Talk:Cannabidiol/Archive 1

Cannabinoid Receptor Contradiction
Maybe it is just me but the article states in its opening paragraph that CBD has an affinity for both CB1 and CB2 receptors, with greater affinity for CB2 receptors. Then further down in the pharmacology section, it says that CBD has no affinity for CB receptors and acts as an antagonist of cannabinoid agonists...??? That makes no sense. Not only is it contradictory but if something is an antagonist then it is still "acting" on a receptor (so affinity exists) -- and the fact that it would be antagonizing a cannabinoid agonist (i.e. THC, anandamide) makes absolutely no sense either since CBD is known to enhance THC effects.

The more likely scenario here is mentioned in the article -- CBD and THC both compete for the same CYT P450 liver enzyme and therefore CBD concentration affects THC clearance. Since I don't know enough about CBD pharmacology to delete one or the other with 100% certainty, need someone to take a look at this who does. Thanks! --Novaprospekt (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed myths section
I have removed the following text from the article. Cacycle 09:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * == Cannabidiol Myths and research==
 * * Myths|CBD}
 * *There is a myth, that this substance: Cannabidiol or also named CBD,increase the atention of certain individual(s) when is consume ingested or smoked because Cannabis have certain levels of this substance, CBD,there are many studies that they are not accurate, but please extend this article  about cannabidiol.
 * how can extract cannabidiol?.expand it


 * *(Apología del cannabis) is a book aclaims that (canabidiol) increase the certain level of attention on the sinapsis of the Brain and senses of the human body. ex.,point of view and object,idea,thingh,senses,The maximus peak of concentration depends on the individual or many variables,such indoors and outdoors other factors ex.Stay on focus on one color or object, for  long periods...
 * With out other interuptions such other ideas sounds ex i have  a crayon blue,then i search or imagine, for the  origin of the crayon blue color.
 * There is a certain balance of what we call  menthal concentartion,probably  a stage of thebrain implies functions in the sinaptical conections of certainneurotransmitters ex. ,Anadamide a neurotransmitter subtance that  provoces or cause tranquility state of  mind and body, anandamimide derivates from the lenguage sanscrit word Ananda, the guys or individuals who discover  and aislate or extact,  this substance anandamide  ,put the name of the Budism Goddes of  tranquility  means a goddes from BEATITUD in "SPANISH" , lenguage beatitud have many meanings in ENGLISH lenguage, such as peacefull,tranquility,calm.
 * (CBD)deliberates the accurate concentartion besides other possibilities of interruption,the substance of Cannabidiol increase the concentration.(this depends on the type of Cannabis Indica], Cannabis Sattiva or Cannabis Ruderalis.and of course the amount of LD50, body mass,and many factors such dosification  mg/mass.Also aclaims that the effect  is more potentand have a lenght prolongative state  if it is consume  via oral.
 * Cannabinol}see also

Antipsychotic
Cannabidiol has exhibited antipsychotic effects in recent studies. If CBD has an antipsychotic effect, how can it not be considered psychoactive? --Thoric 22:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Caffiene is a psychoactive, it won't make you go loopy. The psycho part of psychoactive does not refer to a possibility of psychosis. I'm not a professional though. JHJPDJKDKHI! 15:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't implying that psychoactive meant makes you go crazy. What I'm saying is that since antipsychotics are psychoactive, and also since CBD has been shown to have antipsychotic effects, then how can we be sure that CBD is not a psychoactive drug?  --Thoric 18:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, you are both arguing for the same thing. Some folks do seem to think that "psychoactive" equates to a euphoriant or hallucinogenic drug, something that feels good or makes you loco. This may be neither, but that has nothing to do with being a psychoactie drug.

it only exhibits it's antipsychotic effect when THC is present so it is not pshchoactive on it's own. (82.47.164.103 05:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Not true. Studies have been done comparing cannabidiol to other antipsychotic drugs in patients that require antipsychotics (and are not cannabis users).  --Thoric 14:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I was popping in just to say the same thing. The article currently reads: "Medically, it appears to relieve convulsion, inflammation, anxiety, and nausea, and to inhibit cancer cell growth[5]. Recent studies have shown cannabidiol to be as effective as atypical antipsychotics in treating schizophrenia.[6]" If the drug reduced anxiety and is an effective antipsychotic, then it is indeed a psychoactive drug. It may not have any use as a recreational substance, a euphoriant, or a psychedelic, but the word is compeltely incorrect. I suggest we change the wording to something saying that it isn't responsible for most of Cannabis's effects, that it doesn't have the effects d9-THC does, that it is not a recreational drug, doesn't cause abuse, etc. Some of these are better than others, obviously, but an unverified induction is better than an something that is completely incorrect, and that evidence to support that is producible. Since there hasn't been discussion on this for a while, I'm just going to strike that part, because I think the rest of the article gives deatils enough to make sense until a decision can be made. --Revaaron (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I see you discussing the term psychoactive, and I think if you also used the term psychotropic you would be able to distinguish between general effects on the psyche (psychoactive - ie. depressant, elevator) and more specific delusional/high effects (psychotropic - ie. insert stoner skit here).Parksvillian (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Psychotropic" means broadly 'affecting perception, mentation, emotion or behaviour', rather than 'high'. The Wikipedia entry for 'psychoactive drug' appears to consider it a synonym for 'psychotropic'.
 * I think we're back where we were when this article was oscillating between "Compared to THC, CBD is psychoactive but not intoxicating" and "...CBD is not psychoactive."
 * I agree with OP. If it's anti-psychotic (or, as stated elsewhere in the article, anxiolytic), surely it must be psychoactive / psychotropic ? Dave Underbridge (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes of course it's psychoactive, separate from THC it manifests effects, that may not be as noticeable as THC's but are real nonetheless. CBD is the canninoid that aids sleep, it has relaxant and anti anxiety effects. What the supporters of prohibition are concerned about is people having fun, so THC is the baddy. But all 84 exocannabinoids are psychoactive, we just don't know how yet. PetePassword (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Indica not sativa
I thought it was cannabis indica not sativa that had the most cannabidiols. JHJPDJKDKHI! 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

me too, more cbd than thc in indica and the other way around in satvia. indica makes you 'stoned' and satvia makes you 'high' thats what i thought

That's actually exactly what it says. "Cannabis indica dominant strains of the plant are known to be higher in CBD than Cannabis sativa strains." Just to point that out.

The section titled "Natural Occurrence," discussing the ratio of CBD to THC in indica vs. sativa, is interesting, but badly written and basically impossible to understand 15:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.219.39.17 (talk)

is CBD scheduled?
To determine whether CBD is scheduled, you need to look at the official schedule of controlled substances is available in 21 U.S.C. Sec. 812, Schedule 1. Regulation of marijuana and other cannabindoids is governed under Schedule 1(c)(10), (17), which list "Marihuana" and "Tetrahydrocannabinols" respectively. "Cannabinoids" generally and "cannabidiol" specifically are not listed. "Tetrahydrocannabinols" are distinct from cannabidiol, which has a different chemical structure. Schedule 1(d) lists "cannabimimetic agents" that will constitute controlled substances, and then goes on to define those substances, but I do not have a scientific background and so cannot determine whether CBD falls within such limits. Here is the text of section (d):

"(d)(1) Unless specifically exempted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of cannabimimetic agents, or which contains their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation. (2) In paragraph (1): (A) The term "cannabimimetic agents" means any substance that is a cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1 receptor) agonist as demonstrated by binding studies and functional assays within any of the following structural classes: (i) 2-(3-hydroxycyclohexyl)phenol with substitution at the 5-position of the phenolic ring by alkyl or alkenyl, whether or not substituted on the cyclohexyl ring to any extent. (ii) 3-(1-naphthoyl)indole or 3-(1-naphthylmethane)indole by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring, whether or not further substituted on the indole ring to any extent, whether or not substituted on the naphthoyl or naphthyl ring to any extent. (iii) 3-(1-naphthoyl)pyrrole by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the pyrrole ring, whether or not further substituted in the pyrrole ring to any extent, whether or not substituted on the naphthoyl ring to any extent. (iv) 1-(1-naphthylmethylene)indene by substitution of the 3-position of the indene ring, whether or not further substituted in the indene ring to any extent, whether or not substituted on the naphthyl ring to any extent. (v) 3-phenylacetylindole or 3-benzoylindole by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring, whether or not further substituted in the indole ring to any extent, whether or not substituted on the phenyl ring to any extent.

(B) Such term includes- (i) 5-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (CP–47,497); (ii) 5-(1,1-dimethyloctyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (cannabicyclohexanol or CP–47,497 C8-homolog); (iii) 1-pentyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH–018 and AM678); (iv) 1-butyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH–073); (v) 1-hexyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH–019); (vi) 1-[2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl]-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH–200); (vii) 1-pentyl-3-(2-methoxyphenylacetyl)indole (JWH–250); (viii) 1-pentyl-3-[1-(4-methoxynaphthoyl)]indole (JWH–081); (ix) 1-pentyl-3-(4-methyl-1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH–122); (x) 1-pentyl-3-(4-chloro-1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH–398); (xi) 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (AM2201); (xii) 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-3-(2-iodobenzoyl)indole (AM694); (xiii) 1-pentyl-3-[(4-methoxy)-benzoyl]indole (SR–19 and RCS–4); (xiv) 1-cyclohexylethyl-3-(2-methoxyphenylacetyl)indole (SR–18 and RCS–8); and (xv) 1-pentyl-3-(2-chlorophenylacetyl)indole (JWH–203)."

CBD is forbidden in any form (pure or from a plant) in the USA. Cannabidiol and all other phytocannabinoids are Schedule I drugs in the USA. The code number for cannabidiol in Schedule I is 7372. It is not psychoactive, but it is illegal in the eyes of the federal government. You may find it listed under Schedule I where it says tetrahydrocannabinols. The part saying "and others" includes all phytocannabinoids, even CBD. 71.33.139.8 (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)"

Is it unscheduled in the US or is it a CI (Schedule I substance) ? On this wiki page it doesn't say anything, but I have seen Cannabidiol listed as Schedule I just can't remember where, CBD isn't listed on http://www.cnsm.csulb.edu/services/safety/druglist.htm but that site may be outdated. So i'm confused, any help?

also this is the most updated GOVERNMENT site listing all scheduled drugs and i dont see CBD listed http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/21cfr1308_01.html
 * Aa far as I know, it is not scheduled anywhere, but it might be a regulated precursor compound. Cacycle 13:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe this is a US scheduled substance. So the Legal Status in the template needs to be changed, and the OR hypothesis currently in the article as to why it is schedule I should be removed. I looked up the citation for its supposed scheduled status and found no evidence for this being schedule I (US). In fact, the Legal Status of many of the narcotics on Wikipedia are wrong. The problem might stem from Canada (CDSA) also using a schedule system. While almost all of the compounds are the same in both laws the scheduling is different. In conclusion, Cannabidiol is a CDSA schedule II, and is non-controlled in the US. I am removing the OR. 66.166.38.18 (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As it is an extract of marijuana cannabadiol is illegal in the United States. See this link to a chemical company outlining that Cannabidiol is Schedule I in the United States. http://www.biocompare.com/ProductDetails/187599/Cannabidiol-%28DEA-Schedule-I-Regulated-Compound%29.html Fireemblem555 (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just because some random chemical company says Cannabidiol is Schedule 1 doesn't mean that it is. First of all, the CSA makes no mention of Cannabidiol whatsoever.

the "extracts" from marijuana that it is referring to are the tetrahydrocannabinol group of cannabinoids, that's why it calls it "resin."

''does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, '''any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom)' 

Unlike THC, CBD is found in large concentrations in hemp stalks and seed oil.

