Talk:Synthetic cannabinoids/Archive 2

Allegedly
Why is it written in the article that synthetic cannabis "allegedly" mimics the effects of regular cannabis? I mean, it either does or it doesn't.- Mdriver1981 (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Canada's Legal section
I have a very strong sense from this section that the author has taken personal offense at Health Canada's announcement, and has - for want of a better term - gone off on one, instead of merely allowing the facts to speak for themselves. No attempt at balance whatsoever. Moreover, I can't actually see anything about the drug's legal status in Canada - I may infer that it is disputed or unclear at present, but it ought to be clearly, objectively and unemotionally stated, but seriously guys, this shit gets you fucking baked.

(Which is not to say that I disagree with the author's ire. It's just that this ain't the place to express that ire.) --77.97.189.110 (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed; I removed on the grounds that I'm not able to find any official HealthCanada position on the matter, along the same lines that Cacycle removed this identical text from JWH-018. When an official statement is made we can add it in, albeit with less ranting and more factual basis. St3vo (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit request Feb 15/12: Reference footnote no. 68 needs to be updated. The correct link to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-38.8/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuck55 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Smoking blend pages.
So we're allowed have a spice page now? It was deleted before.

What about the likes of smoke, skunk, zohai ect. They deserve pages aswell. Espeically seing as the ingredients of "smoke" and "skunk" are known (jwh-018 + oleamide + eugenol).

People deserve to know what's in legal highs. Wikipedia pages for those whose ingredients are known would be a great help to those who search for this information only to find online headstores saying it's "all natural herbs".

If someone does it (i might do it if i've got time) get behind them to make sure the page isn't deleted.

Living under a rock (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read What Wikipedia is not and Notability for our inclusion criteria. Wikipedia is not a product guide and you have to prove the notability of a subject (which will be hard to impossible). Cacycle (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And yet here we see spice and k2 receiving what amounts to free advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.58.75 (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Switzerland Legality
I can find no proof whatsoever that Spice is is illegal in Switzerland. The news article quoted does not seem trustworthy to me. Please read this on the JWH-018 talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:JWH-018#legal_situation_in_Switzerland Spice and similar blends are for sale in Swiss headshops. --Malkuth1 (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is almost certainly illegal everywhere under pharmaceutical law. Cacycle (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Greece Legality
Is anyone able to clarify the legal situation with these products in Greece? Greece in the past has come down ridiculously hard on cannabis in line with an apparent general tendency for government to overreact to everything and then poorly enforce the law anyway (but sentences of 5 years per gram or something!). I believe the cannabis law has softened a bit in recent times.

Reason for bans?
Can anyone point to references indicating why these products are being banned when the occurrence of side effects necessitating medical treatment is anecdotally very low and no large scale studies have been done to quantify risks? There does not appear to be hard evidence that bans are actually necessary.


 * That's not really our concern here, we're just writing an encyclopedia. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually think approaching the topic is fair, but whether individuals agree with the rationale or not is moot as Nuujinn writes. We only report what is out there, not debate the merits.  I'll add the specific language the DEA uses to the article.
 * "According to the DEA, increased use of synthetic marijuana has lead to a surge in emergency-room visits and calls to poison-control centers. Adverse health effects associated with its use include seizures, hallucinations, paranoid behavior, agitation, anxiety, nausea, vomiting, racing heartbeat and elevated blood pressure." http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/02/28/dea.synthetic.marijuana/index.html?iref=allsearch MartinezMD (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This site- www.k2info.org seems to be a good repository of this information. Perhaps including it someplace in this section will shed some light on the matter. Saying that the occurrence of side effects from these products is low is a complete fallacy. 70.44.236.108 (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Opening paragraph contains opinionated slant
The phrase "purportedly as an incense" is a form of weasel wording. And the segment "Even though the manufacturer officially warns against human ingestion of Spice, it is usually smoked for its cannabis-like effects which are believed to be caused by a mixture of synthetic cannabinoid drugs such as JWH-018. This synthetic smoking blend was designed for those subject to regular drug tests." contains no references to published materials and sounds like 100% supposition. How can this section be cleaned up to represent the unbiased view that Wikipedia strives for? 99.163.22.236 (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What is up with all the vandalism?
Seems people keep deleting and repairing this article. Not that I am against legitimate editing and contributions and while I appreciate the efforts of those who repair this article, I have to ask whats with the vandalism to this article??? What seems to be the target of the vandalism?BGinOC (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Objectivity, Vandalism
It would be good to allow people to edit the page and uprank comments without the lock, since this subject is likely to have transient people commenting who are giving "up to the minute" information. I agree with the users who wished to put brand-names on the page, so users can get informed about these dangerous drugs. It's likely that transient users will know more about the brand-name "up to the minute" variants of synthetics etc., making wikipedia a better source than mainstream sources. Also, mainstream prohibitionist sources seem to dominate this page, blotting out the immense negative consequences of drug prohibition itself (not the least of which is that those abusing drugs cannot get help without admitting they are criminals and exposing themselves to law-enforcement brutality, condemnation, theft, and harassment).

