Talk:JWH-133

Legality
Unable to find ANY mention of JWH133 in google searches 'JWH133 site:usdoj.gov or JWH-133 site:usdoj.gov'. Similar searches for obscure but scheduled compounds returned many results: Additionally:
 * fenethylline site:usdoj.gov - 23 hits
 * MPPP site:usdoj.gov - 17 hits
 * "schedule 1" JWH-133 site:.gov returns one hit totally unrelated to drugs
 * "schedule 1" JWH133 site:.gov returns nothing

I see no findable evidence this is scheduled explicitly, although unlike some other cannabinoids it may bear enough resemblance to scheduled compounds to fall under the analogs act - but this is stated as due to the analogs act in the articles for those other substances. Zaphraud (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Tocris has it listed on their website under "Controlled Substances" and say it is Schedule I and requires a DEA license for purchase.
 * Sigma-Aldrich also say it is Schedule I. Meodipt (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As of February 2023, the US Department of Justice doesn't cite JWH-133 as being schedule I, nor any schedule (I-V).
 * Furthermore, it would also probably not fall under the Federal Analog Act, as JWH-133, as a CB2 receptor agonist, would not meet the criteria of a "controlled substance analog" under 21 USC § 802(32)(A)(ii) as it would not produce effects, "substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II". NicotineCitrate (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Amyloid Beta Protein induced inflammation inhibition
In reference to the paragraph that is wholly uncited, given the claims, I believe they are referencing, CB2 Receptor in Microglia: The Guardian of Self-Control, published in International Journal of Molecular Sciences (online in 2020, in print in 2021). While this is a reputable journal, as noted, the language used ("completely abolish" and "induced through agonist action") feels seems as though this was written by someone glancing the paper and not someone knowledgeable about the field as a whole.

Furthermore, given that the paragraph is almost entirely referencing a singular paper, and that the paper referenced is regarding CB2 agonism as a whole, not focusing on JWH-133, it feels irresponsible, or at least unnecessary, to include. NicotineCitrate (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)