Not saying this in a mean way, but by your logic, chlorophyll and water would be Schedule 1. Next time, please consult an actual list of scheduled compounds. Bayhemp (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Also if you look into the CPS under Sativex it says that both THC and CBD are scheduled.Fireemblem555 (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sativex (which contains cannabidiol) is a Schedule 2 drug in Canada. Just wanted to clarify what you're saying there. Bayhemp (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This section of the article is confusing, as it states that Cannabidiol is a Schedule I controlled substance and even gives a index number. However, according to the Controlled Substances Act, in order for a drug to be in Schedule I, it must fit all three of the following criteria a) a high potential for abuse b) no medical use and c) lack of safety for using the drug under medical supervision. To the best of my knowledge, no cannabinoids, including cannabidiol, have ever been shown to be habit forming, which nullifies criteria A. This article lists a myriad of medical uses for cannabidiol, nullifying criteria B. This article also mentions that Sativex is a prescription drug, thereby making it not lack safety for using the drug under medical supervision, nullifying criteria C. Therefore, it seems cannabidiol meets NONE of the criteria for Schedule I whatsoever. Is it possible that there is a mixup, as cannabidiol does meet the definitions for a List I precursor, but not a Schedule I drug? If the drug is truely a Schedule I can someone please expand on the legal section to explain the discrepancies and contradictions between this article and the definitions of Schedule I in the CSA? Thanks!! Otherwise, great article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.178.56 (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed any reference to cannabidiol being schedule I in the US. From looking through the DEA list of scheduled substances, it isn't in any way clear that CBD is either "cannabis" or "marihuana." Hempseeds, hemp protein, etc. are all derived from hemp, but aren't themselves illegal, so the DEA has clearly taken the position that products derived from hemp aren't "cannabis" or "marihuana" and I think it's a stretch to say that the "and others" in "Tetrahydrocannabinols: THC, Delta-8 THC, Delta-9 THC, dronabinol and others" would naturally refer to something that isn't a tetrahydocannabinol at all. Without some sort of interpretive notice from the DEA, I think it would make sense to err on the side that says "hemp products are legal; THCs are illegal; CBD isn't a THC, but is derived from hemp; therefore CBD, like other hemp products, is legal." However, since we don't want to necessarily tell people something is legal when it might not be, I think it's best to be silent on the issue or state something noncommittal on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.243.236 (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * While cannabidiol (CBD) is not listed on the list of Controlled Substances provided online by the DEA, there are few mentions of it on http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/, where it is listed with other controlled substances. Specifically, these mentions can be found here and here. So, while it cannot be rigorously shown that CBD is a scheduled substance in the US with the information that the DEA has provided us, there remains evidence of its scheduling. P millerrhodes TalkContrib 19:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Granted, this is from a corporate press release, but it seems that the DEA Schedule of Controlled Substances was amended some time in 2010 (after the above-linked 2008 notices) which resulted in the removal of CBD. The company in question does appear to be poised to sell CBD legally throughout the country if recent press releases are to be believed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.243.236 (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

xxx edit xxx

When it comes to issues of the CSA, especially Schedule 1 and the draconian penalties and prison associated with those violations, it would be foolish and irresponsible to assert to the naive public that CBD is legal, or the CBD isn't illegal, without a clear opinion letter from the DEA or US DOJ, or from a competent law firm willing to put their name and law license on the line should it turn out to be incorrect.

Anything less is playing with the same legal fires that "spice" "bath salts" and "herbal incense" dealers risk via their games of chemical frogger from one analogue to the next.

For instance, Colorado defines "cannabinoid" as any substance that binds to CB1 or CB2 receptors in the human body, and outlaws all synthetics, and requires difficult licensing via their marijuana enforcement division for naturally derived extracts.

Your legal "wishful thinking" is not a safe and sane factual basis for a public encyclopedia, where real lives are at risk if your unqualified legal opinion turns out to be dead wrong.

Err on the side of legal safety.

Hope that helps.

>>> EXACTLY! ... don't try to bluff a gullible public with the best wishes of the authors or CBD proponents. Until a licensed Law Firm -- or the US DOJ -- is willing to unequivocally declare that CBD from "hemp", or any source, is legal and exempt from the CSA, it would be HIGHLY IRRESPONSIBLE for unqualified non-lawyers to declare otherwise. <<<71.33.139.8 (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

>>> hemp derived CBD does come from the RESIN, so it would not be exempt under the hemp by-products made from only stalks.

>> The DEA CSA does mention ALL Phytocannabinoids in Schedule 1 Code 7372, which would include CBD.

71.33.135.150 (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Elaborate and untested speculative arguments not withstanding, the DEA has consistently stated that they view CBD as Schedule I. I added two references to this into the section. I think someone should delete the rest of the section. 12.130.117.47 (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

3D ball structure
Is this the real structure from the article where the crystal structure was published? If not we should remove it because it is misleading or in the best case just a nice picture without any use. -- Panoramix303 21:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's the crystal structure, from


 * Ben (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and good work! -- Panoramix303 (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ligresti antitumor mechanism claim
Ligresti et al suggest that "cannabidiol exerts its effects on [cancer] cells through a combination of mechanisms that include either direct or indirect activation of CB2 and TRPV1 receptors, and induction of oxidative stress, all contributing to induce apoptosis." (emphasis added) - yet Thomas et al show cannabidiol to be a CB2 inverse agonist mouse whole-brain or CHO cell membranes. Ligresti et al's reasoning is that cannabidiol inhibits anandamide inactivation, thus "indirectly activating" CB1/CB2, but I would think the receptor-independent inverse agonist effect would largely negate any action this might have; indeed, they found that "pure agonists" were less effective than CBD, which doesn't seem consistent with an eCB mechanism. Thoughts? St3vo 06:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Leave as it is as no one knows it exactly at the moment. There will be 1 or 2 papers explaining the mechanism in a few months.

-- Panoramix303 07:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. I was just wondering if anyone had any insight into this seeming contradiction that I was missing since cancer isn't my field.St3vo 13:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Grammar Edit
"Cannabidiol, also known as CBD, cannabinoid found in Cannabis." This is a fragment with just two subjects. I will change to "Cannabidiol, also known as CBD, is a cannabinoid found in Cannabis."  Ben-G

Use as an anti-psychotic.
Regarding this topic, the following paper seems to give a good summary of several studies which have looked into this. I have access to it but can't post speciically what I'm referring to due to copyright. I will however try and update the article with the research in due course. And in response to what I removed in my last edit, would you consider the removed content a fair summary of the conclusions of the paper cited below?

''"In conclusion, results from pre-clinical and clinical studies suggest that CBD is an effective, safe and well-tolerated alternative treatment for schizophrenic patients. Future trials of this cannabinoid in other psychotic conditions such as bipolar disorder (50) and comparative studies of its antipsychotic effects with those produced by clozapine in schizophrenic patients are clearly needed.

I must mention the conclusion of the paper I inititally referred to above. It talks of the endocannabinoid system as being very important in the development of schizophrenia.

''In conclusion, the endogenous cannabinoid system seems to be critically involved in the pathogenesis of schizophrenic disorders, and both CBD and SR141716 provide pharmacological characteristics that are reminiscent of those of atypical antipsychotics. To date, it is not clear if the antipsychotic effects are mediated by the direct influence of cannabinoids on the endogenous cannabinoid system or through the secondary modulation of dopaminergic or glutamatergic systems. However, CB1 receptor antagonists seem to be promising candidates for novel approaches in the treatment of schizophrenic disorders. Further investigation is needed to elucidate the exact mechanisms of cannabinoid action concerning their influence on the endogenous cannabinoid system and concerning their potential antipsychotic effects." Supposed (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Caution against portraying CBD as treatment for schiophrenia
A recent edit to Cannabidiol copy/pasted the paragraph from [| this] page into the article. I reverted this edit because of plagiarism, but I think we do need to have a discussion here about what information the article should provide on the anti-psychotic question of CBD. I have read the [article] that is used to support the information about CBD as a treatment for schizophrenia in our Cannabidiol article (which User:Supposed also cited in the first block of quoted text above). In that article, they discussed two human studies: one was a single case study, the other included 3 patients of whom one had "partial improvement" and the other two had no improvement. Both of these human studies were researched by the same scientist who wrote the review article (AW Zuardi). I do not think that these two small studies (together, the instances of 4 patients) carry enough weight to support the statement made in our Cannabidiol article: Recent studies have shown cannabidiol to be as effective as atypical antipsychotics in treating schizophrenia I am not denying that CBD may have anti-psychotic properties, I am simply being cautious against making claims in the article that have limited support and may be damaging. To make the claim that CBD (a substance found in marijuana) may be an anti-schizophrenic treatment might cause a person to smoke marijuana for treatment/prevention or recommend others to do so. This is dangerous because there is also research to suggest that smoking marijuana might be a contributing factor in the development of schizophrenia and other mental illnesses. (See Effects of cannabis and THC). --Tea with toast (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Tea,


 * I agree with you that the evidence there is a little scant however there was a very important study completed recently on this very ::subject, the conclusions of which are below and these reaffirm the above.

S39-02 Antipsychotic effects of cannabidiol Purchase the full-text article

''Background

In contrast to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the phytocannabinoid cannabidiol does not exert psychotomimetic effects. Cannabidiol was suggested a re-uptake inhibitor of anandamide and potential antipsychotic properties have been hypothesized for it. We therefore performed a clinical trial to investigate thesis hypothesis and to clarify the underlying link to the neurobiology of schizophrenia. Methods

We performed an explorative, 4-week, double-blind, controlled clinical trial on the effects of purified cannabidiol in acute schizophrenia compared to the antipsychotic amisulpride. The antipsychotic properties of both drugs were the primary target of the study. Furthermore, side-effects and anxiolytic capabilities of both treatments were investigated. Results

42 patients fulfilling DSM-IV criteria of acute paranoid schizophrenia participated in the study. Both treatments were associated with a significant decrease of psychotic symptoms after 2 and 4 weeks as assessed by BPRS and PANSS. However, there was no statistical difference between both treatment groups. In contrast, cannabidiol induced significantly less side effects (EPS, increase in prolactin, weight gain) when compared to amisulpride. Conclusions

Cannabidiol revealed substantial antipsychotic properties in acute schizophrenia. This is in line with our suggestion of an adaptive role of the endocannabinoid system in paranoid schizophrenia, and raises further evidence that this adaptive mechanism may represent a valuable target for antipsychotic treatment strategies.''

The Stanley Medical Research Institute (00-093 to FML) and the Koeln Fortune Program (107/2000 + 101/2001 to FML) funded this study.

In regards to your concerns that people may use cannabis for relief from the symptoms of schizophrenia, I do not deny that may happen. However it is not the job of wikipedia to prevent people from taking drugs, rather it's our job to try and be as factually accurate as possible.It's equally likely that people reading the Effects of Cannabis page will notice the link selfmedicating hypothesis on that page and use cannabis to treat their schizophrenia, this does not mean we shoudl remove that hypothesis from that page. The only case in which it would be appropriate to place information regarding THC on this page is if cannabis rather than CBD is being used as a treatment for schizophrenia. So if we can collate information regarding self medicating this may be possible. Of course it's also not the fault of wikipedia that there is no mechanism in place for users to know precisely how much THC, CBD or CBN is in their cannabis. ''[] Supposed (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sentence that makes no sense
"The strict legal status may be due to the fact that CBD has been shown to inhibit the anxiety that THC can induce at high doses ~0.5 mg/kg"

This does not make any sense to me, why would CBD's effect on THC anxiety affect its legal status? I will remove this part, and if someone has a good disagreement I welcome the article being reverted to its former state. First I will wait for some discussion in case I am missing something obvious.24.65.95.239 (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Be bold and remove that conspiracy theory nonsense. Cacycle (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Boiling Point
I'm not sure how to put a range as the boiling point without it giving a false Fahrenheit conversion. Would someone with more wikipedia experience please touch that up for me? Fireemblem555 (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be 160-180 degrees celcius.Fireemblem555 (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The boiling point in the box reads reasonably well, but I couldn't make boiling_high work, quite possibly because it doesn't exist, but I figure if melting_high does it should.Fireemblem555 (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal Status
Legal status needs to be clarified. Article says it is unscheduled but this is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oopsiedoop (talk • contribs) 16:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

xxx edit xxx

When it comes to issues of the CSA, especially Schedule 1 and the draconian penalties and prison associated with those violations, it would be foolish and irresponsible to assert to the naive public that CBD is legal, or the CBD isn't illegal, without a clear opinion letter from the DEA or US DOJ, or from a competent law firm willing to put their name and law license on the line should it turn out to be incorrect.

Anything less is playing with the same legal fires that "spice" "bath salts" and "herbal incense" dealers risk via their games of chemical frogger from one analogue to the next.

For instance, Colorado defines "cannabinoid" as any substance that binds to CB1 or CB2 receptors in the human body, and outlaws all synthetics, and requires difficult licensing via their marijuana enforcement division for naturally derived extracts.