I also wish there was a lot more objectivity on this page. (Is it drug warrior prohibitionists who have locked it? This decision has the effect of making this Wikipedia page into a mainstream media echo chamber.) Drug prohibition is entirely illegitimate, under the common law referenced by the 6th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, and over 800 years of incremental improvement in western civilization, beginning with the Magna Carta and Austria's "Golden Bull." The common law is in conflict with statute law that denies the Bill of Rights. As per "Marbury v. Madision" and the Federalist Papers, any law that is unconstitutional is "null and void" from its inception. Also, the pragmatic effects that result from prohibition are all bad: http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/01/how-the-national-institute-for-drug-abus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.226.40 (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding a "Brands" section as we keep getting IP addresses wanting to add different names.
Create section so that we needn't be constantly fixing this page. Am open to discussion regarding this idea.BGinOC (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Come on folks - How difficult is it to add the brands ALPHABETICALLY? Does this stuff burn out so many brain cells that one can't remember their ABC's?BGinOC (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is neither a product guide nor an advertising platform for non-notable me-too products, see What Wikipedia is not and Notability. I will remove the section. Cacycle (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia may not be a product guide, however just as the Coca-cola article contains the various brands manufactured by Coca-cola, so should this article list the various products referred to as "Spice" upon the market. As a perfect model example, I refer to the article Cigarette in which many brands of cigarettes are listed with links to individual articles regarding most of the brands. Information is information and it is my opinion given the many brands and styles of 'spice' available on the market today, as it is the closest thing to synthetic marijuana available that is sold in smoke shops, the basis of the article is relative to the general street term "spice." (rather than the specific brand of "Spice" that the included image withing the article infers) Spice is not only offered and diustributed under the 'Diamond' brand as the article's image portrays and as the various additions to the brands list has shown unequivocally. I believe once such a list remains stable, articles regarding each brand will be written and linked to as has happened with the article Cigarette. As I respectfully disagree with your supposition on the matter and do not wish to enter into an editorial reversion battle with you over this topic, I have listed this for editorial intervention and determination as well as discussion on the matter and request that the article remain as is until said determination by our fellow Wikipedians can be made by consensus. It is my hope that others will give their input on this matter to settle our 'dispute'. Respectfully, BGinOC (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not think that the list belongs in article. The list is completely unsourced, but even adding sources to it really wouldn't help.  Unless the company that produces it or the product itself is notable enough for an article the list is just a directory.  If the list remains this will become a place that for everyone's favorite variety of spice.   GB fan  talk 02:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed that the list needs some verification and upon doing some initial research in preparation for defending my case for inclusion of a 'brands' section, I have been able to determine that while there are more companies manufacturing "Spice" than there are that manufacture cigarettes, the verifiable varieties (not including flavors) are about the same as with cigarettes, perhaps a little less. As withCigarette, while Camel is listed, it does not break down into Camel 99s, Camel Wides, Camel Lights, Camel Non-filter, Camel Ultralights, or Camel Crush - these varieties of the brand being instead listed within the article of the brand itself. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco is the manufacturer of Camel cigarettes but also manufactures other brands such as Kool (cigarette), which again has its varieties listed within its respective article. Being that this is such a new 'drug' to the market and is often sold as incense (though used obviously for other purposes), most of the manufacturers are not going to be very notable at this time. Additionally, depending upon legislation, many will likely become non-existent due to the issue regarding the legality of their product in various jurisdictions. So by listing Brands, we can have the opportunity for expansion into manufacturers and articles covering them if they are noteworthy of such inclusion but do agree that the flavors need to be restricted to a separate article regarding the brand if and when written.BGinOC (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The important points are Notability, Verifiability, and Identifying reliable sources. These are long establishe rules on Wikipedia. We have to follow these rules unless there is a good reason and a consensus not to. That is what Be bold means (which you used as the justification in your email to me). All these brands in the list lack notability and reliable sources that would prove notability. In fact, to me they look like random, short-lived me-too products looking for some cheap ad space. Unless you can prove notability for each of these products, this list must go. Also, please no not continue to remove any mention of synthetic cannabinoids in these products from the article. Cacycle (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up list of brands so that ONLY those reported in news media are included - added some additional facts regarding the passage of laws in Mississippi as well. I am not trying to be an a$$ over this, but as a parent, I would want to know what to look for and brand names help those concerned parents who may be looking at this article be aware of what to look for in their child's backpack, dresser or pants pocket as laundry is done.BGinOC (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Those links are either promotional websites or newspaper articles that list a number of brands as an aside without reference (they might have been taken out of this Wikipedia article...). Not a single of those links establishes notability. You might have noble objectives for adding this list, but this is an encyclopedia in the first place. And unless you can demonstrate notability by a reasonable measure (e.g. products have their own article, they are market leaders,...) the list should go. Not the least reason being that it is a magnet for product spamming. Cacycle (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is nothing notable about any of those brands that I have been able to find. A passing reference in a news article or a website selling something does not say they are notable.  