Talk:Cannabidiol/Archive 2

Side effects
The updated information about the side effects of Cannabidiol are:

There are some known and suspected side effects of using CBD oil, though the side effects are few and minor in nature. It is important to note that not all people experience these side effects and usually only at high dosage levels. Some of the known possible side effects are;

Dry mouth Drowsiness Low blood pressure Dizziness/light headed feeling Inhibition of hepatic drug metabolism/decreased activities of p-glycoprotein and other drug transporters An increase in some patients of tremor

One frequently asked question is whether or not someone will test positive for THC while using hemp derived CBD oil. This is absolutely not the case. You will NOT test positive for THC while using hemp derived CBD oil. Hemp must test out at less than 0.03% THC content for it to be federally legal to use to extract CBD oil. All Happy Tea products contain CBD from hemp derived cannabidiol. More information available on redacted spam — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeconNutincrementors (talk • contribs) 09:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * happytea.com is not a reliable source. Sources for health information need to be WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Insufficient high-quality evidence
Is there a source for this claim? See No_original_research. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the sources that were cited before you edit-warred them away. Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not remove any source! Are you even reading what I am doing??? 31.161.148.196 (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You have removed citations and replaced them with a tag. The lede was doing a good job summarizing the article as was, before you edit-warred the lede into this state. Alexbrn (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is simply not true. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Anybody can compare the versions. You have taken some content &amp; removed the citations it had, tagging it (with rather than  to be precise) so that it appears unsourced. You did this five times. Alexbrn (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * YES! Anyone can compare them and see that you are reading too fast. I didn't remove a source, not even a single time. I had to move sections in the lead three times because you reverted them. The other two reverts you are accusing me off are not reverts and have nothing to do with this dispute. There are no other people involved here.
 * The claim about insufficient evidence is not in any of the sources (wich are still in the lead btw). That claim is original research. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a good summary of the sources cited (and already cited and summarized in the article body). The lede summarizes the body. Alexbrn (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Both sources are still in the lead. Neither of them claim that the research is insufficient. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * They very much do. That is the whole thrust of the Discussion section in the Lancet article for example. Alexbrn (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It says that further studies on treating mental disorders are needed. It says nothing about pain in general and not all movement disorders are related to mental issues (rheumatism for example). I will remove the tag since it does say there should be more research on treating mental disorders with CBD. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It says, "In light of the paucity of evidence and absence of good quality evidence, and the known risk of cannabinoids, the use of cannabinoids as treatments for  mental disorders cannot be justified at this time". Pain is covered by PMID 31447137 which says "CBD and hemp oils remain an unproven therapeutic option". These matters are also dealt with in the article body. Ledes summarize bodies. Alexbrn (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It does not say anything about the risks of CBD. It does not say anything about forms of CBD treatment other than oil. You are drawing conclusions. A few years from now everyone will laugh at this. You cannot stop this in the age of information. For now, congratulations on pushing your point of view. I concede (even though this was never an editwar). 31.161.148.196 (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Legality
All CBD is considered marijuana under Iowa law.

The Bulgaria legal situation is not correct. That article in Forbes is a sponsored article by big Multilevel CBD company. By calling the ministries mentioned, they confirmed that CBD is not allowed as novel food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.217.156 (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this fact worth mentioning? Iowa is one of three states where CBD is still illegal. 31.161.228.68 (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Facts removed
As of 2020 personal use is legal in most states except for Idaho, Iowa and South Dakota. . It is also legal in the UK. . These are NOT MEDICAL FACTS. However these facts have been removed by pov-pushers, claiming the sources are a blog. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment is Free is a blogging space for The Guardian. "leafly.com" is some kind of dodgy commercial site. We need better sources for statements about legality. Alexbrn (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In the UK, CBD oil is for sale in thousands of community pharmacies and other retailers. That probably reverses the burden of proof. Is there a source that says it is illegal in the UK? 31.161.148.196 (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence that shows Leafly.com to be commercial? They don't seem to be selling anything. If you disagree with a source you could just remove the source, put a tag and start a talk. Or are you seriously doubting the fact that CBD is legal in almost every US state? 31.161.148.196 (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * See Leafly. Remember WP:V is policy and so we need decent sources. The position in the UK is set out in the "United Kingdom" section. Alexbrn (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not the American Wikipedia, so I don't see why the US situation should be in the lead and the UK (or Australian) situation should not.
 * I fail to see how a source that has advertising would be unreliable per definition. Is there any consensus or guideline on this? It would mean any newspaper is unreliable because they all advertise. Leafly does not meet the requirements to be called a blog or a |Self-published source.
 * Do you deny that CBD is illegal in only three US states? If you don't then why didn't you just put in a tag or edit the parts you could not agree on? Why was reverting necessary? 31.161.148.196 (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Newspapers (well, some newspapers) have a solid reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you could produce such a source, that would be better. Alexbrn (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing on WP:V to indicate that Leafly is not reliable. There is no guideline that says a source can't have advertisements. If your only concern is that this source has advertisements then why didn't you just tag that? 31.161.148.196 (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a reliable source. If in doubt, ask at WP:RS/N. Alexbrn (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a reliable source if it complies with WP:V. You are trying to reverse the burden of proof. Leafly is not on the list. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a reliable source. If in doubt, ask at WP:RS/N. Alexbrn (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a reliable source if it complies with WP:V. You are trying to reverse the burden of proof. Leafly is not on the list. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I will leave it like this cause all cannabis will be legal soon. CBD is only illegal in three states right now, but go ahead and ignore that. It's 2020, good luck with your fight against this 'evil drug'. You can fool some people some time... 31.161.148.196 (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed removal of all references to the FDA
Perhaps a bit radical, but worth considering, there are numerous sources that show that the FDA is no longer a reliable organisation which focuses on data. Using the FDA to talk about a topic with as much moral baggage as this one is like quoting DeVos on expertise in education or asking the EPA about the environmental impact of oil and gas. I'm interested to hear from others. It's not appropriate, especially for a global audience looking for real information. 78.54.135.37 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I mean outside of the US-legality section it has no place in the article...actually within the US legality section the global reputation of the FDA should be a brief topic...78.54.135.37 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * FDA is a good WP:RS. Alexbrn (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Topical cannabidiol
This article is biased. There is no mention of the use of CBD externally and any attempts to even mention this fact are reverted. It is common knowledge that there are many CBD products that go on the skin. UserTwoSix (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sources? Alexbrn (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31793418/ UserTwoSix (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Legality in the US
Why is this in the lede? This makes the article too US-centric. UserTwoSix (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It's also incorrect - it seems there are a lot of references to Mead 2017 to justify this, which was written before the 2018 farm bill removed 'hemp,' "the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis," from the Controlled Substances Act. It explicitly says that certain varieties of cannabis are not Schedule I, and that the plant all derivatives and extracts are legal.