Legal "wishful thinking" is not a safe and sane factual basis for a public encyclopedia, where real lives are at risk if your unqualified legal opinion turns out to be dead wrong.

Err on the side of legal safety. (this should be the rule on ALL recreational drug entries in Wiki ) Don't throw innocents into the insatiable maw of the criminal justice system simply because you wish something to be legal.

71.33.135.150 (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

templates forever
More than half the bulk of the page is a series of directory templates, half of which don't mention cannabidiol. Are they all necessary? —Tamfang (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

CBD halts spread of breast cancer
This article might be a good place for a write-up of this recent research showing CBD holds promise in treating breast cancer.  petrarchan47  t  c   22:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are the sources. (discussion)abstract a abstract b    petrarchan47  t  c   21:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Cannabidiol as a treatment for colonic inflammation (IBD, Crohn's)
I didn't see this mentioned, but it seems important because of the mounting evidence and the prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease, which doesn't seem to have a particularly effective treatment, currently. I don't really know enough about it to take a good stab yet, but I wanted to record it here so someone else could. There is a decent amount of literature on the subject: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=colitis+cannabinoid From http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0009453 :

''Anecdotal reports suggest that marijuana- or tetrahydrocannabinol-containing products may be effective in alleviating symptoms in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). This is supported by recent studies of our group and others suggesting that pharmacological activation of the cannabinoid 1 (CB1) receptor with selective receptor agonists decreases the inflammatory response in various murine models of colonic inflammation [. . .] Interestingly, pharmacological blockade of CB1 receptors or genetic ablation of CB1 receptors (CNR1-/- mice) aggravates intestinal inflammation in these models, emphasizing the physiological relevance of the CB1 receptor in the protection against intestinal inflammation. Increased mucosal levels of the endocannabinoid anandamide during intestinal inflammation in humans further stress the role of the CB1 receptor and the endocannabinoid system in intestinal inflammation. Thus, present knowledge suggests up-regulation of endocannabinoids as an important protective mechanism in intestinal inflammation.''

71.193.217.159 (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This applies more to the THC page than CBD since there is no mention of CBD in your quote. DystoniaPatient (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Psychoactive?
"Compared with THC, cannabidiol is psychoactive"

What is this supposed to mean? Is the implication that THC is NOT psychoactive? ---Dagme (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. An anonymous editor continually changing "Compared with THC, cannabidiol is psychoactive but not intoxicating, and is considered to have a wider scope..." to "Compared with THC, cannabidiol is not psychoactive, and is considered to have a wider scope..." (The study cited clearly states, "cannabidiol (CBD) may exert sedative, hypnotic, anxiolytic, antidepressant, antipsychotic and anticonvulsant effects"). In the process of reverting this, I noticed the study did not state that cannabidol is not intoxicating and removed that claim, resulting in the mess you stumbled on. I have since corrected it to read, "Cannabidiol is psychoactive. Compared with THC, it is considered to have a wider scope..." (and, yes, reverted the annonymous editor again). - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"not psychoactive"
An IP editor is repeatedly changing "Compared with THC, cannabidiol is psychoactive but not intoxicating, and is considered to have a wider scope..." to "Compared with THC, cannabidiol is not psychoactive, and is considered to have a wider scope...". The study cited clearly states, "cannabidiol (CBD) may exert sedative, hypnotic, anxiolytic, antidepressant, antipsychotic and anticonvulsant effects". As the study cited does not say cannabidol is not intoxicating, I have corrected this to read "Cannabidiol is psychoactive. Compared with THC, it is considered to have a wider scope...". As the IP editor has so far ignored talk requests (and changed IPs), I've given them an edit warring warning. If the problem continues, we can block them and/or protect the article as needed. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Back at it again. The study states cannabidol "may exert sedative, hypnotic, anxiolytic, antidepressant, antipsychotic and anticonvulsant effects". In other words, it is psychoactive. We do not have sources discussing whether or not it is intoxicating. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * is a secondary review (compliant with WP:MEDRS) that can be used; I'll have a look next. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing review
asked me to give the sourcing for this article a run-though of my ref parser script, here are the results... 17:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

In this table:
 * Source lists the source as cited in the article
 * Seems WP:RS? means, "Does this source appear to meet WP:RS for reliable sourcing?"
 * Use OK? means, is the source used appropriately in the article? For the review, a few selected sources will be spot-checked to ensure they aren't plagiarized and support the article content.   indicates the source was not spot-checked.
 * Notes will summarize problems found and what needs to be done to fix them

I am slowly working through these, replacing primary sources with secondary reviews. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

History of CBD research
The article could answer to questions like when was cbd discovered and when was the first glimpses to it's pharmacology determined?--Custoo (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Strong bias?
has reverted an edit with the following edit summary: "the source does not mention adverse effects making them less than ideal (who would, compared to opioids?); your statements and wording seem pretty strongly biased to me". Leaving aside the need to WP:FOC, the source says: Furthermore the article states: I think the source should be represented accurately my represention of it was not "biased" - thoughts? Alexbrn talk 17:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess I just assumed you pulled that from somewhere else; I don't have access to the full paper at the moment (VPN is down). However, I find that you're trying very hard to shoot down every addition I make. For example, the fact that medical cannabis is used is clearly WP:common knowledge, and your eagerness to shoot down such a simple, straight-forward, and useful addition is odd. The initial section here was woefully incomplete, misleading, and biased, and I'm trying to fix it. I'm sensing some opposition, though.


 * I understand that you're a skeptic. I'm not a "marijuana is the cure to cancer" guy. I'm just recognizing that a lot of preliminary research has had promising results, and that there are legal and methodological limitations to getting conclusive evidence in either direction. The whole story should be told here, not just a terse dismissal of "cancer cure" claims.


 * For example, cannabis is way less addictive and physically harmful than opioids. There may be some potential adverse effects, but the general medical consensus is that cannabis is by far the more benign option. We should focus on adding simple truths like that if we're also going to be discussing adverse effects and limitations. Exercisephys (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You mean you are adding content and edit warring without even having read the source while claiming yourself to be privvy to "simple truths", as enough of a basis to add content on medical topics which might affect real people's lives. Heaven help us. Alexbrn talk 17:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I was quote-pulling because this is indeed an obvious and simple truth. Cannabis is a safe and effective treatment for cancer-related nausea and pain. Do you not believe that? If you really want me to, I can go find ten other WP:MEDRS-compliant reviews saying the same thing. I don't see what you're arguing. And what about the obvious statement that it's used by many states and countries? You're wasting my time, please pony up some sources of your own if you think I'm wrong. Exercisephys (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, it is up to the one proposing the content change to provide sourcing that supports the change, not the other way around. Sources please. 21:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I added quality sources, but is removing them without sufficient justification. That's why I'm asking for sources if he's going to keep doing this. Exercisephys (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Why are there still sceptics on this subject? This is from 2007, and in the intervening 8 years there's been a lot more discovered. Why are we still having to debate this? You said sources please, well here's one, but are you not capable of doing the research yourself? It's called googling and reading. Amazing what you can find. Real scientific papers even. PetePassword (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It is the magic that cures cancer, with free shipping if you order now
Yes, this magic stuff obviously cures cancer because someone on youtube said it did. In the dark ages of medicine, we used to conduct double-blind clinical trials with large numbers of patients to try to remove "erroneous reports", "confirmation bias", the "placebo effect", "spontaneous remissions", "post hoc fallacies" and other such boogeymen as we used to believe occurred in medicine. Now that we have random people reporting their miracles on youtube, we know better. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is still prosecuting a witch hunt against all of the magical cures of cancer in defense of the international conspiracy known as "evidence-based medicine". This nonsense is enshrined in WP:MEDRS, which remains the effective law of the land for this topic. Heck, this policy has also weakened our once-great article about coffee enemas and calf liver juice curing every ailment known to man. Heck, the article was supported by the murdered inventor's testimony from beyond the grave via radio to his grandson. For God's sake: What more evidence do you need?

Modern medicine is all caught up in this idea that cancer cures must be demonstrable and repeatable. Those of us in the real world know that needles jabbed in mysterious points of the body to regulate a mythical energy flow, foot massages, spinal manipulation, apricot pits, orgon energy, prayer, psychic surgery, smelling essential oils, sticking candles in your ears, running a weak electric current through a foot bath, rubbing magical cards, rubbing coins together, having someone touch you while not touching you, having someone manipulate The Force, manipulating or needling the foot --- I mean palm -- I mean ear or the patient, turning your skin permanently blue, flowers, doses of water that no longer contain poisons added to them, wishful thinking, suctioning hot cups on your skin and scraping the skin off your body with coins are all 100% effective cures for cancer (and thousands of other illnesses). That said, we still need independent reliable sources consistent with our policy to tell the world of these miracles. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Will this do? Read to the end. It's not even current, so there will be more.
 * I think in your eagerness to be clever you overegg it somewhat. Cannabis has been shown to have a number of medically useful properties, as has acupuncture, which, if you weren't so ignorant because you think yourself smart, has been used as anaesthetic in operations, you show me a placibo that can do that. By spinal manipulation, do you mean osteopathy? They train for years, are experts on the spine, are consulted by doctors and are used in the British NHS [stop your sneer, it's way better than Americans are led to believe]. The rest is just nonsense of course, but why do you think you have to point that out to anyone editing WP? Facts are being updated about cannabis that are going to make you appear very foolish quite soon, so you'd best row back from your absolutist position. PetePassword (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This article is a good place to start, perhaps it could inform WP editors on this subject. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3202504/ PetePassword (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Another CBD source you may find interesting in your quest for information on this 'miracle'. PetePassword (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

cannabinoid is not cannabidiol; plus there are positive evidences for anti-cancer properties
This is a copy of the section "cancer" as I found it. The American Cancer Society says: "There is no available scientific evidence from controlled studies in humans that cannabinoids can cure or treat cancer."[22] Laboratory experiments have been performed on the potential use of cannabinoids for cancer therapy but as of 2013 results have been contradictory and knowledge remains poor.[23] Cannabinoids have been recommended for cancer pain but the adverse effects may make them a less than ideal treatment; two cannabinoid-based medicines have been approved as a backup remedy for nausea associated with chemotherapy.[4]

What is said about adverse effects of cannabinoids should be removed, because it confuses the reader, and this article is about cannabidiol, and not cannabinoids.

For instance, THC, the psychoactive part, is a cannabinoid, but it is not part of cannabidiols.

Therefore I've added these lines: However what may be true in the concern of adverse effects for cannabinoids, it not likely to hold as for the special case of cannabidiol.

Also, even though it is true that there have not been sufficient experiments in human, there have been several experiments either in vitro, or on animal, the result of which can be found on the American medical database "Pubmed". Some of these experiments have shown inconclusive, but some have shown positive results.

The source where anybody can seek confirmation, viz. "pubmed", is not to be discussed.

My conclusion is that this article is strongly influence by POV of people which are against.

A look at "pubmed" + "cannabidiol" should help to show there is no trickery there.

Yet another point: it's true that it has anti-cancer properties. However none of the article have said that it would be enough... Also it is said, that even though cannabidiols (plural, and also several times it is said "plant extract", viz. cannabidiol is a family of molecules and they have been taken in plant instead of having being synthesize)... Even though cannabidiol has anti-cancer properties, THC also have anti-cancer properties, which are due to different mechanisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.198.107.203 (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have removed the entire cancer section using this edit summary: "Whole section isn't specifically about cannabidiol, so it's somewhat off-topic, and the added editorializing, while accurate, would need sourcing." We need MEDRS compliant sources specifically about cannabidiol to justify this section at all. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Would this help? PetePassword (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm the "editorialist" about cannabidiol+cancer. Though I'm sad you removed my contribution, I approve of your removal of those off topic things that I was trying to amend. So in some way what you did is what I would have liked to do. C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.198.107.203 (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease
The Parkinson's disease sub-topic states that "It has been proposed that CBD may help people with Parkinson's disease, but promising results in animal experiments were not confirmed when CBD was trialled in humans" and cites Iuvone et al.

The article cited claims that "Early human reports showed a dose-related improvement (ranging from 20 to 50%) in parkinsonian patients treated with oral doses of CBD (100–600 mg/day over a 6-week period)" using Consroe et al. as its source for this information.