I see no encyclopedic value from  having a list of possible brands of this drug.  I think the list should be removed from the article.   GB fan  talk 20:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I still stand by my grounds, using the article Cigarette as an example: What is so notable about various cigarette brands that the self-rightious objectors can not see the direct comparison of relevence regarding the brands of spice. To me it simply makes no sense whatsoever to have brands of cigarettes listed in an orderly fashion without any such argument as going on over this article and then claim the opposite in regards to a new and controversial product line that has competing brands as well. In my opinion, the matter is getting ridiculously blown out of proportions when there is already a proven and documentable precedent set by such articles in addition to the previously mentioned Cigarettes but also Chewing tobacco, Motor oil, List of automotive fuel brands, Pale ale, List of vodkas, List of whisky brands just to name a significant list of examples - many of the brands listed for the previously listed articles have some historical notability but many do not. I am certain if one were to spend a more time, one could find many more articles using the same format I have used to list various brands or a list that is broken out as a separate article altogether (of which I would not be opposed to that comprimise). As stated previously, "spice" is such a new and controversial product on the market that I doubt anyone can tell which brands will survive, if any at all if continued testing proves the product to be as harmful as some studies are showing and the ongoing passage of legislation banning its use, possession and sale. As for notability, several of the brands are referenced in articles that were written before said list was included and other brands have been the subject of subject of governmental and independent scientific testing to determine what the product actually is as well as what active ingredient contained within provides the "high". As for the list being a magnet for spamming, provide an example to prove your case - as I do not see any of the articles I listed above being spammed and tobacco or alcohol usage, while at one time socially acceptable are just as controversial today as drug use.BGinOC (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because lists exist on other articles doesn't mean similar content belongs here. There is a big difference between this article and the articles you are using as examples.  Those product articles have notable manufacturers/brands of products with articles.  This product article does not have any manufacturers/brands that have articles.  I have searched to try to establish some kind of notability for a couple of the different brands that were in the list but I can not find anything to say they are notable.   GB fan  talk 21:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The difference is notability - the lists in those articles are wikilink lists. Have you read the guidelines? Cacycle (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I have read the guidelines and in the case of this product, it is simply too new to the the market for ANY brand, distributor or style to have a true notability as there simply has not been enough history regarding the product in and of itself. The fact that these brands are among those cited by the legislative powers that be who have passed laws banning the sale of said products is the basis of their notability in and of itself. That point is inarguable even to a five-year-old. I have made my point and the arguments against compared to the facts given by me as well as the presidents set by the examples have re-enforced my point. I plan to stand my ground firmly on this and as such have saved said list within my personal user pages and WILL continue to enforce its inclusion upon the hour if need be upon discovery of its deletion - Period.BGinOC (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So it sounds to me like you don't care what anyone else says. It appears that you are going to try to force your opinion on the article no matter what others say.  This makes it appear that you think you own this article.  Not a very good attitude to have.   GB fan  talk 23:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now cited the respected Journal of Mass Spectrometry as well as information from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Both respected agencies specifically list variations and brands within their respective documents. These documents, which have been now cited within said list, are also available on line for review in detail via the included links to online versions of said documents. Perhaps my point will be respected now and not looked upon as being dictatorial or seen as promoting the claimed "potential spamming" of said list within this article. In reference to not caring about what anyone says, that is incorrect. I have put forth this effort in an honest and academic manner. I have argued my case logically and in each rebuttal, followed up with improved references and citations in support of my viewpoint on the topic. I am not cramming anything down anyone's throat: I have given cited sources from respected news agencies and governmental references to the various brand names as well as adding the reports of scientific testing upon specific brands that has been published within respected