Mead herself references this in Mead 2019: "Therefore, commercial activity with hemp (including its extracts and cannabinoids) is now lawful." FDA still has issues with it being marketed as a food, dietary supplement, or medical treatment. But the US legality discussion in this article is incorrect and should be updated; unfortunately, it seems it will be a bit of work as it crops up in multiple places in the article. Cryptopocalypse (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I made some changes to reflect the information found in Mead 2019 and the FDA and DEA articles. If anyone has issues with those changes, let's discuss them. We can also move the discussion of US legality out of the lede if it is too country specific. Cryptopocalypse (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We've used FDA in the lede and throughout the article as an example of scientific scrutiny and strict federal regulation, for which no other national agency has provided as much transparency on the eventual legal marketing of CBD. Approval of Epidiolex as a CBD drug in the US also provides context for general users to see the drug development process facing CBD research and product evolution. IMO, the FDA guides on CBD serve an educational role for the encyclopedia, so are useful to retain in visibility. Zefr (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

CBD is only a schedule 5 drug if the THC content below 0.1% and its approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration otherwise its a schedule 1 drug

Cleanup from other articles
Just a heads up I've been slowly working on cleaning up some cannabis strain/variety articles. Charlotte's Web (cannabis) had a lot of content that was very tangential to the strain that I removed recently. A lot of it seems redundant here given the current content, but here's a link across all the diffs in case anyone spots something that could have a use here. Especially things like the Research section really dealt more with cannabidiol products in general. KoA (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 October 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Grayhawk126.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 26 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rcocker. Peer reviewers: Jarogers0998, LaShaeDavis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 September 2020 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dangt1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Split
I was thinking of creating an article for CBD oil but I don't know if said article would have enough specific info to stand on it's own.Americanfreedom (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems like a content fork, WP:CFORK, which, from the general user's view, would be an unnecessary diversion. Can't see there would be enough information on CBD oil to deviate from the main article. Zefr (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also not clear to me either what would really be split either. This already would technically seem to be the article about CBD oil. Maybe there could be more on how it's marketed, but even then, I don't think that would work as a standalone for a new article. KoA (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Splitting is really not necessary. CBD may exist in different forms like tablets, logenzes, patches, oils etc. My proposal is to create a subheading `== products ==` where availability of different forms should be mentioned and `CBD oil` should be redirected to that subheading Machinexa (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps an article of broader scope covering cannabis therapies, but I don't see the need to split.JonathanPlaster (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose split. Content on the oil makes most sense here per WP:NOPAGE. Alexbrn (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

CBD and cancer
It's completely unjustified to say that CBD as an anti cancer treatment is 'pseudo science', hence I have removed that dubious claim. There are countless studies supporting the contrary:

"Global prohibition over the past century has impeded the ability to study the plant as medicine."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33143283/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31447137/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30627539/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31897700/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31775230/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25916739/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31161270/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31811927/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31349651/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32765628/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33562819/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31161270/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34259916/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30707319/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30195736/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22506672/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22506672/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33126623/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33244087/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31699976/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33066359/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21220494/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32751388/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25069049/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30660647/

Taken together, the results obtained in this study re-demonstrated the effects of CBD treatment in vivo, thus confirming its role as a novel, reliable anticancer drug.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29473338/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29441458/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32752303/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17712814/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17712814/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33657198/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20859676/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24910342/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32839414/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31570484/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30713602/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31611561/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22110202/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33466435/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33723124/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22963825/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33812759/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27633508/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31193514/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27769052/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30691796/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33919010/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23349970/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18387516/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24293211/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1159836/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16909207/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25674907/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14617682/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33477303/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24204703/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22594963/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23079154/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15700028/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903924/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25398831/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32340151/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27022310/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33246167/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33912679/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33921049/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33247539/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30597288/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29088769/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33604949/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29992185/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30671539/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25269802/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31075907/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31195721/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32294046/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24373545/

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10495-014-0985-0

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.22917

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31161270/

CBD is one of a class of compounds known as cannabinoids, which are found in the cannabis plant. Unlike THC (the main psychoactive component of cannabis), CBD is not thought to have intoxicating effects.

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/daily-use-of-cannabidiol-cbd-oil-may-be-linked-to-lung-cancer-regression/#:~:text=It%20may%20be%20worth%20exploring,the%20aid%20of%20conventional%20treatment.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/12/211223141935.htm

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-021-01259-3

https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2021/world-first-uk-trial-to-assess-whether-cannabis-based-drug-could-extend-life-for-thousands-with-aggressive-brain-tumours-1 Oz346 (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I clicked the first source, and it was a dodgy journal (from MDPI) and did not support the claim the CBD is a cancer treatment; rather the opposite, since it said it was a substance with potential effects which merited study (like everything else, pretty much). So it seems you're just spamming search engine results. If you have any source which actually says that CBD actual is a "cancer treatment" then produce it. Otherwise, our current source is excellent for fringe claims in general, and the scam claims about CBD in particular. Alexbrn (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not spamming search engines results. I've read every single one of these links!!! Every single one of these links is from pubmed. Pubmed is the premier medical paper database.

"since it said it was a substance with potential effects which merited study (like everything else, pretty much)."

Well even if we say this argument is true, how can you make a definite statement saying it is NOT a treatment? When it has 'potential effects'. You make it sound like anything. I would like to take this to 3rd opinion. Oz346 (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * If you want to say something is "a treatment for cancer" you will need a WP:MEDRS source saying it is. Drawing an editorial conclusion that something can be called a treatment because it kind of might be based on primary research you are not qualified, as a Wikipedia editor, to assess, is forbidden. PUBMED has a load a junk in it, as well as some good sources. Alexbrn (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well i've never said it is a treatment on the actual wiki page. Yes we need it to be more accepted in the mainstream to say that for sure. But i removed the outdated definitive statement saying it is "NOT treatement' Which is frankly nonsense, and from a nonsense website (not peer reviewed itself, and from 2015). If you read all the actual links i've posted, you can clearly see it has anti cancer effects. Anyway mark my words, when it does become mainstream (which does not seem to be a longtime going by the preliminary results from the brain cancer trial), then you will realise what a misleading statement you have inadvertently put back into this wikipedia page, which will mislead many people. Oz346 (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Science-Based Medicine is a "nonsense website"? I think I'm going to disengage. See your Talk page for a notice about discretionary sanctions in effect for this subject area. Alexbrn (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

buy CBD online?
citation https://www.buycbdonline.co/cannabidiol-therapeutic-and-legal-aspects/ - is that a legitimate citation? Doesn’t seem related to the sentence, ref 84 under pharmacokinetics JuanTamad (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just some filthy spam. Alexbrn (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Does CBD Cause Cancer?
This discussion refers to the following line in the Wikipedia article on CBD: "Recently published data also suggest that cannabidiol is a carcinogen." The citation given is a recently-published online article (not apparently peer-reviewed) that aggregates US data about cancer prevalence and self-admitted CBD use. The article comes from a pair of professors in the psychiatry department of the University of Western Australia. It relies on a mathematical construct called "E-value" to distinguish causation from mere correlation. What I did not find in the article was a clear indication of how the authors ruled out the possibility that the causation was in reverse direction from their assumption. Specifically, the very high correlation between CBD use and cancer diagnosis may have been because people with cancer have increased consumption of CBD because (1) it relieves pain, anxiety, depression, and other dysphoria associated with cancer and (2) some people believe it can actually "cure" cancer. The cited article is in need of peer review by somebody brighter about the math than me. I question whether it should be cited in the Wikipedia article without appropriate qualifiers as to its conclusions. 2600:1702:47F0:5230:6022:7150:A3EC:34CD (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * it was primary research. Removed. Bon courage (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

CBD is cannabis, cannabis resin
Cannabidiol is scheduled under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs as cannabis. International Narcotics Control Board reminds Member States that, at the reconvened sixty-third session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, in December 2020, the States members of the Commission rejected the recommendation of WHO that a footnote be added to the entry for cannabis and cannabis resin in Schedule I of the 1961 Convention as amended to exempt from international control preparations containing predominantly CBD and not more than 0.2 per cent of delta-9-THC.https://www.incb.org/documents/Publications/AnnualReports/AR2021/Annual_Report/E_INCB_2021_1_eng.pdf

This ammendment must be done to UN section, there is wrong convention link Ka36ek (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

First THC derived drug
No, Marinol was 1st drug, approved in 1986. CBD is 1st thc derived drug approved for infantile epilepsy. 2603:6000:D700:194D:198B:1E08:E578:576C (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable bevnet.com
The FDA sent warning letters to various companies; this fact is important to the context of the FDA's statement. In order to understand what the FDA was warning about, Author read one of the warning letters; the letter lists the name of a product that an FDA employee found to be questionable. Author wanted to know more about this product, specifically its dosage information. However, Author was concerned that the company may have altered the product and its description as a response to the FDA's warning letter; consequently, Author found a description of the product from a 3rd-party review that was written before the warning letter:
 * Review: Mood33 CBD Herbal Teas (archive)

Why is this source unreliable?