However, Consroe et al. state that CBD "[...] was given to 5 patients with dystonic movement disorders in a preliminary open pilot study. Oral doses of CBD rising from 100 to 600 mg/day over a 6 week period were administered along with standard medication. Dose-related improvement in dystonia was observed in all patients and ranged from 20 to 50%".

Consroe et al. go on further, saying that "[...] 2 patients with coexisting Parkinsonian features, CBD at doses over 300 mg/day exacerbated the hypokinesia and resting tremor. CBD appears to have antidystonic and Parkinsonism-aggravating effects in humans".

Exacerbated: to make (a problem, bad situation, or negative feeling) worse. Synonyms: aggravate, worsen.

Iuvone et al. misinterpreted Consroe et al. because Consroe et al. claim that CBD worsened Parkinsonian features, while Iuvone et al., who cite Consroe et al. for this information, say that there was a dose-related improvement in Parkinsonian patients. This is a contradiction.

So, the statement "It has been proposed that CBD may help people with Parkinson's disease" is false because Consroe et al. show that CBD aggravated Parkinsonian features.

Also, the statement "results in animal experiments were not confirmed when CBD was trialled in humans" is false even if we assume that Iuvone et al. was correctly citing Consroe et al. If Iuvone et al. was correct, then results in animal experiments were confirmed when trialled in humans to be good, but we know this is incorrect by Consroe et al.. But, then again, it was NOT proposed that CBD may help people with Parkinson's - Consroe et al. suggest that it will make symptoms worse.

I have also e-mailed Professor Iuvone about this misinterpretation. Any article used on the CBD wiki page that cites Iuvone et al. needs to be proof read to ensure that the information regarding the Consroe et al. study is accurate and agrees with Consroe et al.

This is why I deleted the Parkinson's disease sub-topic. It is completely misleading.

Consroe et al. article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3793381

Iuvone et al. article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755-5949.2008.00065.x/full

DystoniaPatient (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for raising this subject here. I tend to agree that the section, as currently referenced, should be deleted. It's a primary source, which violates WP:MEDRS, and we shouldn't have to engage in WP:OR speculations, or contact Professor Iuvone, when such communications wouldn't be a RS anyway. It's better to just get rid of it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm no expert, but your conclusion doesn't seem to hang together. The 3rd para: mentions 5 patients and states; 'Dose-related improvement in dystonia was observed in all patients and ranged from 20 to 50%' which appears to be saying it is antidystonic [as was found in the animal studies http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0014299994004900] The 4th para then mentions 2 patients with coexisting Parkinsonian features, concluding that 'CBD appears to have antidystonic and Parkinsonism-aggravating effects'. I don't understand the difference between dystonic tremors and Parkinsons [is it talking about MS?], and it isn't clear from your quoted texts whether the original 5 patients includes the 2 who are later cited, but that's still 2 adversely affected, 3 not adversely affected surely? As they say, three out of five ain't bad. Perhaps removing all mention of Parkinsons isn't the solution as there looks like there is at least some useful information here, if somewhat unclear, so editing would seem preferable perhaps? PetePassword (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Multiple Sclerosis and secondary source
A while back there was a sub-topic about multiple sclerosis and Sativex that was removed. If there was not a secondary source that acted as a thorough review for the research regarding MS and CBD, I suggest you view this article by Kogan and Mechoulam:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3202504/

My post was directly quoted from the article:

The CBD/THC buccal spray (Sativex) was found to be effective in treating neuropathic pain in multiple sclerosis (MS). A mixture of 2.5 mg THC and 0.9 mg cannabidiol (CBD) lowered spasm frequency and increased mobility, with tolerable side effects, in MS patients with persistent spasticity not responding to other drugs. Oromucosal sprays of Sativex significantly reduced spasticity scores in comparison with placebo. Long-term use of Sativex maintains its effect in those patients who perceive initial benefit. Zajicek et al originally reported that cannabinoids did not have a beneficial effect on spasticity; however, there was an objective improvement in mobility and some patients reported an improvement in pain. Later the same group also found positive effects on muscle spasticity with prolonged treatment. The subject has been thoroughly reviewed.

DystoniaPatient (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

CBD-enhanced cannabis ... in Israel.
'Raphael Mechoulam, a cannabinoid researcher, said "...Avidekel is thought to be the first CBD-enriched cannabis plant with no THC to have been developed in Israel".[30]' The qualifier " ... in Israel" makes this statement much less meaningful. Has such a plant been developed elsewhere? 174.92.101.68 (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

KannaSciences sketchy and shady association with NIH and MLM pyramid scheme to commercialize products
There is no searchable records on NIH of KannaSciences. I smell this is simply some proxy promotion from them. Their Kannaway company is also an MLM pyramid scheme and they also posted it in this article (which I've removed due to promotional content). I know Kannaway is abhorred in the cannabinoid scene and known to be a scam.

Does anyone have any actual references from NIH stating that they're working with KannaSciences or have any agreements with them as per this Wikipedia article? They're simply pointing to a PR of theirs (KannaScieces) as proof and any Google search only returns paid promotional sites. No hint of KannaSciencies associated with NIH, not even under Google scholar or Pubmed.

I am highly skeptic of this, especially since it uses the MLM model to commercialize it's products. Please suggest any actual serious references (if any).

Cheers ArthurJomasSmith 10:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArthurJomasSmith (talk • contribs)

CBD as painkiller
the Dr Sanjay Gupta CNN series on medicinal use of marijuana and esp its component CBD claims substantial use for pain relief, which is not covered at all in this article, - pls add - 23:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC) lil erin 4 preg dopers ref: www.cnn.com/2013/08/09/health/gupta-weed-reaction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3IMfIQ_K6U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2qFDb8LExo  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.18.43.166 (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Unclear statement
In the section Industrial hemp, this sentence appears:

"Worldwide hemp production is around 30,000 tonnes per year."

But the word "hemp" when referring to a plant has two distinct meanings: One is any cannabis plant; the other is the kind that is used in industry, that has little or no psychotropic effects at all.

The fact that this section is titled "Industrial hemp" does not mean that the word hemp by itself is suddenly unambiguous. So if a statement is made about the "hemp" plant, even inside this section it needs to be disambiguated.

But wait! Maybe whoever wrote that sentence meant yet another meaning: The plant material that is extracted from the industrical hemp plant for industrial use, such as making fabric. So even that third meaning is a possibility for the quoted sentence.

This is a mess, but I do not know much about this subject. Someone who is knowledgeable tin this subject will have to fix this.Daqu (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Research section - create
I'd like to add some fresh research on cannabidiol for Graft-versus-Host Disease, but its not advanced enough to quality as a medical indication and I don't want to clutter up the 'Clinical applications' section with every new finding. The [Cannabis (drug)] page has a 'Medical uses' section and a dedicated 'research' section for newer reports.

I think this article should change 'Clinical applications' to 'Medical Uses' and move topics with incomplete evidence to its own section.

Timetraveler3.14 (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not a reliable source for biomedical information; see WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

CBD as treatment for glaucoma?
I remember reading about CBD as a potential treatment for glaucoma all the way back in the early 1980s. A fair amount of research seems to have been done:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1772142/

Is this a current trend, or has this line of inquiry been discarded? And, either way, is it something that the article should mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.153.75 (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Original research and legal opinion of legality in the US removed
I've replaced the original research and final sentence that gives a legal opinion of the legality in the US via a tortured argumentum ad nauseum with current research as a drug in Davet Syndrome. If it's been granted orphan status and approved for testing, it's obviously legal in the US. I'm including the excised section here for archival or other, more skilled editors usage.

The legal status of Cannabidiol in the United States at the federal level is not immediately clear. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) does not specifically list cannabidiol in Schedule I nor in any of the other schedules, However, public statements by the Drug Enforcement Administration have long represented cannabidiol as Schedule I.

The drug Schedules list "Tetrahydrocannabinols" and "marijuana" both as Schedule I drugs under the Controlled Substances Act, cannabidiol is not considered as a Schedule I drug on the basis of being covered by the listing of "Marihuana" or by the listing of "Tetrahydrocannabinols" under Schedule I of the CSA. Under current legislation, Cannabidiol as a singular substance does not fall under the criteria set forth under these guidelines, and is currently regarded as GRAS, or "Generally Regarded As Safe" by default. "Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic substances, or which contains any of its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation (for purposes of this paragraph only, the term "isomer" includes the optical, position and geometric isomers):
 * "Marijuana" has a DEA Drug Code of 7360 (distinct from cannabidiol's Drug Code of 7372) and is defined by the CSA as "all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin." Exempted from regulation under the definition are "the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination." A DEA Interpretive Rule published in 2001 states that the "definition of marijuana was intended to include those parts of marijuana which contain THC and to exclude those parts which do not. ... The legislative history is absolutely clear that Congress meant to outlaw all plants popularly known as marijuana to the extent those plants possessed THC." Cannabidiol isolated by extraction from marijuana sources does not contain THC, and synthetically produced cannabidiol does not contain THC either. It therefore stands to reason that cannabidiol is not covered under the prohibition on marijuana.
 * "Tetrahydrocannabinols" listed under Schedule I of the CSA are unlikely to include cannabidiol. Tetrahydrocannabinols are defined as follows:
 * (31) Tetrahydrocannabinols (DEA Drug Code: 7370)
 * Meaning tetrahydrocannabinols naturally contained in a plant of the genus Cannabis (cannabis plant), as well as synthetic equivalents of the substances contained in the cannabis plant, or in the resinous extractives of such plant, and/or synthetic substances, derivatives, and their isomers with similar chemical structure and pharmacological activity to those substances contained in the plant, such as the following:
 * 1 cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and their optical isomers
 * 6 cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and their optical isomers
 * 3,4 cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and its optical isomers
 * (Since nomenclature of these substances is not internationally standardized, compounds of these structures, regardless of numerical designation of atomic positions covered.)"

Since cannabidiol is chemically not a tetrahydrocannabinol (nor indeed a "cannabinol" of any kind) and cannabidiol has a DEA Drug Code of 7372 (distinct from Tetrahydrocannabinols' designated Drug Code of 7370), it stands to reason that cannabidiol is not considered one of the drugs placed into Schedule I under the listing of "Tetrahydrocannabinols" in the CSA.

Furthermore, cannabidiol was not placed into Schedule I when The Controlled Substances Act was amended in July 2012 with the US Congress' passing of the Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012 (SDAPA) (which came into effect on January 4, 2013 ) to ban various cannabinoids, cathinones, and phenethylamines. The part adding to Schedule I various "cannabimimetic agents" which include molecules more closely resembling so-called "classically" structured cannabinoids reads as follows: "(d) (1) Unless specifically exempted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of cannabimimetic agents, or which contains their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation.
 * (2) In paragraph (1):
 * (A) The term "cannabimimetic agents" means any substance that is a cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1 receptor) agonist as demonstrated by binding studies and functional assays within any of the following structural classes:
 * (i) 2-(3-hydroxycyclohexyl)phenol with substitution at the 5-position of the phenolic ring by alkyl or alkenyl, whether or not substituted on the cyclohexyl ring to any extent."

Cannabidiol, while being a more "classically structured" cannabinoid (not like the much more recently discovered cannabinoid receport agonists with indole rings such as many of the JWH- and AM- named series), was not on the list of specifically newly banned cannabinoids (even among those with a more so-called "classic structure"), and it does not fall into the category of unlisted cannabinoids which are caught by the definition above for several reasons. Primarily, CBD is not a CB1 agonist; it is a CB1 antagonist. Also, unlike CP 47,497's homologues and similar synthetic "classical structured cannabinoids" which the above definition was written carefully to include, the cannabidiol molecule has a cyclohexene ring where the amended law requires a cyclohexane ring, and further cannabidiol does not have the required 3-hydroxyl moiety bonded to its cyclohexenyl functional group where the law requires a hydroxyl moiety bonded to the 3- position of a cyclohexyl functional group.

Extracts and concentrates of hemp products which are high in cannabidiol content are very likely legal under US federal law as long as they meet certain requirements. Marihuana is defined by 21 U.S.C. §802(16), which is part of the Controlled Substances Act, and it has a DEA Number / Drug Code of 7360. Exempted from regulation under the definition of marihana is "the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of any such plant which is incapable of germination." Under this exception, what are known as industrial hemp-finished products are legally imported into the United States each year. Hemp finished products, including hemp oil and extracts of hemp products which are high in cannabidiol, are legal in the United States for this reason.