academic journals, thereby FIRMLY establishing said notability of certain specific brands listed within this article. How much more encyclopedic need I get in order to have my point accepted? I have offered to compromise by creating a separate article which was practically ignored. As I have found such valuable and detailed information regarding the testing of specific brands and styles, I can do further research upon the specific brands listed and potentially create articles that would link to the this apparently controversial list so that its inclusion within this article, or separation as a separate list can better match up with the styles used by the articles I listed previously as precedent for my position on the matter. Respectfully and firmly,BGinOC (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw the post at requests for editor assistance, and I've been following your discussion. FWIW, I can see both sides here. While there is good sourcing for many of the brands listed, the information in the references isn't being very well utilized by just listed the brands. What if there were a table, listing the data on each variant, perhaps with column listed compounds, a column for street/brand name, side effects, etc. Be a lot of work but I think the results would be equally impressive. -- Nuujinn (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone can point me in the direction I need to go to research and learn the code usage needed to build said table, I will gladly work on it. Thank you for an excellent recommendation that I hope settles this "dispute" which has taken up far too much precious time from our writing of articles by forcing oneself to defend said work and effort.BGinOC (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's hear from GB fan and Cacycle before anyone does anything, and see if there's consensus on the basic idea, and if there is, let's also get consensus on what we'd want in the table and how we'd want it arranged. For example, if there are classes of compounds that span brands, that might be a logical way to organize the table. -- Nuujinn (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay - sounds good. I have the data gathered and am reviewing it to organzie the data per your recommendations if the others agree to said plan.BGinOC (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No comments on the tables section mentioned above???
I have researched and am ready to build said table if consensus is agreed upon. I'm not going to do a crapload of programing/editing to set up the table just to have it deleted -- Though good work User:GB fan on keeping the unsourced brands out of the equation. BGinOC (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Even though I am still not convinced it even belongs, I am not going to remove it because it is not worth arguing over. If you want to make it into a table you will have no argument out of me.   GB fan  talk 11:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the Synthetic cannabinoid ingredients section is unacceptable
Please do not remove section regarding Synthetic cannabinoid without discussion. Thank you. Valoem  talk  03:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What about the title of the article?
There has to be a recall on the title of the article because the JWH is the drug, the product is an incense, not marketed as a drug. Perhaps the people who started this page didn't realize what they were buying and were so fucking ignorant of the fact that when you call something a drug it just makes the god damn police get involved. This world is fucked because of ignorant douche bags. Roracle82 (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Roracle, please remain civil in your comments. But you have an interesting point. Anyone care to weigh in? Nuujinn (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is an interesting point. I think we can all agree that the JWH is the active ingredient in Spice and and an herb blend is most likely an inactive ingredient.  In other drugs, legal and illegal, the whole thing, active and inactive ingredients, are considered the drug.  Just because it has inactive ingredients combined with an active ingredient does not make the mixture something other than a drug.  Just because the manufacturer and marketers call it an incense that does mean it isn't a drug.  They both have reasons that they wouldn't call it a drug.  They would get shut down so fast, even faster than they already are, if they called it a drug.  I think it is a valid name, there are probaby other names that are also valid.  That said I think this is the best name for the article.  As I was thinking about this, the question I asked myself was, what is the notability of this product?  The only thing that makes this product notable is because of the mind alterting effects of it, in other words, drug.  So I think drug is the correct disambiguation for this page.   GB fan  talk 13:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * How about it being called synthetic cannabis? This does away with the problem of the article currently being the brand name of one particular product, rather than a generic name. There are a fair few google news hits of "synthetic cannabis" being used to describe it. Smartse (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly support that idea, as it not only clarifies the core topic but makes sense given the proposed merger with the K2 article. I suggest we keep Spice (drug) as a redirect. Any objections? If there are none, I'll make the move in a few days. Nuujinn (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been bold and gone ahead, I've also made redirects from fake weed and fake pot as these have also been used by sources, and changed synthetic marijuana to redirect here instead of to Cannabinoid. Smartse (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A very astute deduction, though poorly stated as the average person will outright reject the premise stated upon reaching the vulgarities within the statement. However, the article is about the usage of these "herbal blends" as a drug. In particular, in regards to its use or being marketed as a form of incense, there is nothing special about this product that makes it unique among incense other than its "recipe".BGinOC (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