BevNET is a company dedicated to covering news about the beverage industry; from its About Us page:

 BevNET.com is the leading food and beverage-oriented media company, producing a web site, podcasts, print magazine, and live conference series. The company was founded in 1996 by John Craven, with its mission to offer, through products in a variety of media, the best, most comprehensive forum for news coverage, expertise, partnership and support for all members of the beverage community. Since its inception, BevNET.com has become a recognized authority on the beverage industry. BevNET.com and its employees are often used as sources for media publications looking for industry information, including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Detroit Free Press, CNBC and Wired Magazine. BevNET has offices in Newton, MA, New York, NY, and San Diego, CA.

The DNS information seems to agree with that history:

  $ whois bevnet.com |&amp; sed -e '/^&gt;&gt;&gt; /q' Domain Name: BEVNET.COM Registry Domain ID: 1952455_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com Updated Date: 2022-09-13T01:46:58Z Creation Date: 1997-07-10T04:00:00Z Registry Expiry Date: 2025-07-09T04:00:00Z Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC Registrar IANA ID: 146 Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [abuse AT godaddy DOT com] Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: 480-624-2505 Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientRenewProhibited Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited Name Server: NS-1242.AWSDNS-27.ORG Name Server: NS-1892.AWSDNS-44.CO.UK  Name Server: NS-414.AWSDNS-51.COM Name Server: NS-550.AWSDNS-04.NET DNSSEC: unsigned URL of the ICANN Whois Inaccuracy Complaint Form: https://www.icann.org/wicf/ &gt;&gt;&gt; Last update of whois database: 2023-11-26T23:50:09Z &lt;&lt;&lt;

Therefore:


 * Without some evidence to the contrary, BevNET is a reliable source.
 * And, even if BevNET were not a reliable source, the proper solution is one of the following:
 * Mark the information as needing a better citation.
 * Provide a better citation.
 * Either replace the existing citation with a new one, or add other citations for support.
 * Certainly, the solution is not to delete information that is unquestionably germane.

Please offer your comments on this matter. 24.118.62.152 (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding, it may be worth checking for the company's product description page in the Internet Archive from before the FDA letter was issued. Then you're avoiding the company's potential changing of details, and avoiding a third-party to relay the product details.
 * I do agree that the overall context regarding FDA letters here could be useful; but, I also agree that the WP:WEIGHT issue on over-detail can apply here:
 * The entire quote under does not seem to be needed.
 * The bullets under would be better summarized into a couple of sentences to state exactly what you intend to get across with those bullets; as it is it's excessive data. Remember that the reader can open the linked article if they wish to see the language in the source, or data exactly as provided in the source; what should be in the article is a summary of the source without bringing along unnecessary details.
 * Overall, I think the additions that have been made can be shortened to get the point across more clearly (without falling into original research), but the intention of providing context to safety-related claims and dosage does improve the existing text of the article (especially the "Side Effects" section as you mentioned). Kimen8 (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Thank you for the reply. I have applied your thoughts; also, I have broken up one of the quotes, and added some information about the dosing of Epidiolex. Here is the result:

Side effects
[&hellip;]

In 2022, the FDA stated that "scientific studies show possible harm to the male reproductive system, including testicular atrophy, harm to the liver, and interactions with certain medications. The FDA has not found adequate information showing how much CBD can be consumed, and for how long, before causing harm. This is particularly true for vulnerable populations like children and those who are pregnant." The full statement provides links to warning letters that the FDA sent to 5 companies, whom the FDA accused of marketing CBD-based products in a manner not consistent with safety or law. One letter disapproved of a beverage product, namely a 12-oz bottle of herbal tea infused with 33 mg of CBD; In the letter, the FDA invites the reader to review the information on a web page the FDA has dedicated to cannabis-derived products (including CBD); between 25 January and 28 January of 2023, the FDA added to that page of resources the following document:
 * Safety of CBD in Humans – A Literature Review (As of December 12, 2019)

That document summarizes the results of 94 trials, 60 of which involved administering oral CBD with a variety of daily dosages between 200 mg and 1500 mg, delivered for 6 days to 8 weeks (depending on the trial); many of the trials involved patients who were being treated for various diseases, such as seizures, schizophrenia, Parkinson's disease, and fatty liver disease; 21 of the trials provided the "conclusive statement" that "CBD is well tolerated", but the FDA reviewers found such a conclusion to have been drawn "without providing detailed safety results". As also indicated in the warning letter, the FDA reviewers found the clinical trials of Epidiolex to be particularly noteworthy, stating:


 * We reviewed four primary clinical trials that supported Epidiolex approval. [&hellip;] FDA’s review of the four randomized placebo-controlled trials describes Epidiolex’s attributable risks: somnolence (18%; 3% is severe), CNS adverse reactions such as agitation and sedation (1-4%), decreased appetite (16%), diarrhea (9%), and decreased weight (3%).

For the average U.S. adult, the recommended dosage of Epidiolex ranges from 410 mg of CBD per day to 2050 mg/day, spread equally across a morning meal and an evening meal. The FDA reviewers of the clinical data drew the following conclusions on the safety of ingesting CBD orally via administering Epidiolex:


 * "Based on the information in these trials, the estimated risk of severe liver injury, irreversible liver failure that is fatal or requires liver transplantation, is 0.3[%] to 0.4%, although no cases of severe liver injury were reported."


 * "[It] is clear that many patients will develop cannabidiol-induced adverse reactions; however, those observed in the development program would be expected to be detectable by patients and/or caregivers, self-limited, and reversible."

[&hellip;]

Challenge to revert of my edit
Hey all! Please bear with me, as this is my first time trying to do something like this. I study Food Law and feel my edit should not have been reverted. Revert linked here.

Making something 'illegal' implies there is a law specifically banning it. As per the 2018 Farm Bill and subsequent federal and state legislation, this is not the case for hemp-derived cannabinoids. A better term to describe this would be a ban, however, FDA sources specifically say the opposite of what the reversion implies. The most recent official FDA statement on the matter is literally titled "FDA Concludes that Existing Regulatory Frameworks for Foods and Supplements are Not Appropriate for Cannabidiol, Will Work with Congress on a New Way Forward" which strongly implies they're not taking action to ban it and, instead, see a need to make some forms of it illegal by law rather than banning it via regulation. While the FDA has not come out and said this for political reasons, anyone who knows about this situation agrees this most likely the posturing of the agency.

As a result, I feel my edit to replace the word 'ban' with 'illegal' is fair and just. And so, I would like to request that the revert be undone.