End of removed section.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Editing Cannabidiol Page for Course
Link to sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SettleGod/sandbox Goals: Expand upon medical applications of cannabidiol, specifically treatment of both schizophrenia and Huntington's Disease. Doing so will necessitate also extending the page's information regarding the drug's biosynthesis. Throughout, compare/contrast molecular effects of THC/other phytocannabinoids versus cannabidiol.

SettleGod (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Alec Jay Shapiro/Maddie Kaminski
 * Before you do that, please read WP:MEDRS and please especially read WP:MEDMOS. You cannot add content about "uses" that are not actually uses. As far as I know, there is no use of cannabidinols to treat schizophrenia nor HD.  There may well be research, but we discuss it as such, not as treatment. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the advice Jytdog. As we posted our edits, we were careful to use neutral diction throughout, avoiding words like "treatment" and "uses" and instead using phrases like "research/studies have shown that--". Let us know if there are any other changes that would benefit the article. Madkamin (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)SettleGod/Madkamin
 * Way way too much use of primary sources. Above I asked you to read WP:MEDRS; you didn't, or didn't understand it... Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Cleaning up Pharmacodynamics?
To User:Jytdog (talk)

This seems old (2008):

"While one would assume that this would cause cannabidiol to reduce the effects of THC, it may potentiate THC's effects by increasing CB1 receptor density or through another CB1-related mechanism."

This is newer (2012):

CBD is shown to reduce the impairment caused by THC-induced euphoria in human study volunteers (performing work-flow tasks). CBD inhibits anxiety and psychotic-like symptoms (such as disconnected thoughts, perceptual disturbance, depersonalization and resistance to communication) induced by THC.

I thought WP doesn't accept blogs (although this one is pretty darn good...:

"It may also extend the duration of the effects of THC via inhibition of the cytochrome P-450-3A and 2C enzymes."

Your thoughts? Thank you Listenforgood (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

New England Journal review or not?!
11:05, 20 May 2016‎ Jytdog (talk | contribs)‎ that's just a comment letter, not a review - not good enough for MEDRS)

I too, saw that comment letter, and thought where did the side-talk come from???

This thing: doi=10.1056/NEJMc1512758 (which was auto-put into the link using the Wiki Template filling tool) points to that comment letter.

The PDF sure looks like a full-blown review to me. Jytdog (talk Am I mistaken?

A clinical review in The New England Journal of Medicine states that since 2013, data has been collected on patients with severe epilepsy (Dravet’s syndrome and the Lennox–Gastaut syndrome). The patients received Epidiolex, a purified cannabis extract containing 99% cannabidiol and less than 0.10% Δ9-THC. Among 137 patients, the median reduction in the number of seizures was 54%.

Instead of

How about

Thank you

-Listenforgood (talk) 07:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is a comment. Yes the Friedman article is a review   doi and PMID are two different ways to point to that same article.  Comments are like "letters to the editor" written to a journal.  A review is a peer reviewed full blown article of its own.  They are different.  Jytdog (talk) 07:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC) (redacted; made a mistake the first time, sorry Jytdog (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC))


 * No apology needed, Dr. Jytdog! Once I get a bit more of this under my belt, I'll catch stuff beforehand. Thank you for your help and assistance! Listenforgood (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)!

Boiling point
I have removed the following boiling point information from the infobox: " 180 °C (range: 160–180 °C) ". This value seems way too low for a chemical compound of the molecular weight of cannabidiol and the source doesn't appear to be very authoritative. A typical predicted value can be found at ChemSpider which lists 463.9±45.0 °C at 760 mmHg. Maybe the 180 °C value is at reduced pressure? In any case, a reliable source for an experimentally determined value is needed. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Editing Approval request
Hi, i'm Tara Shive I need your Approval for add Content in your Page, it is related to CBD Oil (Cannabidiol) and its effects on the body. Thanks Tarashive (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you provide the information here first with appropriate references. Thanks. JuanTamad (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Tittle or Heading: Vaping CBD Oil

Content: Did you know that your body produces its own cannabinoids similar to CBD and THC? The bodies cannabinoids are a part of a system that acts as the “master control system” of the body. That same system is designed to work with Cannabidiol CBD The endogenous cannabinoid system, or endocannabinoid system (ECS), is a recently discovered system of naturally occurring cannabinoids and cannabinoid receptor sites throughout your entire body!

There are two receptors that make up the endocannabinoid system: CB1 and CB2 receptors. CB1 receptors are found mostly in the nervous system, connective tissues, gonads, glands, and organs. CB2 receptors are primarily found in the immune system and the structures associated with healthy immune functioning. Unlike THC, which overstimulates the CB1 and CB2 receptors directly, CBD signals the body’s natural endogenous cannabinoids to activate those receptors to do more of what they do naturally.

With these cannabinoid receptor sites spread throughout our entire bodies, you can only imagine the importance of having these receptors working properly in order to keep this important internal system functioning to protect you. It is through this powerful system that CBD can do its magic, but we cannot make any medical claims. We once again encourage you to do your own research with the information we have provided.

Ultimately, the job of the endocannabinoid system is to promote homeostasis, the maintenance of a stable internal environment despite fluctuations in the external environment.

Source: https://www.hemppurevape.com/ Tarashive (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nah, this is tosh from a dubious source. Any WP:Biomedical information needs to be sourced to WP:MEDRS, like review articles in reputable medical journals. Alexbrn (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Uses for cannabidiol other than as an anticonvulsant
The number of different possible uses outlined in academic studies for cannabidiol far exceeds epilepsy and psychosis: ADHD, drug addiction (nicotine, marijuana, alcohol, etc), diabetes, PTSD, insomnia, depression, ischaemia, Parkinson's disease, cancer, etcetera. For this reason, I have for the time being deleted the very short one-sentence segment on psychosis as a use case for cannabidiol until a more comprehensive list of possible uses has been put forth. The amount of content in this (now deleted) "psychosis" segment does not justify its own section. I propose an "Other Possible Uses" (or similarly worded) segment, and will work on a first draft for this once I find the time to organize the research, unless someone beats me to it, in which I'd be happy to enrich said additions if necessary.

No reason to stigmatize this compound, it has an enormous amount of potential for many use cases. Ddd1600 (talk) 06:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no solid evidence it's of any medical use at all, but there is a lot of pressure behind the notion it's some kind of wonder drug (with a background notion - especially in the USA - that this is somehow being suppressed by The Man). As with any drug we stick to established knowledge from the strongest sources with WP:MEDRS in mind. Alexbrn (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

That is perfectly fine with me, but before I ever edited anything there were several claims already that were not reflective of body of research that has been done as is. If we want to go ahead and remove all possible medical uses, I'd be OK with that too, but if not, the full body of research should be reflected, not just some handpicked set of conditions out of a sea of (mostly inconclusive) research that has been done. Ddd1600 (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MEDRS we reflect what has permeated through to the secondary literature, and generally ignore primary research. Alexbrn (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Counterfeits
I'm curious about the reasoning behind this revision. It seems to introduce a pov skew that hemp oil is counterfeit cbd (which is not found in the reference, so wouldn't that be OR?), and it puts some undue emphasis on the Stanley brothers (the documentary is about medical cannabis and cbd... Why insert an advertisement for the Stanley brothers in this article?). 68.186.26.225 (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On reflection all that hemp oil stuff is undue/incidental - so removed. I don't see any "advertisement". Gupta's item was on Charlotte Figi and Charlotte's Web.r Alexbrn (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you please restore your removal of ===Counterfeits===. --Jilja (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's fine now I think. This hemp oil content doesn't belong in this article (if anywhere, really). Alexbrn (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC); amended 19:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't you understand that hemp oil is sold as CBD oil? Can you help here ? --Jilja (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What I see is that some years ago the Hemp Industry Association claimed "confusion" in order to boost its own product ("It’s very nutritious"), and this was only covered in ultra-weak sources. It's completely undue unless can show sourcing that shows it enhances our understanding of CBD - which is meant to be the topic of this article. Alexbrn (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we add this source?: "2016 Warning Letters and Test Results for Cannabidiol-Related Products".a number of products are marketed as containing certain amounts of CBD, but don't


 * Looks useful - a number of products are marketed as containing certain amounts of CBD, but don't. Alexbrn (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can you please add it for me? I don't want it to be biased. --Jilja (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I added it, with your sentance. Thanks. --Jilja (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I already had. Alexbrn (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Medical use and Research sections
Their content seems to evoke an indistinguishable theme. Both talk about research and current preparations available. Should they be molded into one section? Mangokeylime (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

World Health Organization report on CBD
Some articles covering it:
 * World Health Group: Pot's CBD Has Health Benefits. By Kathleen Doheny. Dec. 15, 2017. WebMD. "The experts produced the report in November, while the WHO announced its conclusions this week. In May, the committee will study cannabis and cannabis-related substances more fully."
 * Medical Marijuana's Main Ingredient Isn't Dangerous or Addictive, World Health Organization Report Says. By Melina Delkic. Dec. 14, 2017. Newsweek.
 * CBD Has No Health Risks Claims World Health Organization. By Terry Hacienda. Dec 16, 2017. The Fresh Toast.

The full report:
 * CANNABIDIOL (CBD) Pre-Review Report. Agenda Item 5.2. Expert Committee on Drug Dependence. Thirty-ninth Meeting. Geneva, 6-10 November 2017. World Health Organization.

I will not have the time or energy to incorporate any of this into the article. But I thought I would drop off a few articles, and the full report link. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

What happened to the section covering Leweke, Schubart and antipsychotic properties?
Dear Jytdog et al.,

After "Revision as of 03:53, 10 July 2017" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabidiol&diff=789866677&oldid=789858007 this disappeared: "There is tentative evidence that CBD has an anti-psychotic effect, but research in this area is limited.[19][20]"

What happened?

Thank you, Listenforgood — Preceding unsigned comment added by Listenforgood (talk • contribs) 08:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

More studies and references
More CBD studies, and possible references, linked from inside these articles: --Timeshifter (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Top CBD Cannabis Studies of 2017. By Josh Kaplan. Dec. 28, 2017. Leafly.
 * A new study has unexpectedly shown an ingredient in cannabis could be useful for treating psychosis. By Philip Mcguire. 28 December 2017. The Independent.


 * Cannabidiol, or CBD, Benefits for Pain, Mental Illness & Anxiety. Article links to studies, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Legal status in the US: schedule I or unregulated?
The current sidebar states that it's Schedule I in the US. However, the main legal section Cannabidiol seems to imply that it's legal and unregulated. This seems semi-contradictory and could use some expert attention to explain what exactly the legal situation is. --Gwern (contribs) 00:02 20 March 2017 (GMT)
 * I've added an intro paragraph to that section explaining that CBD is a Schedule I drug and illegal at the federal level. The whole section still needs more work. For example, the Agricultural Act of 2014 only allows hemp to be grown for research purposes by universities and state department of agriculture. Right now, the section seems to imply that it legalized hemp (and therefore CBD).
 * Also, I'm not sure why Utah is the only state that gets its own paragraph. The paragraph should probably be re-written to address all of the state-level laws regarding CBD in a general sense. --Surachit (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of your points and have revised the section accordingly.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is some more info:
 * Are you breaking the law when you buy hemp products? By Beth Warren, Louisville Courier Journal. Nov. 30, 2017. Updated Dec. 6, 2017. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It actually IS legal in the US- while the DEA has a code for CBD- meaning that the DEA recognizes it as being a "Drug" it DOES NOT appear in the current official Schedule I listings, nor does it appear in any of the other official schedule listings per the DEA's own admissions via the DEA website. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Only the FDA approves drugs in the US, and CBD is not among those approvals, except for the specific epilepsy uses described in the article. Background here and here. --Zefr (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Zefr, The legal status Has little to do to with whether or not it's "approved" or not- Something need not be "approved" by the FDA to be legal to posess. (Example- Caffeine is not an FDA approved drug, but there are no laws against possessing caffeine.)  The FDA Doesn't regulate herbs and supplements, therefore will probably decline to exert it's authority at all with respect to Cannabidiol, because it would be classified as an herb or supplement by the FDA. Drug Approval is only a small part of the legal criterion required to make a substance a controlled substance under the DEA regulatory authority. Notably the federal courts have said that the DEA Has to meet ALL of the criterion required by the federal statute, not just ones relating to medical uses licensed by the FDA. The sources you mention are secondary sources as compared with the sources I have which are the official Controlled Susbstances Classifications as Published by the DEA, which is a primary source. Primary sources are to be considered to be more reliable than secondary sources. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

For Everyone's reference, this is an exhaustive list of all Cannabanoids that appear in Scehdule I per the United States. Notably, Cannabidiol Isn't There. This sums up Proof positive that CBD ISN'T A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE.