A trauma doctor, correctly states that calling it synethetic marijuana or synethetic cannabis is a misnomer. One only needs to do a search on synethetic marijuana on Google News to see what this misnomer, largely thanks to this Wikipedia article and the media who thinks this is a valid reference source. Thirdeye616 (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Reported brands
I'm not sure whether we need this section - it constantly attracts spammers and encourages people to add more brands without reliable sources. There appear to be so many brands, that I can't really see what a list of them adds to an encyclopedic article. If any are particularly notable (I guess that spice is) then this should be mentioned as prose rather than simply as a list. Am I missing something? Smartse (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree there is nothing encyclopedic about the list and it should be removed from the article. This is the same point I made two month ago, see the discussion above.   GB  fan  11:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, oops didn't see that! Looking closer at the sources, it's not like they directly discuss the brands, just name them. I don't think it's right that we give an air of authenticity to these brands just because a journalist happened to pick some brands over others when writing an article (like here). As discussed above a table would be good, but I don't think the sources exist to make one. This paper discusses spice in Japan but states "Forty-six herbal products being sold in Japan for their expected cannabis-like effects were purchased via the Internet from June 2008 to June 2009. All products had different names and were contained in different packages." This clearly demonstrates that a list of brands is unsustainable in the article. Smartse (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Smartse that this section has to go. Please see also the discussion above. Cacycle (talk) 06:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty clear consensus, so I've removed them, here are the references that were used in case they are of use elsewhere in the article. I suggest that we once the article has been renamed, we mention spice and K2 as they have often been mentioned in the media but I don't think that any others should be mentioned. Smartse (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed references
These have come from K2 as well, but can probably be used here for something else. Smartse (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 209.40.223.136 (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I've propose that K2 (drug) is merged into this article. Although K2 does appear to be notable by itself, it is essentially the same as what is discussed in this article. Smartse (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, per above, let's first move this to synthetic cannabis and then merge K2 to this article. If there is enough coverage on specific brands in the future to warrant individual articles, it will be easy to do. Nuujinn (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is the right direction for this also, change the name and merge the two articles together. Neither one of these two articles are really about the specific product of the title.  They are more about the general class of product.   GB  fan  02:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree! K2 is an entirely different product and subject from Spice with different issues, different laws, different effects, etc. The K2 brand also sells a lot of products which do not contain cannabinoids and are entirely different from the Spice brand. Please, don't redirect again to the inappropriate Spice article. Spice has been banned for years in most of the world. K2 is only starting to get attention from the law, so keeping its own article is essential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.144.69 (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, we know that they are different products, but they are both brands of synthetic cannabis and it makes sense to cover it all in one article. Can you point to an independent source to back up "The K2 brand also sells a lot of products which do not contain cannabinoids". It isn't redirecting to "the inappropriate Spice article" because I'm working on making this article about all forms of synthetic cannabis, not just K2 and Spice. Spice was only made illegal in any country within the last year and K2 has already received a lot of media coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartse (talk • contribs) 10:26, 26 August 2010
 * For me, the question of whether to cover them as one article or two is whether or not the two are treated separately in the real world, and whether or not there are sources that are evidence of that.  As far as I can tell from the previous article, Spice was an older version, which tried to skirt cannabis laws, and eventually was ruled illegal (or governed by existing laws).  K2 appears to be the same basic principle, but newer.  So, if, in 6 months time, K2 is also going to be covered under existing drug laws, just like Spice, it really doesn't merit a separate article. Can the IP who really wants them separate please point to reliable sources that indicate that they should be treated separately? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, Spice appeared earlier, and has received most coverage in Europe, whereas K2 appeared a bit later and has mainly been sold in the USA. Judging from a google search for "buy k2 uk it's not sold here and that's almost certainly because it was made illegal at the same time as Spice. Smartse (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Page move to "Synthetic cannabis"
I do not agree with the essentially undiscussed page move to "Synthetic cannabis". The name "synthetic cannabis" is misleading and confusing, even if there are some Google hits for it. Until we find a better solution, I think we should return to the old title "Spice (drug)" and discuss better names before we move the page again. Here are a few quick suggestions to start a discussion: Cannabis mimic, Cannabis substitute, Cannabinoid preparation, Cannabinoid mixture, Cannabinoid herb mixture, Synthetic cannabinoid mix. Cacycle (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I was a bit bold, it just made sense to me along with merging K2. I agree it would be better if there was a widely used name but there doesn't seem to be. Synthetic cannabis seems clear to me, in part due the use of synthetic cannabinoids. It's complicated by the fact that its only been recently discovered that they contain these compounds so a lot of earlier sources talk of spice herbal blends and the like. Synthetic marijuana has a lot more hits (including use by The NYT, but per our naming of cannabis (drug) I assumed that there is a precedent to call it cannabis rather than marijuana (I guess because marijuana is almost exclusively used in the US whereas cannabis is used everywhere). I feel that renaming it as Spice would be misleading since the article should aim to cover all the products. It doesn't seem like any of the titles you've suggested are in use any more than synthetic cannabis AFAICT. Anything with cannabinoid in the title is misleading, since the products are not just cannabinoids but plant material as well. Smartse (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I endorsed the redirect and merge of the K2 and Spice articles. The Spice article had become a target for lots of folks trying to add a variety of brands, and it seems to me starting with an article covering the general topic of synthetic cannabis is a better notion. I do also like the idea of creating a redirect from Synthetic marijuana to this article, however, nor would I object to moving the current article to Synthetic marijuana. Nuujinn 22:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Smartest and most logical decision I have seen made on this article since its inception.BGinOC (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with the opposition to the page move. Because of it, the media has begun a firestorm of calling something that is in no way a man-made copy of marijuana. This is demonizing something that's 100% not related to marijuana. In addition, because of this title, people are beginning to think that real marijuana must be worse because these synethetic drugs are getting such a bad reputation. The consequences for this are real, misleading and disastrous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.116.139 (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Referring to this class of synthetic drugs as "synthetic cannabis" is profoundly misleading, since they are all based on novel chemical compounds that are CB1 agonists - but are not genuine synthetic duplicates of cannabis or naturally-occuring components of cannabis (as is the case with Marinol and Dronabinol synthetic THC).
 * I would suggest referring to these as "ersatz cannabis", which is what they are: mimics of a well-known product that have notably different qualities.  Labeling these as "synthetic cannabis" is underwriting marketing hype for the producers, when these novel drugs are significantly more dangerous for the user than marijuana, as well as inducing somewhat different effects. - bonze blayk (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Synthetic cannabis does though fit in with the generally used term, everyone has heard of it where nobody has heard of ersatz cannabis so I think the name should remain, the arguments for the article remaining with this name are surely stronger than when the article was moved nearly three years ago. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * NIDA refers to it as Spice (Synthetic Marijuana).
 * And here's the report of the European Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction linked on the NIDA page? - well, the very title of the thing - Understanding the ‘Spice’ phenomenon, and references such as this, found in a section header, use the term "Spice" as a generic term for these drugs:
 * "Why did it take such a long time to establish the psychoactive principles in ‘Spice’?"
 * I had only ever heard this class of drugs referred to as "Spice", and after I came across an article in a newspaper describing them as "synthetic cannabis", I was shocked - because that's Just Plain Wrong. And then I found it used here… this is not merely factually misleading, it endangers those who are led to believe that these bogus black-market synthetic concoctions are "just like cannabis", when these are based on novel chemicals whose consumption may result not just in psychosis at much higher rates than genuine cannabis, but in immediate brain damage.
 * Moreover… how much of the popularity of the term "synthetic cannabis" in the press is owed to the incautious renaming of this article? Note:  I had not seen the comments below on this issue before commenting in this section.  I agree absolutely with those commenting that the title must be changed.  ASAP.  This is not an issue of "how many generic WP:RS sources use this name versus that name?", it's an issue of promoting a public health hazard by mischaracterizing the nature of a drug of abuse.
 * Sincerely, Bonze Anne Rose Blayk - bonze blayk (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Claiming ppl are endangered by an article title on wikipedia is not a reason to change the article name and nor is the claim that our naming of this article effects the media. Arguments about promoting a public health hazard should rightly fall on deaf ears on wikipedia, even if they were true. For what its worth IMO the word synthetic very clearly indicates a drug of abuse. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