JikiScott (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * - To keep clear that manufacturing of food, beverage or supplement products containing CBD is illegal, let's leave the issue of hemp-derived CBD out of the discussion because hemp CBD has little presence in the consumer market - see discussion in the US section.
 * The issue of illegality is addressed in the language of each FDA warning letter to companies marketing CBD products, such as this one (dated 16 Nov 2023), which states that new drugs (defined as nonapproved CBD products marketed with anti-disease claims) "may not be legally introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce without prior approval from FDA," and so are in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, i.e., they are illegally marketed.
 * As stated in the labeling and advertising section, the FDA has issued dozens of warning letters since 2015 to US companies illegally marketing CBD products. Zefr (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Pharmacology section
This revision made use of the regulatory summaries on Epidiolex (pure cannabidiol) for the US and Europe, added a 2024 review (Schouten) and the Drugs.com monograph, and trimmed the outdated primary sources and related conjectural content. Per WP:MEDMOS, we write medical content for the general reader, not including elaborate details of hypothetical mechanisms from in vitro research too preliminary to be included in updated reviews.

CBD is in an unusual place for an encyclopedia: except for Epidiolex, it is not an approved prescription drug having the obligations of establishing dose-response effects (drug "efficacy") and specificity of mechanism via use of a confirmed blocking agent, neither of which exists. To the FDA, it is a dietary supplement having numerous safety concerns that will likely delay its research progress and regulatory approval for many years.

We should not overstate the significance of early-stage lab studies on receptors, hypothetical mechanisms of action, neuronal targets, etc. for a compound still mainly in the supplement category, as no other dietary supplement article carries such content. This is where WP:MEDASSESS applies. Zefr (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Your edit is only within the context of epidiolex's implications, which is epilepsy, this page is for cannabidiol as the compound, not one officially licensed brand name of CBD, the pharmacology section is not exclusive to whatever medical implication it may pertain to, the pharmacology section pertains to whatever interactions said drug may have on any given receptor, whether it is clinically signifiant for any particular aliment or not.
 * None of the contents within the page prior to this grief were unsubstanitated, everything that had been written in regards to how CBD interacts with CB1 and CB2 receptors were substantiated with legitimate scientific literature, infact the page was lacking in regards to its interactions on the alpha-1 adrenergic, u-opioid receptors and many others, (which while may be deemed clinically insignificant, again does not invalidate the pharmacology of the compound).
 * You know all of this, you're not ignorant to this, but you are determined on griefing this wiki, and i had given you the grace of not reporting it and instead advising you of not reverting people's edits but you really leave me no other choice here but to report your profile. Databoose43 (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No one is 'griefing'. Making personal attacks is not going to help you get your preferred changes into the article. You should stop edit warring and insulting people and instead work on getting consensus. If you plan to report Zefr's 'profile', I would have a read of WP:BOOMERANG first. MrOllie (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't plan to, i already did, your report was also not a plan as well, it happened. Databoose43 (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussing CBD receptors
There are several reasons why this revert is justified. Note to. 1) there is only limited evidence for biological activity of CBD in vivo (only rare forms of epilepsy are treatable with Epidiolex, a pharmaceutical form of CBD); 2) the CBD receptor mechanisms discussed in the reverted text are sourced by 7-17 year old lab studies, i.e., out of date preliminary information; 3) the text defended by Databoose is conjecture: "affinity is ambiguous", receptor function "could be"... (opinion editing, hypothetical), "can counteract and reduce both the receptor activation"... "to a clinically significant degree" - there is no clinically significant degree, except in rare seizures; 4) the mechanism of Epidiolex action is unknown; 5) the reverted section beginning, "That being said" is pure conjecture and jargon incomprehensible to the general non-science reader - see WP:MEDMOS, Writing for the wrong audience.

The rest of the pharmacodynamics section has little value. It is based partly on conjecture ("may be", "may involve") from outdated literature and all on preliminary lab research not well represented by WP:MEDSCI reviews. It's possible some receptor information could be retained, but it should be a summary written for the non-science user. Zefr (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm going to respond to this one by one as i believe it's the best format for this context. Bold and quotations is what the other user is claiming, the non-bold non-quoted text below is my response to the claims.


 * 1. " There is only limited evidence for biological activity of CBD in vivo (only rare forms of epilepsy are treatable with Epidiolex, a pharmaceutical form of CBD); "
 * I have no idea what you are even referring to here, i did not mention epidiolex within my edit.
 * Epidiolex is CBD in pharmaceutical form, is approved as a prescription drug in many countries, and is the only CBD product proven to work on brain function (as an anticonvulsant). To achieve international regulatory approval, it would have undergone exceptional scrutiny, as for all approved drugs, including its side effects and possible mechanisms. But the DailyMed states that its mechanisms are unknown (i.e., inadequate definability about CBD receptors from lab research) and '"Cannabidiol does not appear to exert its anticonvulsant effects through interaction with cannabinoid receptors." Epidiolex serves as the example for what is (un)known about CBD receptors in the brain. Zefr (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Then i'm not sure you're referring to the same edit here, i don't remember mentioning epidiolex or its mechanisms in the context of anticonvulsant properties. Databoose43 (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The point is that Epidiolex - pure CBD - is the only scrutinized, approved CBD product with proven in vivo effects. If scientific committees and national regulators responsible for its marketing approval don't know what its mechanisms are, then Wikipedia shouldn't be attempting to explain CBD receptors and mechanisms of action because this work is far too preliminary and unconfirmed to be treated as encyclopedic content or even as advanced research, WP:MEDINVITRO and WP:MEDASSESS, left pyramid, bottom. In the pharmacodynamics section, it would be accurate to say: "As of 2024, the cellular effects and mechanisms of CBD in vivo are unknown." Zefr (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * They don't know what the mechanisms are, for its anticonvulsant properties, however we do know a good deal of information unrelated to it being an anticonvulsant and how that mechanism works.
 * For example, it is well established in science that CBD is a CB1/CB2 antagonist, the affinities and extent of that? We don't know clearly, and i made that clear within the edit.
 * Another example, it is well established that the CB1 receptor does contain at least one, or possibly even more allosteric binding sites, that it is established CBD is a negative allosteric modulator for.
 * Just because science does not know one thing does not mean that we don't know anything at all, the knowledge of how a compound works, builds up over time as hypothesises are made, challenged, tested, studied and reviewed. I completely disagree with this black-and-white take that just because we don't understand one thing we understand nothing. Databoose43 (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * 2. "the CBD receptor mechanisms discussed in the reverted text are sourced by 7-17 year old lab studies, i.e., out of date preliminary information;"
 * Then if you believe you have more up to date information that disproves my cited papers, edit it and provide it, this is scientific methodology 101, instead of griefing my edit and effectively throwing away my hard work of going through the papers and trying my best to verify the information i was going to claim within the edit, you simply could have just overwritten the edit with more credible literature if you believe the literature i had provided was inaccurate, or incorrect, the literature cited being older does not automatically invalidate it, if there is no newer discoveries made or difference in findings, original literature, "dated" or not, it is still considered the best that we currently know of, but you had chosen to completely nuke my work that i spent multiple hours on out of my free time, and that is extremely inconsiderate.
 * Of course, we all appreciate the editing work of new editors delving into tricky topics like CBD receptor mechanisms - a poorly understood topic. If the CBD receptor literature was making significant progress, there would be reputable reviews published within the past 5 years, WP:MEDDATE. This 2024 review is broad, but has a section on 2.1 The endocannabinoid system (ECS) and its role in regulating brain function where a rewrite of the first paragraph is likely all we need to say about brain CBD receptors. This 2020 international analysis gives the clinical perspective on CBD as Epidiolex. Zefr (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Again i am not familiar with how CBD's mechanism works in regards to being an anticonvulsant, as far as i've heard it is currently poorly understood, it is just understood that it works.
 * I wasn't making claims that CBD's antagonism is ambigious to try to say that CBD may not be an effecacious anticonvulsant, if that's what you think i was trying to do in the edit, epidolex (CBD) is as i understand it a very legitimate anticonvulsant. I don't disagree with you here. Databoose43 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * 3. The text defended by Databoose is conjecture: "affinity is ambiguous", receptor function "could be"... (opinion editing, hypothetical), "can counteract and reduce both the receptor activation". "
 * Conjecture is not only commonplace within wikipedia as an entire platform with a countless amount of highly regarded wiki pages but in scientific literature itself, there is an obvious and clear reason as to why i made the statement that "the affinity is ambiguous"., 'because it is VERY important for the reader to be aware that we do not yet (to my knowledge, unless you can provide other papers proving otherwise) have good clarity on the topic.
 * Medical content on Wikipedia is highly regarded in the public, and conjecture should not be part of explaining medical content per WP:MEDREV (A reason to avoid primary sources in the biomedical field – especially papers reporting results of in vitro experiments – is that they are often not replicable, and are therefore unsuitable for use in generating encyclopedic, reliable biomedical content.) and WP:MEDORG (clinical and scientific organizations which do not yet accept roles for brain CBD receptors). Zefr (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I should have been more clear, when i say conjecture, i do not mean completely random baseless conjecture, the conjecture that i had written and explicitly made clear to the reader that it was conjecture, was heavily substianitated and based on the literature that i had cited.
 * But as you link these wikipedia guidelines, i do understand where you're coming from and while i personally believe (very substantiated) conjecture should be fine, if the guidelines state otherwise then you are correct for the edit undo, however i believe stating that an exact CB1/CB2 affinity is not currently known (to my knowledge, i have searched and i can't find any papers on this), is important. Databoose43 (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Previous to my edit, there were two citations linking to papers in regards to CBD's activity on CB1/CB2, one claiming low affinity antagonism of CB1/CB2, and another claiming potent antagonism, this is extremely crucial to point out for the reader.