Page getting politicized
I would like to make a plea for everyone to keep it scientific/academic on this page. The legality of CBD varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, internationally and domestically. The laws seem to change almost monthly. Lets try to give our readers something they can rely on, like the very slowly growing body of scientific information being accumulated on this molecule? Thanks.
 * New Talk topics go to the bottom of the page, WP:TALK. Please use the signature icon to sign and timestamp your edit. Also, you should list the areas that need improvement while providing WP:MEDRS-quality sources for other editors to review. --Zefr (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem with that notion is that issues of legality are first just as notable and encyclopedic as points that are strictly of a scientific nature; especially with respect to U.S. law, since U.S. law has a tendency to profoundly shape the law in the rest of the world, especially with this kind of subject matter. Therefore, there is very little politicization of the issue- rather, there are issues of the correct interpretation of the information, and are therefore differing opinions on such. The problem with most of the scientific claims about CBD is that most of them are just that- nothing more than claims, because most of the studies aren't in a stage that passes peer review; hence they aren't considered by the scientific community to be reliable sources, yet alone sources that are reliable enough for an encyclopedia. Also, please don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages. (The first paragraph under this section heading appears to lack a signature.) Thanks. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Legal status as its own article
Is the content on legal status worthy of being its own article? David notMD (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, I would say probably not- given current Wikipedia Policy. This is because of the fact that legality is an essential attribute that people generally want to know about a substance, and that forming such disambiguated pages hasn't been the majority consensus thus far on Wikipedia. (Where the policy has generally been to avoid disambiguation pages where feasible.) Approaching things this way would be a broad policy statement, which would be most appropriately addressed under the tact of forming a new policy that should apply to all pages involving substances and herbs commonly treated as a "drug". Thus, it would require a tremendous amount of editing across Wikipedia in order for the content to be relatively consistent in nature. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Health claims content needs to be MEDRS
Article content on health effects (benefits, adverse effects) should rest on citations that meet WP:MEDRS standards. This excludes in vitro and animal work, and individual human trials; includes reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and governmental position papers. David notMD (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

David, The problem with this is that we largely don't have much in terms of systemic research on CBD that is of a high enough quality to pass peer review. Therefore, most of the "governmental position papers" aren't scientifically reliable enough to meet the needs of encyclopedic content, because at this point they represent nothing more than governmental claims which have yet to be scientifically proven to any appreciable scientific standard. The fact is that about 95 percent or greater of the available information on CBD would constitute primary sources. Thus, I find WP:MEDRS to be extremely inappropriate for purposes of this article. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Noting that these comments by 71.91.178.54 are strictly opinion -- poorly informed opinion, in fact. The article's sources on cannabidiol here are like those of any other emerging scientific topic in an arena of new government regulation: peer-reviewed literature by expert university, industry, and government scientists guides the regulations, just as it should and has done countless other times for emerging new drugs. WP:MEDSCI applies for this new literature. --Zefr (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A thought - the Research section (at end) may be an appropriate place to describe ongoing research as long as made clear that the information rests on animal studies or individual clinical trials. David notMD (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Zefr, the problem with your line of thinking is that at the end of the day, most of those references are primary sources- i.e. they link to the scientific papers themselves as published in a scientific journal. Secondary sources should be written in the second person, not the first person, as most of the links do here. Therefore, most of these links don't comply with WP:MEDRS by reason of being primary sources. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

“Plant sources” isn't really true to its name
I came here to learn about the various sources that CBD can come from, but instead I got a short section on farming and some other unhelpful stuff. Maybe the “Plant Sources” section could be more about where CBD comes from. Or have its own section. Jérémy Chevallier (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You can propose revisions to the content here on the talk page, with a WP:RS source to support such changes. --Zefr (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Cannabis. Editor2020 (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Reclassification as Schedule V
The DEA has announced plans to reclassify CBD as Schedule V, effective tomorrow (September 28th, 2018).

It appears that the legal status on the sidebar has been updated already, but the section of the article for legal status in the United States has not yet been updated. It seems as though some significant re-wording is in order. I wonder if anybody is willing to discuss a better way to phrase this section in light of this change in U.S. legal status. Personally I think it would be worth leaving much of the current wording in place, but simply changing present tense to past tense, in order to explain the history as to why it was able to be sold despite its previous Schedule I status.

Psychonaut25 8:37 PM EDT, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's wait until we get a RS directly from the DEA. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's the same document from the DEA, and here it is from the Office of the Federal Register.
 * Psychonaut25 4:18 PM EDT, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Legal status: Canada
The only reference given for this flimsy "section" (it was literally one sentence) does not specifically mention the legal status of the compound cannabidiol, and for that matter, neither does the legislation. Additionally, as the law in Canada did not in fact legalize cannabis across the board (that is to say, it only removed criminal sanction for so-called "legal cannabis"; in other words, only that which is taxed and regulated by the government, despite the black market still dominating sales), that means that most of the cannabis (and thus, cannabidiol) in Canada remains illegal. Enough with this goddamned cheerleading for a given political party. It's very transparent! 174.89.132.146 (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Zero mention of any political party here. What is transparent is your POV on topic not even covered in this article.--Moxy (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Half life
The article reads “The elimination half-life of CBD is 9 hours.” However, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4189631/ claims that “the half-life of CBD when taken orally is about 1 to 2 days” (citing https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4707667/ that says “The terminal half-life of CBD in humans is estimated at 18–32 hours.”). Blanu (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ per Devinsky review under Metabolism and elimination. --Zefr (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Medical uses section: CBD for anxiety (MEDRS)
"Preclinical evidence conclusively demonstrates CBD's efficacy in reducing anxiety behaviors relevant to multiple disorders, including PTSD, GAD, PD, OCD, and SAD, with a notable lack of anxiogenic effects. ... Human experimental findings support preclinical findings, and also suggest a lack of anxiogenic effects, minimal sedative effects, and an excellent safety profile." PMC 4604171

Leaving notes here for my future use (spurred by this recent revert due to insufficient RS), or for whomever has the time and inclination to add.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   07:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Added all but highlighted bits.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   04:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi,, thank you for the correction. I see this paper was published in 2015 so I'm a bit confused. Is any of it of use to us? Do we normally reject the entire source because they refer to a study from the '70s? Thanks in advance.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - the 2015 Blessing article from above, PMID 26341731, clearly shows the absence of rigorous human studies on the potential psychoactive effects of CBD. The state of literature is just too early to say anything about CBD psychoactive effects for the encyclopedia. As for the 1972 research (don't know what you mean by saying it "was published in 2015"), there are 59 'review' articles since 2000 retrieved today by PubMed, but none of these is a systematic review of completed, high-quality clinical trials. Again, for use in the encyclopedia, much more advanced research is needed before anything can be said about CBD and anxiety, other than it has research interest. --Zefr (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

CBD-only medicine versus inclusion of THC or other cannabinoids
Sativex, a 1:1 THC/CBD formulation, does not belong in this article. I removed its mention and source (as there is no effort to parse out effects of CBD from THC, and is therefore of no use to us). My edit was reverted by with  "don't follow your logic of this only discussing pure CBD and it is seems a bit silly to omit the first cannabis-based medicine."

The misunderstanding is that this isn't about "cannabis-based medicine" (which includes THC, like Sativex). You may be thinking of the "cannabinoid" article where its mention is warranted. This article is dedicated "pure CBD" medicine. It's easy to get them confused.

If this reasoning is accurate, would another editor please restore this version. If not, please explain why medicine including THC is relevant to this article. Thanks,   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting the discussion. The main point I disagree with you on is that this should be/is exclusively about CBD. The article is about all aspects of CBD and Sativex contains CBD so it seems entirely appropriate to me to include it in the medical uses section of this article, as well as in THC and cannabinoid articles. What makes you think the article is about "pure CBD"? SmartSE (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "Pure CBD" were the words you used in your edit summary. This article focuses on CBD and its effects. What does a mention of Sativex tell us about CBD's effects if it makes no attempt to let readers know what THC is responsible for, and what effect CBD has on its own? It's almost too obvious to state, but we don't have any idea if the effects of Sativex are exclusively due to THC.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   22:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The section containing its mention is about Multiple sclerosis pain. What do we know about CBD's effects on MS associated pain? Our article tells is nothing, and mention of Sativex makes no sense. A good PubMed search for CBD and MS pain would make sense. But the Sativex mention doesn't.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   22:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * So I did... but I was paraphrasing your original justification: "This article is for CBD and CBD-only formulations". I haven't looked into the relative effects of THC/CBD but that's irrelevant to the fact that it is a medicine that contains CBD and this article is about CBD. It wouldn't be included if it didn't have some effect, even if that's just reducing the abuse potential. SmartSE (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are using WP:OR now.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I've linked to this section at the Project Medicine talk page to get a few more opinions.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * concur w/ Petrarchan47 MEDRSIdentifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) should be followed not WP:OR--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Ermm yes I've never disputed that, but it's not like we're short on MEDRS sources:   . SmartSE (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * No one has suggested MEDRS isn't available for Sativex. If there is any parsing of the effects of CBD in your linked papers, draft a new paragraph. With the present wording, Wikipedia suggests that CBD is synonymous, for all intents and purposes, with what is a 1:1 THC/CBD formulation. CBD and Sativex cannot be presented as synonymous if we want to have any respect as an encyclopedia, and unless we parse or fully address the individual effects for the reader, it should be removed.


 * No one has suggested Sativex has no place here, but it needs to be in proper context so as not to mislead. What about creating a section for 'Pharmaceutical preparations containing CBD'. Sativex' effects can be listed there. If we have no MEDRS on CBD-only effects re MS pain, then my removal was indeed a correction, which was my intention.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   22:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I've done some rearranging, implementing the idea to move Sativex to its own section. I removed the mention of individual effects, Smartse, because the source used was not about Sativex (see WP:SYNTH) and the details were too vague to be meaningful. Attenuating effects of CBD are dealt with already in the Pharmacology section.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   08:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I strongly agree with @Petrarchan47. Sativex is in no sense synonymous with CBD, far from it, and the differences are not to be toyed with. THC has significant known dangers whereas CBD doesn't: Page Notes (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Repeated high doses of THC interfere with brain development, which as you may know continues until age 25. See https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00053/full
 * 2) The problem isn't limited to teenagers but probably begins in utero. See https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/4649/presentation/32657
 * 3) People who begin using marijuana before age 18 are four to seven times more likely than adults to develop a marijuana use disorder, and the culprit is undoubtedly THC. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2219953/#S15title
 * 4) Overall, about 10% of marijuana/THC users become addicted. See https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-teenage-mind/201012/is-marijuana-addictive
 * 5) Unlike CBD, THC may induce anxiety or paranoia.
 * 6) There have been several disputed studies and many tragic case reports showing cardiovascular threats posed by THC. See https://bjcardio.co.uk/2015/03/synthetic-and-natural-cannabinoids-the-cardiovascular-risk/
 * 7) CBD has a much larger range of medical applications than THC (forthcoming).
 * 8) As a practical matter, in many countries including the U.S., anyone can buy CBD either over the counter or via mail order no questions asked, whereas, in many U.S. states, products containing more than 0.3% THC are either unavailable or can only be obtained with a prescription.