More bans in the US.
I don't know how/whether you'd want to work this into the article - but evidently the ad-hoc banning of this substance is happening at the level of individual US cities as well as at the state level. For example, the city of Cedar Hill, Texas passed an ordinance "prohibiting the use, posession, sale, ingestion or smoking of K-2 and similar substances containing synthetic cannabinoids and Salvia Divinorum" - with a $2,000 fine. The source for this is the Cedar Hill "Highlights" broadsheet dated September 2010 (which is published by the City of Cedar Hill).

SteveBaker (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think have a comprehensive list of city level bans would be unmanagable. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would be impossible to cover it all in this article. We could consider making a separate article however based on this table, but I can't imagine it will be long before it is made illegal under federal law so it's probably not worth the effort. Smartse (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't suggesting a comprehensive list - merely a mention that in the USA, this is being fought at the individual city level as well as at the level of entire states. The article (as is) implies that list of US states with bans is comprehensive - with the strong implication that it's still legal everywhere else...which is evidently not the case. SteveBaker (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A good point. How would you and others feel about trimming that list to countries and states, and have a general paragraph noting that bans are being enacted on city and county levels as well? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Federal Analog Act
Am I missing something or are not analogs already restricted by the Federal Analog Act? --192.77.126.50 (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks interesting, but unless a reliable source has said that this falls under that act it does not belong in the article.  GB  fan  04:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * More to the point, what are they analogs of? Cannabinoids are any compounds which interact with our natural cannabinoid receptors, rather than being a specific class of chemicals like amphetamines. Smartse (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Testing
Traditional screening tests (but not mass spec) had a hard time detecting the synthetic cannabinoids, but it looks like the forensic/toxicology community is catching up. I think the lead should reflect something like that since I don't want the casual reader to be misled into thinking this is "undetectable". We can certainly add this to the body of the article.