 * The last part of this critque of my edit is simply a misrepresentation of what was said, i said both the combination of CB1/CB2 antagonism, even if weak, alongside negative allosteric modulation of CB1 receptors from CBD, a potent enough to be at the level of clinical significance, meaning that even if it were a very weak cannabinoid antaongist, its negative allosteric modulation could be most of the reason we seem to observe reduced effect from THC (or any other CB1 agonist) when CBD is administered. (and i provided citations showing that there both is an allosteric binding site for CB1 and that CBD is a negative allosteric modulator for it, i recommend you give it a read)


 * I appreciate that you even took the time to crtique my edit, but i just simply disagree here, where i made conjecture, i made it absolutely clear to the reader that it is conjecture because of a lack of information about an exact affinity for the cannabinoid receptors with CBD.


 * Thank you and have a good day, data. Databoose43 (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See my individual replies above. We can let other editors chime in on this discussion, but I feel the pharmacodynamics section is too premature to include, lacks a recent conclusive review, and is too much jargon for the general reader, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK #6-7. Zefr (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand the topic is complex for people who are not knowledgable in the field of pharmacology however it is impossible to contain a page of information about a given complex topic, if you do not delve into the complexities of the topic itself. Databoose43 (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To make it clear, we do not bar information simply because it may be too complex for a layman in the context of pharmacology to understand, if you look at any other page in regards to any other technical concept, for example the C programming language, you will see information on that page that a layman, having not yet studied the language, will probably have a hard time understanding.
 * This is fine, it is more nessecary to keep in nessecary information that pertains to the topic, rather than delete important information to make it more easily readable by any given reader, this is a field of science, not a coloring book. Databoose43 (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A lay reader should be able to understand our content. Bon courage (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well we need to be more specific on what we believe a layperson to be in this context then, if you are meaning to say a person who doesn't study pharmacology and has little information regarding it, but can follow up on citations and other wiki pages (such as the THC page) to understand what these receptors do and how they function, and how CBD effects them, then i believe the page does succeed in doing that.
 * However, if our reference of a layperson is someone who doesn't study pharmacology, has little information regarding it, but does not follow up to other pages, points of information and citations, then yes, the page fails at that, however we have to weigh the importance of having literally anyone to be able to understand all parts of the page, with critically important information in regards to the topic.
 * For example, on THC's page, saying that THC is a CB1 partial agonist, is not a statement that just any random person would understand, but it is a statement that i think generally most people could understand if they looked up what the CB1 receptor was and how it behaves, and what an agonist is (agonist means activator, effectively, within the context of pharmacology)
 * I think we can generally agree that we can maximize the amount of people who read the page to understand it while retaining key information, but we can't get all people to understand it., because not every single person who would come across this page would nessecarily want to research the endocannabinoid system or serotonergic (in the context of CBD's 5-HT1A agonism) systems for example, and knowing what these systems that exist in our body do are important for knowing what this compound does. Databoose43 (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Using the word 'agonist' in probably already an error. Bon courage (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well the thing is the term "agonist" is more specific and unique in the context of pharmacology, because it specifically means to activate a receptor in biological systems to evoke some type of response, also there are partial agonists and full agonists, partial agonist meaning that when the drug binds to the receptor, it evokes only a partial response from the receptor, full meaning, full response.
 * So saying it is an activator of the CB1 receptor, while would be true, would be less specific than "THC is a partial agonist at the CB1 receptor", which makes a massive difference, because when we observe synthetic full CB1 agonists we see much stronger effects and potency than THC generally speaking. Databoose43 (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

More on Drug interaction
I've compiled some recent review articles focusing on the hepatic metabolism of CBD, as well as potential drug interactions that could be of interest:







I'm sharing these resources as they might be useful for improving the article. I may use them for a future edit myself, but anyone is welcome to use these sources to edit the article in the meantime. -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Reconciling federal regulations for CBD against its national marketplace sales
The 2020 Congressional Research Services report has a useful summary of the US CBD market (bold and underline are my emphasis). These market conditions exist in 2024:

there are three markets for CBD: 1) hemp-derived CBD, 2) marijuana-derived CBD (a Schedule I controlled substance ), and 3) pharmaceutical CBD (only Epidiolex)... Although some industry analysts foresee a strong market for marijuana-derived CBD, it remains prohibited (aside for lawful research purposes) under the CSA if the product does not meet the statutory definition of hemp in 7 U.S.C. §1639o. At the retail level, consumer products labeled as containing CBD are being sold in food and beverages, dietary supplements, and other product categories—despite FDA’s position that CBD may not be sold in food and beverages or dietary supplements. Points to clarify for this discussion and the article:

1. marijuana-CBD is a Schedule I controlled substance while low-THC hemp CBD is unscheduled and being widely sold in the US as supplement, seed (i.e., food/beverage) and cosmetic products.

2. can CBD products be sold as a) dietary supplements or b) as an ingredient in food? a) No. "FDA has concluded that CBD products are excluded from the dietary supplement definition" and b) No. "FDA has concluded that it is a prohibited act to introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any food (including any animal food or feed) to which CBD has been added."