2018-19 US legal update: Farm Bill vs. FDA status
Due to the 2018 Farm Bill, which removed Hemp/CBD from DEA schedules. This makes it legal in all 50 states, as long as it is below 0.3% THC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:31FD:4F0:8CD4:D977:1A80:F02D (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a misunderstanding of what the 2018 Farm Bill states and the FDA status on CBD products in US commerce. This Dec 20, 2018 FDA announcement explains it:
 * 1) "the FDA requires a cannabis product (hemp-derived or otherwise) that is marketed with a claim of therapeutic benefit, or with any other disease claim, to be approved by the FDA for its intended use before it may be introduced into interstate commerce. This is the same standard to which we hold any product marketed as a drug for human or animal use" and
 * 2) "it’s unlawful under the FD&C Act to introduce food containing added CBD or THC into interstate commerce, or to market CBD or THC products as, or in, dietary supplements, regardless of whether the substances are hemp-derived. This is because both CBD and THC are active ingredients in FDA-approved drugs and were the subject of substantial clinical investigations before they were marketed as foods or dietary supplements. Under the FD&C Act, it’s illegal to introduce drug ingredients like these into the food supply, or to market them as dietary supplements."
 * Further FDA Q&A concerning CBD is here. --Zefr (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I see that one of the cited sources was a Wikipedia article. Per WP:CIRCULAR, we should not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Editorializing
Under the "Non-psychoactivity" section, I removed the following statement: "As the legal landscape and understanding about the differences in medical cannabinoids unfolds, it will be increasingly important to distinguish "medical marijuana" (with varying degrees of psychotropic effects and deficits in executive function) – from "medical CBD therapies” which would commonly present as having a reduced or non-psychoactive side-effect profile."

While it may appear to be simple content blanking of well-sourced material on my part, that was not my intention. Such speculative statements (i.e. it will be increasingly important...) must to be attributed in some way, perhaps to an expert in the field, or it reads as opinion. Alternatively, it can be re-written in a way that does not sound so editorial. Kerdooskis (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I get your quick revert. However, if the statement above is according to the source, then that needs to be clearly communicated in the text, either by placing the phrase in question inside of quotes, or by stating, "According to (source) …" Does that make sense? I have no problem with or argument against the content itself; it just needs to be clear that the importance of this issue is the opinion of someone else, and not the opinion of Wikipedia (which can have no opinion) or its editors. I hope that explains where I am coming from. Kerdooskis (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! Alexbrn (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I went through the sources and came up with an alternative to the current version. According to the studies cited, researchers are working to differentiate between "medical marijuana" and "medical CBD therapies." Since that is the case, I propose the passage in question be changed to:


 * "As the legal landscape and understanding about the differences in medical cannabinoids unfolds, experts are working to distinguish 'medical marijuana' (with varying degrees of psychotropic effects and deficits in executive function) – from 'medical CBD therapies' which would commonly present as having a reduced or non-psychoactive side-effect profile.[10][59]"


 * Basically, replace "it will be increasingly important to..." with "experts are working to … ." Just stating that the research is a matter of fact, as opposed to speculating on the importance of such research. Does that seem fair? I'm totally open to suggestion. Kerdooskis (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The article was very informative and everything was relevant to your topic. All of your links support topics in your article. All of your sources were neutral in my opinion. - T.Davis — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaShaeDavis (talk • contribs) 16:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Kerdooskis (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with CBD-DMH
CBD-DMH is a derivative of CBD, article is a stub for the time being, better understood in context of its parent. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. They are different chemical compounds with different properties.  The CBD-DMH article is not a stub either and if it’s missing context it would be best to add context to that article instead.  Also, there are many other articles about cannabinoids that are chemically similar to CBD, so why single out just CBD-DMH to be merged and not the others?  ChemNerd (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel they have similar therapeutic effect and are synthetic homologues. Could you please give me some examples of other similar articles? My concern there is that someone would look at the CBD article and not realize its cousin at CBD-DMH. Though perhaps not a stub, it is quite brief at this point and I believe it would fit well into the context of the other article. Still, if there are numerous CBD-ish articles that fall into similar categories, then perhaps subdivision is appropriate. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Eveything listed at List of HU cannabinoids is essentially equivalent to CBD-DMH in that regard, plus a subset of the hundreds of other articles at Category:Cannabinoids. ChemNerd (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, those are cannabinoids, but this is actually cannabidiol. Are there other synthetic homologues? I don't really feel strongly about it. I'll leave it open for a bit and then close if no one else chimes in. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should this epilepsy research be added to the Cannabidiol article?
This is a two-part question:

1) Should the following text be added to the CBD article? 2) If yes, should it be added to the Epilepsy or to the Research section?

Source:

Additional comments: History of suggested text: Subsequent related conversations: ___ About the source Authors' previous work - PubMed: Publisher: COPE and OASPA list Frontiers as a member.
 *  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   09:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A version of the above was added to the Epilepsy section on 8 January
 * It was moved a few hours later to the Research section
 * On 5 March I fixed a mistake made during the move and expanded the section
 * 20 minutes later it was deleted as "junk"
 * 20 minutes later it was deleted as "junk"
 * Project Medicine talk: Help identifying medical source at CBD - reliable or junk
 * Reliable Sources noticeboard: Frontiers in Neurology - blacklisted or no?
 * Reliable Sources noticeboard: Frontiers in Neurology - blacklisted or no?
 * Fabricio A. Pamplona - 37 articles
 * Lorenzo Rolim da Silva - 69 articles
 * Ana Carolina Coan - 52 articles
 * COPE statement on Frontiers
 * OASPA
 * It is also on the "whitelist" of the Directory of Open Access Journals
 *  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   09:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Support as nominator.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   09:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As for question 2, the paper should be integrated into the article as all other science has been. In this case the Epilepsy section is most fitting. But I don't feel strongly either way. As it stands, the "Research" section was left with one sentence which is not in keeping with WP's Manual of Style, and frankly looks ridiculous. I'm afraid it tells the reader not to bother reading this article, as we've nothing to offer.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   17:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Linked above are two related noticeboard sections; in both I endeavored to suss out the perceived problems or reliability issues that caused the text to be deleted. In both sections, the reactions were wide ranging, with the only consensus being that Frontiers journals are not blacklisted across Wikipedia. The "open access" journals were for a time added to "Beall's list", controversially, which you can read about in this Nature article. A comparison of Frontiers Media and The Lancet articles shows that controversy and retractions are not uncommon, and don't necessarily speak to the overall quality of content.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   09:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Forum shopping. Has already been shopped to WT:MED and WP:RS/N. Suggest close as disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked at RS/N whether folks thought an RfC would be a good idea. I received no response to that question, and after saying I would be pursuing the RfC option, no one complained.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   19:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose/Support closure per WP:TE and failure to meet WP:MEDRS. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Frontiers is sort of questionable. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the reason I sought more understanding about the rejection of Frontiers from the PM and RS noticeboards - I fail to see how "sort of dodgy" justifies rejection of this paper, and as you know opinions were all over the board, with some saying they have never seen Frontiers rejected before. Therefore it is very subjective, and per WP:MEDRS, Frontier's (temporary) listing as a 'possible, probable or definitely predatory' journal on Beall's is not sufficient reason for rejection. Per our PAG's the listing is meant to be a red flag, not a full stop, so editors can check more closely; per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals should be treated similarly to self-published sources." - There is no lack of peer review at Frontiers, however there is no editorial board or oversight with Beall's list, which is a self-published source and biased against OA journals:
 * "...some criticized Beall for being biased against open access publishing models, and for conflating access rules with business models. Other Beall criteria, while identifying potentially undesirable journal features, are not reliable indicators of predatory publication practices (e.g., exclusion of female members on the editorial board). Thus, WAME cautions against the use of prior appearance on Beall’s list as the solitary method for determining whether a journal is predatory or legitimate.PMC 5493175
 * For our purposes, since we are required to use RS and not subjective opinions, Frontier's listing among "whitelists" like OASPA should not continue to be overlooked in lieu of feelings:
 * Beyond Beall’s List: We need a better understanding of predatory publishing without overstating its size and danger.
 * "An organization that whitelists publishers by accepting them as members is the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA). Members must apply and pledge to adhere to a code of conduct that disallows any form of predatory be-havior."   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   19:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "I fail to see how "sort of dodgy" justifies rejection of this paper". See WP:MEDRS: "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies". Emphasis mine. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The paper in question is a meta analysis, and comes from a reputable journal (whose reputation is judged by COPE, OASPA, DOAJ as in good standing) with an impact factor of 3.5.
 * "Clemons et al. also point out that Beall's list is curated by a single individual. And a number of journals have found themselves on the list despite a long track record of academic publishing. The Frontiers series is on the list of predatory publishers—and does have a diverse array of journal titles. But it was founded as Frontiers in Neuroscience in 2007 by two neuroscientists from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne, Switzerland, has published more than 2,400 papers, and has an impact factor of 3.398. Frontiers in Pharmacology has published more than 1,600 papers since 2010 and has an impact factor of 4.418. Frontiers in Oncology has 1,560 online papers and a respected editorial board and field chief editor but doesn't have an impact factor as yet. The journal websites have a very different look and feel, as if imagining a new vision in publishing. Hard to argue these are not academic journals. Given that the number on Beall's list for 2017 exceeds 1,000, even a 5% error rate could entrap and mislabel a significant number of academic journals and, by extension, those who publish therein." PMC 5330714 (emphasis mine)   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The question isn't if they are academic or not, the question is if they are reliable and reputable. While they are not OMICS Group-bad, they are are the lower end of the reputability/reliability scale. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And re: " There is no lack of peer review at Frontiers", it accepts ~90% of submissions and it has sacked editors for being too selective. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Headbomb, Frontiers has been removed from Beall's list; they have sorted out all controversies to the point that agencies tasked with overseeing ethical conduct among journals have included Frontiers after stating that they reviewed the complaints. So you are essentially re-litigating issues and playing judge which is not in the scope of WP editors. Frontiers has numerous journals, your article about Frontiers in Medicine and Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine has no impact on our discussion about a paper from Frontiers in Neurology. I could just as easily argue that no papers should be allowed from The Lancet due to their publication of a paper linking autism to vaccines, and the subsequent retraction. Both OA and subscription journals have their controversies but at WP, we editors can only look to authorities, WP:RS, to judge a source. You are claiming that your argument can override COPE, AOSPA and DOAJ, and I hope you can see the folly of that notion.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The rejection of Frontiers as a reliable publisher isn't based on Beall's judgement alone, but rather because it has a well-established reputation for publishing pretty much anything in it (see source above), and for sacking editors that want to do rigorous science and reject poor papers (see source above). At this point, I have to ask: Do you have a conflict of interest here? Either because you are somehow affiliated with this paper / its authors / its subject of research / the weed industry, or with Frontiers Media? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no affiliation with Frontiers, this paper, or any publishing company. I have been editing this article for many years and am the second lead editor. We've been waiting a long time for good science in this relatively novel topic, and it's frustrating to have a meta-analysis deleted for dodgy reasons. The paper was deemed acceptable and was edited by the lead editor here, ; it remained in the article for around two months until Alexbrn's deletion. So clearly, it is not a given that anything from Frontiers should be rejected as you suggest.
 * In fact, a new blacklist being recreated here, based on "Jeffrey Beall, Quackwatch, or Wikipedia editors", features Frontiers prominently (in a case of Wikipedians second guessing Beall's retraction) however it does not blacklist Frontiers; it says they are "hit or miss", meaning that according to this project in which you are heavily involved, an editor must further explain why a particular work published by Frontiers is a "miss". (BTW, do you have any affiliation with Jeffrey Beall?)   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   17:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "A new blacklist being recreated..." Not quite. The WP:SOURCEWATCH isn't a blacklist. It's a watchlist. The difference being something being blacklisted means it's guaranteed clear cut case of pure crapness. The Sourcewatch is a watchlist, and simply identifies potentially problematic sources. I should know, I'm the one that designed that listing in the first place.
 * It includes sources which range from questionable, as Frontiers journals are, to pure crap, like OMICS journals are. Frontiers journal, while not great, can be cited in limited circumstances. For instance, basic claims about the names of stuff, or for a date of birth, or for other non-controversial claims. WP:MEDRS, however, is a much higher burden of sourcing, and Frontiers journals, being hit or miss, generally do not meet the WP:MEDRS threshold. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Everything about this stinks. A publisher with a dodgy reputation publishes an article from a scientist at Entourage Labs which claims that their CBD product has more potential (via an "entourage effect") than its those of its rivals. A big WP:REDFLAG is flying here. Alexbrn (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The "entourage effect" is not a product, and I don't see any products for sale at this author's website. What am I missing?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   19:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A WP:CLUE. Alexbrn (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Alex please actually answer my question. What is this author selling? I haven't got a clue after looking through his site. If this is your reason for rejection, it would help if you explained yourself.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * See, where Fabricio A. Pamplona is listed as the scientific advisor of Entourage Phytolabs, which sells weed-products. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The entourage effect is mentioned in this paper from Wiley.com (one of Alexbrn's clients).
 * "Cannabis plants produce a substantial amount of cannabinoids and other secondary metabolites. The cannabis‐based preparations can exhibit their effects by synergistic interactions between their various components, that is, changes in a bioavailability or in cellular transport, an activation or a deactivation of other metabolites, multi‐target effects of synergistic partners and other [100]."
 * They link directly to this paper published by Frontiers.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   17:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that other reliable source exist does not make your proposed source any less terrible. Alexbrn (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that other reliable source exist does not make your proposed source any less terrible. Alexbrn (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose (bot-summon) Source is not independent (see COI disclaimer in the article): FP is responsible for the development of Cannabis-based products at Entourage Phytolab. AC received monetary compensation for consulting work performed for Entourage Phytolab. LdS works at Bedrocan.).
 * Furthermore, the proposed addition is a very selective reading of the article results. If you read the article (here), the metric they use to claim entourage effect is that "patient reported improvement" is higher in extract that in pure-CBD studies, but that metric obviously depends on the study. Figure 2 shows that one study (Devinsky 2015) is responsible for most patient in pure-CBD studies; it has a poor "patient report improvement" score compared to all other studies, but it is probably due to reporting methodology rather than to a real effect. The clinical metric ("50%+ reduction in seizure frequency") that is homogeneous across studies is not affected (methinks it is included in the summary only thanks to the reviewers).
 * Even without MEDRS considerations (is that really a meta-analysis in the MEDRS sense when none of the surveyed papers had an interest in pure vs. non-pure effects?), the proposed addition is sketchy. It follows the usual playbook of scientific-paper-for-PR: say something that is sufficiently careful to pass peer review ("it suggests that maybe potentially there could be entourage effects" / "a small fraction of ground observations need to take into account Earth's curvature") in order to be able to use it as support for some grandiose claim ("entourage effect exists" / "round-Earth theory debunked"). Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Pretty overwhelming WP:MEDRS issues with source. NickCT (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible incorrect information
The article states "State and local governments may also regulate CBD. For example, the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources issued a rule in June 2019 aligning state CBD regulations with FDA regulations." This would appear to most likely be incorrect, if the federal courts use the preemption doctrine given the U.S. constitution's interstate commerce and dormant commerce clauses, thus rendering such state laws unconstitutional on their face, though there aren't any cases yet which are completely on point. This is also certainly not true in the state of Texas, given Texas' House Bill [|HB 1325], which was signed by the governor into law on June 10, 2019, and which inserts language into the law that local governments may not regulate consumable hemp products, with regulation being reserved to the state explicitly. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

