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in context by using high quality secondary sources rather than using the primary sources themselves.
4) Diff 4:Same issues as 3.
Happy to include this material if you can show that it has been discussed in reliable secondary sources, but it seems pretty clear that none of this work can be included based on the sources currently cited, per MEDRS. Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello again Dennis. Face-smile.svg
I've deleted the entire section on animal studies; this type of research is often highly misleading when generalized to humans. All old primary studies that cite a medical claim can be deleted per WP:MEDRS on the grounds that they are either: (1) a primary source or (2) old. It is generally okay to keep these so long as they do not cite any medical claim: i.e., citing the 1986 study to say "THC has been used in spinal injury studies" is ok (falls under WP:RS) as opposed to "THC has been demonstrated to reduce tremors in spinal injury studies", which requires WP:MEDRS. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 16:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No problem, but I prefer letting this sit a couple of days. Any time we yank sourced material (even if the sources are primary) and it is more than a paragraph, red flags just pop up and I want to make sure we aren't throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Dennis 17:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


The article doesn't say if Marinol is produced synthetically, semi-synthetically or as an extract from plant material. Which one is it?--Custoo (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Marinol is not produced from Cannabis, Marinol is synthetic. Clr324 (say hi) 02:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

nutrient values of thc[edit]

I would like to know if thc has any nutritive elements in its composition, nutrients as the lay public would understand them such as proteins, vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants Greg Dahlen (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Roger Adams[edit]

It is astonishing that this page doesn't reference the thorough work of Professor Roger Adams at the University of Illinois in the 1940's, almost ludicrous in view of the fact that the article on Adams (q.v.) links to this one. Adams elucidated structures by chemical means, synthesized analogues and wrote at least one article about his own experience with the drug. If there was something wrong with Adam's work, then that needs to be discussed in light of newer work. prefix:Talk:Tetrahydrocannabinol/ Walter Turner (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

THC promotes hippocampal neurogenesis[edit]

A 2005 study demonstrated that cannabinoids promotes neurogenesis and exert an antidepressant-like effect. This study contradicts the myth that marijuana kills brain cells as it does exactly the opposite. (Tkadm30 (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC))

no it doesn't. that is a single research paper on a specific synthetic cannabinoid not found in marijuana, carried out in rats. not generalizable to anything, much less the claim you make. And this Talk page is not a forum; no content changes will be made based on that ten year old PRIMARY source. Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The page Cannabinoid supports the evidences that activation of the CB1 receptor by THC promotes neurogenesis:"THC appears to ease moderate pain (analgesic) and to be neuroprotective, while also offering the potential to reduce neuroinflammation and to stimulate neurogenesis.[13]" Also i found another study which again confirms that cannabinoids enhance neurogenesis. I think there's a scientific consensus that neurogenesis is enhanced by cannabinoids compounds like THC. (Tkadm30 (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC))
"cannabinoids" is a huge class of compounds. There can be no scientific consensus about what a huge group of specific chemicals does; small changes to a molecule can generate huge differences in biological activity. Jytdog (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Medical uses of THC[edit]

The current section covers research that has been done. Research =/= medical use. I intend to move this down to a "research" section as it a good summary of research. Medical uses for dronabinol are treatment of anorexia in HIV/AIDS patients, and nausea/vomiting for people undergoing chemotherapy. As Nabiximols contains THC as an active ingredient, it should also be mentioned here. With regard to the current content here about research, the "cannabis extract" bit is not specific enough; this section discusses scientifically conducted clinical research, and so far it appears that all the research was done with a specific THC cannabis extract, "Cannador", that is not mentioned anywhere in this article. That needs discussing too and i'll be adding that... Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

did all that in this series of difs Jytdog (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Sizeofint (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

isomer section[edit]

moving this here: has been unsourced for 2 years. that is long enough to satisfy any limit in WP:VERIFY