Hemp seed, hemp seed protein powder, and hemp seed oil are considered GRAS and can be used in human food because hemp seed does not contain CBD.

3. the American CBD retail market is robust and expected to grow, mainly due to hemp CBD. However, the future of the market is stuck in limbo, with some signs of an economic standstill. Zefr (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I believe your #1. point would support my legality info box stating...
 * "Unscheduled if derived from hemp with less than 0.3% D9-THC but may be considered Schedule I if a component of marijuana with more than 0.3% D9-THC"
 * I don't understand what you disagree with about that because you are quoting information that supports it.
 * We (seem to) (now) both agree that CBD derived from hemp under 0.3% D9-THC is not a Schedule I substance? Gettinglit (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Except for Epidiolex, CBD is a Schedule I drug in the US as of April 2024
Epidiolex is the only Schedule V form (an FDA-approved drug) of CBD in the United States, as described in the Federal Register in this document. All other CBD forms and products are classified as Schedule I, which is the current status of the FDA and FTC, according to this dated 6 Feb 2024.

According to the WP description of Schedule I substances (applying to CBD, except Epidiolex), there is "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision."

This can be clarified in the infobox for the US under Legal status.

From the US Department of Justice announcement on 30 Apr 2024, the legal position for regulating THC products is likely to be relaxed, but the FDA position and concerns about CBD were not discussed in the news (last sentence in the CNN report). The above link indicates the FDA is a long way from being assured about the long-term safety of CBD. Zefr (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Epidiolex was removed from Schedule V by the DEA on April 6th, 2020
 * https://www.epidiolex.com
 * https://professionals.optumrx.com/content/dam/optum3/professional-optumrx/news/rxnews/clinical-updates/clinicalupdates_epidolex_2020-0410.pdf
 * https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/04/06/2012160/0/en/GW-Pharmaceuticals-plc-and-Its-U-S-Subsidiary-Greenwich-Biosciences-Inc-Announce-That-EPIDIOLEX-cannabidiol-Oral-Solution-Has-Been-Descheduled-And-Is-No-Longer-A-Controlled-Substan.html
 * https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-II/part-1308/subject-group-ECFRf62f8e189108c4d/section-1308.15
 * https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFWN2BU0Q2/
 * https://www.marijuanamoment.net/cbd-prescription-drug-is-no-longer-a-federally-controlled-substance-dea-says/
 * These were announcements of a petition by GW Pharm to declassify the Schedule V status of Epidiolex. Is there an official DEA statement? Zefr (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * And the DEA has confirmed CBD is an unscheduled substance
 * https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2019/08/26/dea-announces-steps-necessary-improve-access-marijuana-research
 * "This notice also announces that, as the result of a recent amendment to federal law, certain forms of cannabis no longer require DEA registration to grow or manufacture. The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, which was signed into law on Dec. 20, 2018, changed the definition of marijuana to exclude “hemp”—plant material that contains 0.3 percent or less delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis. Accordingly, hemp, including hemp plants and cannabidiol (CBD) preparations at or below the 0.3 percent delta-9 THC threshold, is not a controlled substance, and a DEA registration is not required to grow or research it."
 * https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1639o
 * "(1) HEMP.—The term 'hemp' means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a Δ9-THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis." Gettinglit (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * FDA is the determining party on CBD uses and products. There is no change from the Feb 2024 position given above. CBD remains a Schedule I drug. CBD from hemp can only be used in research to determine its properties and safety - see #16 here. Zefr (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * FDA regulations is not the same as being a scheduled drug on the CSA. Possesion of CBD with less than 0.3% D9-THC is legal as an uncontrolled substance according to the CSAs broad hemp definition execution and the DEA itself and you dont need a license to obtain or handle it.
 * Cannabis over 0.3% D9-THC is a schedule I drug. Cannabis under 0.3% THC is not a schedule I drug, it's an uncontrolled substance and specifically excluded on the CSA (which the DEA confirms). If CBD comes from Cannabis under 0.3% THC it's not a scheduled drug. Possession of CBD that meets thst criteria is a legal, unscheduled substance that you will not be arrested for the possession of. There's several cases where police have given back Cannabis products after lab testing because it's legal if it's under 0.3% D9-THC Gettinglit (talk) 05:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are treating hemp-derived CBD as if it is the national standard, but hemp CBD is a minor source only for research, and is highly restricted by the FDA. It is WP:UNDUE in terms of the national policy for mention in the infobox. The article's section on the United States has the content:
 * "The FDA retains regulatory authority over hemp-derived CBD, while the DEA is not involved in the regulation of legally-compliant hemp and hemp products. The 2018 Farm Bill requires that research and development of CBD for a therapeutic purpose would have to be conducted under notification and reporting to the FDA."
 * There are no hemp-CBD products on the US market, and interstate commerce is disallowed. The FDA position is the existing restrictive rule on CBD, as explained and sourced above and in the article. Please stop warring over the infobox legal status which is supported by the Federal Register and FDA sources. Zefr (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hemp derived CBD is quite literally a standard by the FDA per the page you used stating it's an uncontrolled substance while Cannbis over 0.3% D9-THC is one that you're somehow misquoting.
 * The DEA stated it's an uncontrolled substance and does not require a license to research. Interstate commerce is protected by the farm bill as well. We are talking about possession of a substance. Possession of CBD from hemp under 0.3% THC is specifically excluded from the CSA and the DEA admits it's an uncontrolled substance that does not require a license to obtain or use.
 * You don't need a license be in possession of CBD made from Cannabis under 0.3% D9-THC, what your claiming is incorrect and not supported by the controlled substance act or DEA which is what regulates what is a scheduled substance.
 * Please stop revert waring and get an admin to review the citations if you're that confident because I am that my citations are correct and you are very weirdly going out of your way to mis-quote the FDA page and confuse the FDA (which by the way your own citation says Cannabis under 0.3% D9-THC is legally an uncontrolled substance) with the controlled substance act and DEA. Gettinglit (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

- facts and US government sources: 1. The most up-to-date source on the status of CBD regulation in the US is the FDA guideline dated Feb 2024. Parts 1. and 2. cover all we need to state about CBD as a Schedule I drug and hemp CBD as a limited exception under restriction for product development by the FDA. CBD is a Schedule I substance mainly because there is an "absence of a currently accepted medical use of the plant in the United States" and because long-term safety of its use has not been established (FDA).

2. regarding hemp CBD as an ingredient in food or supplement products, the FDA issued 6 warning letters in 2023 (search: "cbd and hemp" in 2023) for illegal branding of hemp CBD products, indicating the federal restrictions on hemp CBD uses, labeling, and interstate commerce, as I mentioned above.

3. following the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) confirming CBD as under Schedule I, the FDA oversight of CBD is reiterated by a) the unchanged 2020 position of the DEA, b) the unchanged 2020 review by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), and c) a 2023 FAQ for employees of Customs and Border Protection.

4. Summarizing about CBD: a) when from cannabis, it is a Schedule I controlled drug (FDA, DEA, CRS, and CBP sources); and b) when from hemp, it is "uncontrolled", but with tight restrictions by FDA regulations against product or ingredient development, research, and interstate commerce (FDA, CRS sources).

5. Epidiolex is a Schedule V drug under the CSA (FDA, DEA, CRS sources).

6. Compromise: This version of the US legal status in the infobox represents what the federal government publications say, but does not acknowledge the minor exception for hemp CBD (if from a hemp source with less than 0.3% THC). A combined version of the US legal status on CBD in the infobox could be:
 * Schedule I for all products except Epidiolex (Schedule V) [FDA, DEA, CRS refs]; uncontrolled for research if derived from hemp with less than 0.3% D9-THC [FDA ref sections 2. and 16.]