 * 1) http://www.drugaddictiontreatment.com/addiction-in-the-news/addiction-news/new-drug-testing-developed-for-previously-undetectable-k2-and-spice/
 * 2) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dta.158/abstract
 * 3) http://www.nmslab.com/services-forensic-K2-testing

Comments? --MartinezMD (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the problem with the current text is: "Although synthetic cannabis does not produce positive results in drug tests for cannabis, it is possible to detect its metabolites in human urine", with this being referenced by three journals in the main text. Can you suggest how this should be changed? I don't think the first link can really be used without sounding like an advert - all it says is that tests are available. The second link could be added, but only backs up what the third reference in the drug testing section says. The third is not a reliable source. Smartse (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I only listed these references as examples. They do not need to be specifically used, and I'm sure there are others.  I just think it can be misleading to say it "does not produce positive results".  I'd suggest something like "had not been routinely detectable until newer methods were made" or something to that effect.  The medical/forensic community had a similar history when Rohypnol and GHB use had their initial surge. MartinezMD (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that it only says it is not detected in drugs tests for cannabis - it doesn't imply that they can't be detected. Can we be sure that testing is now routine for synthetic cannabinoids? Smartse (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't want to say that either. Perhaps remove the statement entirely and leave the discussion of detection to the body of the article? MartinezMD (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Does it work?
All this verbiage, and no writing as to whether it affects the brain/body in the same way as marijuana. In other words, does it get the user "high" or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.159.17 (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Put simply, by all accounts, yes. The article does say it contains "synthetic cannabinoids which act on the body in a similar way to cannabinoids naturally found in cannabis, such as THC". People wouldn't be buying it if it had no effect. The more complicated answer is that we don't know - it won't be affecting the body in the exactly same way, because the chemicals are different, but there hasn't been any research yet into the actual effects (as discussed in the safety section). Smartse (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing to cite so it won't go in the article but put simply, yes you get a "high" and no it is not the same effect as pot. It's hard to describe but it reminded me (yes I was dumb enough to try it before I did some reading on the product) more of alcohol than pot. The effect is the same every time where pot can have several different effects depending on what type and even the mood of the user. 209.40.223.136 (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(rather poor) Translation from German by Google
I searched Google for "BfR rät vom Konsum der Kräutermischung", the title of this link, and hit the Translate button. I invite you too do so also, and confirm that the word 'tobacco' is not to be found anywhere in the article. Near the end of the PDF is this statement: "Information on potential risk can not presently be made". Both statements about Spice and tobacco which this citation purports to verify will now be removed, and should not be restored other than in the unlikely event that citations for them can be found. Liars Busted. I will now look at the edit history to find who added this willfully erroneous information. Anarchangel (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I just read the translation and it looks more like a health advisory, using case reports and anecdotes to warn about potential harm, and not an actual research report.MartinezMD (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.228.209.125, 12 February 2011
In the information about U.S. enforcement it states that as of Dec 24, 2010 it is placed on Schedule 1.