Dibenzopyran and monoterpenoid numbering of tetrahydrocannabinol derivatives
7 double bond isomers and their 30 stereoisomers
Dibenzopyran numbering Monoterpenoid numbering Number of stereoisomers Natural occurrence Convention on Psychotropic Substances Schedule Structure
Short name Chiral centers Full name Short name Chiral centers
Δ6a,7-tetrahydrocannabinol 9 and 10a 8,9,10,10a-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol Δ4-tetrahydrocannabinol 1 and 3 4 No Schedule I Delta6a,7-Tetrahydrocannabinol.png
Δ7-tetrahydrocannabinol 6a, 9 and 10a 6a,9,10,10a-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol Δ5-tetrahydrocannabinol 1, 3 and 4 8 No Schedule I Delta7-Tetrahydrocannabinol.png
Δ8-tetrahydrocannabinol 6a and 10a 6a,7,10,10a-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol Δ6-tetrahydrocannabinol 3 and 4 4 Yes Schedule I Delta8-Tetrahydrocannabinol.png
Δ9,11-tetrahydrocannabinol 6a and 10a 6a,7,8,9,10,10a-hexahydro-6,6-dimethyl-9-methylene-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol Δ1,7-tetrahydrocannabinol 3 and 4 4 No Schedule I Delta9,11-Tetrahydrocannabinol.png
Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol 6a and 10a 6a,7,8,10a-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol Δ1-tetrahydrocannabinol 3 and 4 4 Yes Schedule II Delta9-Tetrahydrocannabinol.png
Δ10-tetrahydrocannabinol 6a and 9 6a,7,8,9-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol Δ2-tetrahydrocannabinol 1 and 4 4 No Schedule I Delta10-Tetrahydrocannabinol.png
Δ6a,10a-tetrahydrocannabinol 9 7,8,9,10-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol Δ3-tetrahydrocannabinol 1 2 No Schedule I Delta6a,10a-Tetrahydrocannabinol.png
4 stereoisomers of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol
Names Description Natural occurrence Structure
(−)-trans9-tetrahydrocannabinol (6aR,10aR)-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol levorotary trans Yes (−)-(6aR,10aR)-Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (with hydrogen atoms shown).svg
(−)-cis9-tetrahydrocannabinol (6aS,10aR)-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol levorotary cis Yes (−)-(6aS,10aR)-Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (with hydrogen atoms shown).svg
(+)-trans9-tetrahydrocannabinol (6aS,10aS)-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol dextrorotary trans No (+)-(6aS,10aS)-Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (with hydrogen atoms shown).svg
(+)-cis9-tetrahydrocannabinol (6aR,10aS)-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol dextrorotary cis No (+)-(6aR,10aS)-Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (with hydrogen atoms shown).svg

Note that 6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol is the same as 6H-benzo[c]chromen-1-ol.

- Jytdog (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional history[edit]

Hello all,

I am planning on adding information pertaining to the history of cannabis. In particular, my contribution will give an overview on the overall increase in the use of cannabis over the years, which was a statistical analyzed by World drug report. Also, I will briefly discuss other drug use in comparison to cannabis. All of the information I will provide will be referenced. Feel free to critique my work.

Vmartinez18 (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Vmartinez18

Looking forward to it! Wouldn't this be more appropriate for Cannabis (drug) though? Sizeofint (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
yes, cannabis sounds more appropriate. Vmartinez, there is no need to write these preliminary messages. If you want to actually post the content you want to add here that would make sense, otherwise there is no point. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

"Medical uses"[edit]

About this edit andthis edit, and this edit....

In vitro research on causing apoptosis or autophagy are not medical uses; those are research findings. Please see WP:MEDMOS for what "medical use" means in Wikipedia. Also the sourcing provided there doesn't comply with WP:RS (facebook is not a reliable source) and definitely not with WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

it's a FACT ... THC causes apoptosis in cancer cells[edit]

Read untill you are convinced. here are reliable sources stating THC causes apoptosis in cancer cells,5&q=thc+cancer+cells+apoptosis

And then correct the cancer section of this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulfarf (talkcontribs) 12:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

There are two issues here. The first is that a search result on google scholar is not a source for anything in Wikipedia. You have to bring specific sources. The second is that killing cancer cells is research. Many, many things kill cancer cells in a lab and are not, and will never be, drugs to treat cancer. For something like THC it would take probably 6-7 years and say $300 million to prove it is a safe and effective cancer drug and the result of all that might be that it doesn't actually work. Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Here is a specific reference for the anticancer effect of THC "in vivo". Tkadm30 (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
That is moving in the right direction, source-wise! However Oncotarget is a predatory publisher and we don't cite them. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)