Notice to admin for review/comments. Zefr (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't believe you live in the USA as you seem not to understand what makes something a Schedule I substance in the USA.
 * 1. The FDA regulations for drugs, food, supplements, cosmetics has nothing to do if something is a Schedule I substance or not. Ephedra and Phenibut aren't allowed to be in foods, supplements, cosmetics and don't have an accepted medical use in the USA, but they're not Schedule I substances as a result because that's not how the law works here.
 * 2. If CBD was illegal to sell in foods/products and was a Schedule I it would be the DEA busting down doors and people going to jail for possession and distribution of a Schedule I substance, not a warning letter asking them to stop within 15 days.
 * 3. Following the CSA confirming CBD is not a Schedule I substance if derived from Cannabis under 0.3% D9-THC, there is nothing that mentions Cannabidiol in the CSA or even the "unchanged position by the DEA" which if you bother to read my citation from the DEA they admit it's an uncontrolled substance you don't need a license for.


 * Are you just hoping people aren't actually checking your citations or something?
 * https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2019/08/26/dea-announces-steps-necessary-improve-access-marijuana-research
 * This notice also announces that, as the result of a recent amendment to federal law, certain forms of cannabis no longer require DEA registration to grow or manufacture. The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, which was signed into law on Dec. 20, 2018, changed the definition of marijuana to exclude “hemp”—plant material that contains 0.3 percent or less delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis. Accordingly, hemp, including hemp plants and cannabidiol (CBD) preparations at or below the 0.3 percent delta-9 THC threshold, is not a controlled substance, and a DEA registration is not required to grow or research it.
 * 4. That's what my current positioning says "Unscheduled if derived from hemp with less than 0.3% D9-THC but may be considered Schedule I if a component of marijuana with more than 0.3% D9-THC"
 * 5. Also not accurate which is why Epidiolex no longer has the C-V on its label and logo anymore, they don't need to post a federal register claim to de-schedule something, just to make something scheduled. The CEO of pharma company of Epidiolex even confirmed Epidiolex is no longer a Schedule V so maybe you should sue them because they're on the stock market and would be committing fraud by doing so but they're not because it was removed from Schedule V
 * 6. "Unscheduled if derived from hemp with less than 0.3% D9-THC but may be considered Schedule I if a component of marijuana with more than 0.3% D9-THC"
 * Has nothing to do with research or this or that, it's about possession itself.
 * Possession of CBD is not a Schedule I substance in the United States of America.