FDA status, April-October 2019
The updated (April 2019) FDA regulatory status concerning the approval and marketing of cannabidiol has not changed from this talk page discussion in February 2019, particularly concerning the 2018 Farm Bill. Cannabidiol remains under Schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act, and the FDA has "not approved a marketing application for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. FDA has, however, approved one cannabis-derived and three cannabis-related drug products. These approved products are only available with a prescription from a licensed healthcare provider." The FDA document has a section entitled '''How does the 2018 Farm Bill define hemp? What does it mean for FDA-regulated products?''' in which it states that cannabis-derived products (cannabidiol included) remain under the FDA approval process, which as of May 2019, has allowed marketing only of Epidiolex for rare forms of childhood epilepsy, with no other specific cannabidiol products approved. Concerning the 2018 Farm Bill, the FDA states under paragraph 8: "Even if a CBD product meets the definition of "hemp" under the 2018 Farm Bill (see Question #2), it still must comply with all other applicable laws, including the FD&C Act." Further, under paragraph 9: "Can THC or CBD products be sold as dietary supplements? No. Based on available evidence, FDA has concluded that THC and CBD products are excluded from the dietary supplement definition." --Zefr (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * With rapidly increasing consumer interest in CBD, FDA's public relations effort is providing updates on their ongoing review of business and consumer applications for regulatory approval, provided in the June 19, 2019 release. The main message for 2019: "CBD products are still subject to the same laws and requirements as FDA-regulated products that contain any other substance." The FDA is expressing concern about the long-term, non-prescription safety of CBD, 1) possibly having an effect on liver function, 2) cumulative possibly unsafe effects if various oral or topical products are consumed regularly or alternately, 3) exposure on special populations, such as the elderly, pregnant or lactating women and their children, adolescents, etc., and 4) undefined effects on animals treated with CBD. Some CBD products being marketed with unproven anti-disease claims are being removed from the market, with warnings about false advertising to their manufacturers. The FDA update restates that the drug approval process will be applied to assure safe and effective CBD products with proven anti-disease activity. As perspective, the duration for full drug development is about 3-8 or more years (depending on the disease evaluated), costs to the manufacturer are in the multi-millions (PMID 26908540, PMID 20168317), and the success rate is only 10%.
 * FDA states that there are marketed CBD products added to a food or label as a dietary supplement, and state, under federal law, that it is "currently illegal to market CBD this way". --Zefr (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think you've read the Guidance Documents correctly. The relevant distinction here is Marihuana–Hemp as defined under the statute, and the Farm Bill has altered Title 21 to exempt "Hemp" from the CSA. The definition of "Hemp" is as the second Guidance Document says, though it's actually quoting 7 U.S.C. § 1639o. CBD is not in and of itself covered or not covered Schedule 1, it's what it's a part of that is covered by the Scheduling.  White Whirlwind  咨   04:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This blog post seems like a useful departure point for looking for sources. Alexbrn (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the latest release (16 Oct 19) for how the FDA is monitoring CBD, indicating in these July remarks at the 2019 National Industrial Hemp Council meeting that "it is currently illegal to put into interstate commerce a food to which CBD has been added, or to market CBD as, or in, a dietary supplement." The confusion may be that the Farm Bill released restrictions on growing and marketing of hemp and its various products, discussed here by the FDA in August, saying "The Farm Bill removed significant restrictions under the Controlled Substances Act on the growth, production, distribution, and use of hemp and hemp products. This has contributed to the recent explosion of interest in such products, including one hemp derivative in particular – a cannabinoid known as cannabidiol, or CBD."

''From Lowell Schiller, JD, Principal Associate Commissioner for FDA Policy: So what does this mean in practice? Which specific rules and authorities are relevant to hemp, and how do they apply? The answer depends on what type of product you’re talking about. As I said earlier, FDA regulates a lot of different types of products, and the rules vary by product type. For example, if you have a product containing hemp, or a hemp derivative like hemp seeds or CBD, and you market it as a human drug, then it’s subject to different rules than if you market it as a food, or a cosmetic, or a veterinary product – product types that all have their own rules. And if the hemp is developed into a product that FDA doesn’t regulate, like biodiesel or clothes or jewelry, then there may not be a role for FDA anywhere in the life cycle of the product, all the way from the farm to the ultimate end user. We recognize the need to provide clear answers regarding how specifically our authorities apply to different types of hemp products, particularly given the incredible amount of interest in these products. This is especially true when it comes to CBD. Recently, we’ve seen an enormous surge of interest in this substance, and the level of excitement is palpable. At FDA, we’re excited too. We see significant potential in this substance, including potential clinical uses.''
 * In this July 2019 FDA warning letter to a company marketing hemp CBD products, the FDA Director of Compliance stated under Dietary Supplement Labeling that CBD products "cannot be dietary supplements because they do not meet the definition of a dietary supplement" under numerous sections of the Code of Federal Regulations. In short, although hemp products that may contain small amounts of CBD can be marketed, CBD extracted from hemp and intended for sale individually remains illegal in the United States as of October 2019 for marketing as a drug, food, beverage or dietary supplement. --Zefr (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm too busy to go through these individually at the moment, but focus for a second on that last warning letter: that has to do with a company's marketing of its CBD-containing products in a way that the FDA concludes probably qualifies them as a "dietary supplement" under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. It has nothing to do with the Controlled Substances Act or drug scheduling. And remember, my whole point here isn't that CBD is now per se legal in all circumstances, it's that the current language in the article that CBD is a Schedule 1 controlled substance is wrong.  White Whirlwind  咨   16:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I included the warning letter comment on use as a dietary supplement because that is the most common public application of CBD presently. Due to the prolonged clinical research process for drug approval, CBD is likely many years from becoming a prescription drug in the US, at which time it would be off the CSA list. It's clearly stated by the FDA that CBD remains a controlled substance until its undefined issues around safety, dosage, interactions with prescribed drugs, and side effects are determined. --Zefr (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * you keep missing my core point: the classification of a substance as a "controlled substance" and its placement onto a Schedule is a legal matter, not a scientific matter. CBD itself is not inherently a controlled substance. The marijuana and hemp classifications in concert used to make it practically so, but no longer. From the material here, I see no source that supports the assertion that CBD is a controlled substance at all, let alone Schedule 1. Your quote about it being illegal to put CBD into foods or dietary supplements bound for interstate commerce misses the germane quote entirely: "On the federal level, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Farm Bill) removed cannabis and cannabis derivatives that are very low in THC from the definition of marijuana in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)." It is manifestly incorrect to say that CBD is categorically a Schedule 1 substance, since the question turns entirely on THC content. Feel free to provide a citation if I've missed something.  White Whirlwind  咨   00:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's Schedule 1: see . Alexbrn (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that man quoted in the Nature article is wrong. First, any actual approved drug with CBD in it is clearly Schedule V — the DEA published a final order in the Federal Register last year to this exact effect (83 Fed. Reg. 48950). Second, the Guidance Documents I cited above clearly stated that any cannabinoids derived from hemp in the manner specified in the 2018 Farm Bill are not illegal. So, although the situation is complicated, it is quite safe to say that the categorical statement "CBD is a Schedule I drug in the United States" is incorrect.  White Whirlwind  咨   04:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's see - what source is Wikipedia going to go with? (A) an on-point piece from one of the world's most respected journals or (B) the interpretations of a random Wikipedia editor? Alexbrn (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

[https://www.epilepsybehavior.com/article/S1525-5050(16)30585-6/fulltext#s0030 Here, under 6. Legal status of CBD:] "Cannabidiol is not listed separately in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR); it is controlled in Schedule I by definition as a "derivative" or "component" of marijuana (21 USC 802). This is also true of other individual cannabinoids. Only THC is listed separately in Schedule I. According to a position statement from the DEA Office of Public Affairs, CBD from any source is a Schedule I substance. " Also a good discussion in that article of a) 6.2. Hemp as a source of CBD; b) ''6.4. The scope of the Farm Bill, which enables research on CBD from hemp, but requires the same stringent procedures "that human therapeutic research involving CBD would have to be conducted under an IND and approved by an Institutional Review Board;" and c) 6.6. What is the likelihood that cannabis or CBD will be rescheduled?'' Note from this section: rescheduling CBD from Schedule 1 for a therapeutic use will require a New Drug Application, typically a decade-long process under FDA purview to successful completion, although with a high failure rate. As extracted CBD is non-patentable (synthesized CBD may be), who would pay to develop it as a drug? --Zefr (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

18th century?
The History section currently has this statement:
 * "CBD was studied in the 18th century, and was isolated for the first time in 1940..."

What is meant by "studied" here? The study of cannabis resin, not CBD, could have happened that early, but it seems impossible for specific research on any specific substance like THC, CBD, or CBN to happen at that early time. CBD was first isolated in 1940, so it seems that content needs some work.

I'd like to know which wording in the source backs up this idea.

The source does mention the isolation of cannabinol (CBN), a different substance than CBD, in 1896, ergo the late 19th century, so specific research on cannabinol could only happen after that date, just as specific research on CBD could only happen after 1940. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks. --Zefr (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Scientists and pharmacists made Cannabis extracts in the 19th Century (1800's). In 1850 the Societe de Pharmacie held a contest to isolate the active ingredients in hashish. The first words for the oily aromatic syrup were termed Cannabinon, Cannabinol, cannabnine, etc.. Alcohol extracts and tinctures have been used for many centuries and so have evaporated tinctures. CharlesMJames (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)