 * Gettinglit (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am coming here from User_talk:Valjean, and I was pinged there as a member of WikiProject Cannabis. I am reading this conversation but do not know or understand much of any of this.
 * If I understand correctly, there is a distinction between substances based on percentage of CBD, with low CBD being unscheduled, and high CBD being scheduled. Is that correct?
 * If so, then do we have evidence determining whether people using plant medicine typically use high or low CBD doses? I am imagining that almost no users consume low does CBD, in which case Wikipedia should say that CBD as a drug is scheduled. If users typically consume low dose CBD, then based on what I am reading, we should report it as unscheduled.
 * I am imagining that this low dose CBD is actually a chemical trace in hemp, and that naturally it would be like eating an inedible pile of fiber to get a therapeutic dose, or in any other kind of chemical preparation, it would require drinking large amounts of water with traces of CBD in it. What is the appearance of a therapeutic dose of this low-level CBD substance?  Bluerasberry   (talk)  21:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * - the low- vs. higher-dose issue refers to the amount of THC in hemp as defined in the US Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Farm Bill) and by FDA here. The Act was not about CBD, but rather about "federal authorities relating to the production and marketing of hemp," and "all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids," which would include CBD. Hemp cultivars with less than 0.3% THC could be legally used to extract CBD - stated by the FDA: "These changes include removing hemp from the Controlled Substances Act, which means that cannabis plants and derivatives that contain no more than 0.3 percent THC on a dry weight basis are no longer controlled substances under federal law." However, the FDA retained control over how hemp-derived CBD could be used in products and marketed, stating in the above 2024 guideline: "subject to the same authorities and requirements as FDA-regulated products containing any other substance. This is true regardless of whether the cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds are classified as hemp."
 * There are no FDA-approved CBD products - from cannabis or hemp - on the US market (except Epidiolex) because CBD remains under Schedule I as a compound with no proven medical use or adequate safety evidence, as stated in items 3-10 of the 2024 FDA guideline. Zefr (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If someone goes to the legal farm and eats one of these legal hemp plants, then is that legal?
 * Can someone dry one of these legal hemp plants and sell it as a legal CBD product?
 * If someone does eat a dried legal hemp plant from the farm, then is a mouthful of leaves a therapeutic dose? Would anyone conceivably market this dried hemp as a CBD product?
 * I am trying to understand if leaves on a farm are legal, but if selling those same exact leaves as a CBD product is illegal. It looks like some non-zero amount of CBD is legal, so would anyone call a substance with that legal amount a "CBD product"?  Bluerasberry   (talk)  22:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. A partial answer about hemp CBD as a food additive is given in the 2020 Congressional Research Service report, stating that hemp foods (such as seeds) containing trace amounts of CBD "may be lawfully marketed under certain circumstances—pursuant to FDA approval as a food additive (by regulation) or a determination that the substance is GRAS. FDA has not approved hemp as a food additive but has evaluated three GRAS notices related to hemp seed-derived ingredients (hulled hemp seeds, hemp seed protein, and hemp seed oil)."
 * 2. The FDA views a food or supplement product by how it's labeled and marketed, stated here. Several examples of companies trying to label and market hemp CBD products are among numerous recipients of FDA warning letters for mislabeling and illegal marketing, example. Search the warning letters database for "hemp and cbd" to see more warning letters.
 * The comment above that DEA would be "busting down doors" pursuing hemp CBD violations is unrealistic during this time in the US of several states independently legalizing marijuana (cannabis). The DEA's official fact sheet (April 2020) on marijuana (cannabis) states " the FDA and DEA have concluded that marijuana has no federally approved medical use for treatment in the U.S. and thus it remains as a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law." As CBD is an extract of marijuana, it falls under Schedule I. Hemp-derived CBD - if from hemp with less than 0.3% THC - is exempt, but its development into products is under strict FDA supervision, and there are no FDA-approved hemp CBD foods or supplements.
 * 3. Growing hemp is legal in the US under the 2018 Farm Bill, explained in the article's US section. There are no proven "therapeutic" uses or products of CBD, whether from cannabis or hemp, in the US other than Epidiolex. Zefr (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your answers. I read them, followed the links, enjoyed them, learned from them, and they are relevant and interesting. They do not answer my questions though.
 * I am asking if it is legal in the United States to sell CBD products which test below the legal limit.
 * For social context, it appears that the big stores in the United States - Amazon, Wal-Mart, Target - are openly selling labeled CBD products including edibles, creams, and concoctions. They operate legally, do they not?
 * The FDA does not judge dietary supplements and non-pharmaceutical consumer products to give them approval, so when you say, "there are no FDA-approved hemp CBD foods or supplements", I expect that, because at a defined low level of CBD, it gets no more regulation than other herbal supplements with no effect.
 * Yes or no: Has the FDA legalized retailers to sell OTC consumer products marketed as containing CBD, where that amount is low, sub-therapeutic, and has no effect?  Bluerasberry   (talk)  14:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * - good thoughtful points. The answer appears to be "no" based on this 2024 FDA definition for selling CBD supplement products.
 * The answer further would be no because the FDA acts on OTC CBD supplements when they are mislabeled or marketed with health claims, similarly for herbs or extracts, as you stated. If mislabeled or mismarketed with unapproved claims by a manufacturer, the FDA first warns the company, then may engage the Federal Trade Commission to issue penalties, as done for several hundred companies last year (only a few selling CBD).
 * The CBD supplement market in the US is in a gray zone limbo of a) CBD not having sufficient evidence of health effect or long-term safety (defining it under Schedule I); b) an uncertain market future; and c) companies and retailers widely selling CBD supplements. It is evident FDA/FTC/DEA cannot pursue all violations, which may be determined by relaxed state-to-state policies on cannabis and its derivatives.
 * We are straying a bit from the initial issue of this discussion: in identifying US legal status of CBD for the article infobox, we have both an exemption for low-THC hemp CBD as unscheduled existing simultaneously with FDA pessimism and restrictions about CBD efficacy and safety under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. Zefr (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Possession and sale of high CBD extract and even high purity CBD isolate is legal in the United States as it's not a controlled substance unless it contains more than 0.3% D9-THC. You don't need a Cannabis plant with more than 0.3% D9-THC to grow, extract, isolate CBD. There are strains of Cannabis specifically high in CBD (and CBG) without THC that goes over the legal limit.
 * However, marketing it for medical uses or as a dietary supplement or component is in violation of FDA regulations, but this does not make it a Schedule I substance unless it contains more than 0.3% D9-THC.
 * In the USA you cannot market Mitragyna speciosa, Piracetam, Phenibut, Vinpocetine, Ephedra as a dietary supplement or make medical claims under FDA regulations but this is not the same as being a Schedule I controlled substance which would mean the simple possession of it is illegal.
 * For example Phenibut and Piracetam have in their infobox "Unapproved "New Drug" (as defined by 21 U.S. Code § 321(p)(1)). Use in dietary supplements, food, or medicine is unlawful; otherwise uncontrolled" the "otherwise uncontrolled" part is because they're not scheduled substances. They're not automatically Schedule I because the FDA says you cannot market it as a supplement or food.
 * Zefr seems to be confused on what makes something a Schedule I substance in the USA which is the Controlled Substance Act and the DEA that enforces it, which we have clarified, from both the CSA and the DEA itself, CBD is not a scheduled or controlled substance if it's made from Cannabis with less than 0.3% D9-THC. The FDA has quite literally nothing to do with if something is a Schedule I substance or not.
 * If it was Schedule I, the mere possession of CBD would be illegal, but it's not as long as it's not a component of Cannabis with more than 0.3% D9-THC. Hold out your hand of CBD isolate to a DEA agent or police officer and you are in no risk of arrest, hold out your hand of D9-THC or Cocaine to a DEA agent or police officer and you are at risk of arrest.
 * You can also hold out your hand with CBD isolate to an FDA agent and you are also not at risk of arrest or punishment unless you're marketing it with claims to treat a medical condition or market it as a supplement or food product specifically which companies can get around by a "self affirmed GRAS" anyway or marketing it as a "hemp product" without having a supplement facts panel or nutrition facts panel.
 * That's why I feel the current "Unscheduled if derived from hemp with less than 0.3% D9-THC but may be considered Schedule I if a component of marijuana with more than 0.3% D9-THC." is the most accurate and informative and this articles legal section goes into more detail about it's ability to be marketed as a supplement. Gettinglit (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am unsure about all of this.
 * Zefr's sources are authoritative, give some clarity for questions, but also do not address the everyday common knowledge that CBD products are ubiquitous and marketed by the most conservative retailers.
 * Gettinglit, I agree that there is no risk of arrest, but even before some states legalized cannabis, I had the everyday experience in Seattle of seeing recreational cannabis openly marketed with signage in busy storefronts and in conventional advertising. There are some things which the law prohibits but for which there is no enforcement of prohibition.
 * I found something with insight but which does not answer questions. At NC State University's Cannabis Research Program they have a guide for farmers to comply with CBD guidelines. They say compliance is difficult. If I am understanding this correctly, all of the plants naturally grow to contain more than the legal limit of CBD. The farmer must not let the crop mature, but instead must harvest them early in opposition to maximizing production. This report says that misinformation is everywhere, and they recommend their own testing data as an authority.
 * My takeaway from this is that the legal limit of CBD is very low, below even the natural level that all mature plants produce before processing. I do not want to draw conclusions, but I doubt that a raw plant has a therapeutic dose. I wonder what consumer products have a compliant amount of CBD.
 * I doubt my ability to untangle this or consider further. I am reading this conversation but I am not sure I will be able to understand this without having a clear authoritative source explain and reconcile the regulations against the marketplace sales which are plain to see.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  15:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Bluerasberry notes above the NC State University Cannabis Research Program intended to help hemp farmers grow CBD-rich hemp with low amounts of THC. The same concern is presented by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service for hemp farmers in this 2021 Federal Register document (see section on DEA and Controlled Substances"'' concerning hemp breeding for high CBD levels and whether DEA "crime labs" should be used for the CBD assays).
 * These two government sources - one state and one federal - show the legal flux and challenges for the US hemp CBD industry. The Federal Register document devotes most of its discussion to the variable CBD production among hemp cultivars (cntrl f; search cbd).
 * Illustrating further incontinuity and confusion in the US hemp industry was a report yesterday that, in Virginia - North Carolina's state neighbor to the north - hemp CBD farming and extract production have collapsed due to opposition against cannabis by the Virginia governor. Zefr (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe you are mistaken in regard to CBD content limits. There is no legal limit for CBD in the USA in regards to being scheduled. There is only a legal limit for D9-THC specifically. CBD is not a Schedule I (or any schedule) substance per the CSA and DEA. Only if it contains D9-THC over 0.3% THC which is a Schedule I.
 * For example a gram of pure CBD isolate is not illegal, it's not scheduled. But 95% CBD isolate that contains 5% D9-THC is illegal because it would be over 0.3% D9-THC. This legal limit is specific to D9-THC, not CBD or anyother cannabinoid which I believe you may have mistaken to mean a legal limit for CBD. Gettinglit (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The 0.3% refers to a 'source rule' - any CBD derived from a source that doesn't meet that requirement is Schedule I. So one should not say that 'isolate' or any other form of CBD is 'not illegal' as a blanket statement.
 * There's also the 'drug exclusion rule' - once a drug has been approved (for example Epidiolex) that includes a substance as an active ingredient, all other uses of that ingredient are disallowed by the FDA in food or beverage without specific approval.
 * Honestly, though, this discussion is untimely. Given current movements in the US's executive branch, all of this will change in a few months. Just let the article be for a while and wait for new sourcing, which should be along soon. MrOllie (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fyi - the pending federal rescheduling of marijuana is for the potential recreational and medicinal uses of THC, with CBD not included (last sentence).
 * The 2024 FDA report indicates it doesn't have enough safety evidence on CBD to warrant changing use recommendations. Zefr (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fyi - the pending federal rescheduling of marijuana is for the potential recreational and medicinal uses of THC, with CBD not included (last sentence).
 * The 2024 FDA report indicates it doesn't have enough safety evidence on CBD to warrant changing use recommendations. Zefr (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)