However on the JWH-018 wiki page it discusses the entire controversy under the United states section about how its not really illegal and places are still selling it.

68.228.209.125 (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't say it is Schedule 1. It discusses the DEA's announcement of its intent. I added a sentence at the end saying the DEA has not made a follow up statement yet. MartinezMD (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: As MartinezMD clarified, that's not exactly what the article says, so I'm untranscluding this request. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Slovakia status
As of 1. March 2011, active compounds of SPICE will be banned in Slovak Republic according to new anti-drug law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jooray (talk • contribs) 15:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Guybrush777, 28 February 2011
Current text, under Legal Status (United States):

On 24 November 2010, the DEA announced that it would make JWH-018, JWH-073, JWH-200, CP-47,497 and cannabicyclohexanol, which are often found in synthetic cannabis, illegal using emergency powers. [70] They will be placed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, within a month of the announcement, and the ban will last for at least a year.[71][72] No official follow up announcement of action has been made to date.

This text should be replaced with:

On 24 November 2010, the DEA announced that it would make JWH-018, JWH-073, JWH-200, CP-47,497 and cannabicyclohexanol, which are often found in synthetic cannabis, illegal using emergency powers. [70] In January 2011, the DEA placed all five compounds in the Schedule I category of controlled substances. [71]

Source:

[71] should be http://www.justice.gov/dea/programs/forensicsci/microgram/mg2011/mg0111.pdf

Guybrush777 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The source you provide seems to be a reiteration of the Nov 2010 report of the intention by the DEA to schedule those five substances. They still do not seem to have actually been scheduled yet.  WikiDao    &#9775;  15:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Australian Legality
Apparently these types of substances are still legal in Australia and you can buy them from many online stores which apparently already have them in stock, in Australia.

I am unable to confirm this other than the fact I have bought it many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerealkila (talk • contribs) 05:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

In New Zealand, Kronic has now been banned (30/6/11). Please update. 121.72.189.174 (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Fulaingt, 13 June 2011 - new legal status in Western Australia
Illegal in the State of Western Australia as of 17'th June 2011.

On the 13'th June 2011, the Western Australian state government made the decision to place a BAN on any products containing synthetic cannabinoids, including brands such as Kronic, Kalma, Voodoo, Kaos and Mango Kush, effective from Friday the 17'th June 2011. This makes Western Australia the first state in Australia to make the synthetic cannabis containing products illegal.

WA Health Minister Kim Hames made the decision after banning the brand Kronic in Western Australian prisons.

The move will add synthetic cannabinoids contained in incense blends to the Poisons Act 1964, making them illegal to possess. Once the ban is in effect, anyone caught with synthetic cannabinoids can be charged with selling, supplying or intent to sell or supply.

Source AAP http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/wa-to-ban-fake-marijuana-20110613-1g01s.html http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/9631581/synthetic-cannabis-banned-in-wa

Fulaingt (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I changed some wording, however, to improve flow. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

New laws in NZ
http://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/news/2011/august-2011/05/kronic-off-the-shelves-in-a-week.aspx as a reference, It is now temporarily banned for 12 months while the safety is assessed, at/before which point a decision will be made whether to permanently ban them or allow sales with some degree of restrictions. Can't find any references on exactly which chemicals are being banned but I've heard by word of mouth that there's some new products that bypass it, meaning it must be only specific chemicals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.160.126.177 (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Same person who made the above comment: There's a constant development of new ones to get around every ban that goes. This is from actually seeing them, but there should be references out there. 101.98.153.99 (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

From talk of a redirect
On Talk:K2 (drug), a person wrote the following comment earlier today. Since K2 (drug) redirects to this article, it is more helpful to have the comment here; I don't know if it still applies in this location:


 * Updates for US States
 * It is now illegal in at least 4 states that are listed as pending legislation, Illinois http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=096-1285; Indiana www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title11/ar12/ch3.7.pdf; Wisconsin https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/proposals/sb54; and Michigan http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%281efa1xvjtormnj45yglwkv55%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-333-7212. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.162.203 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not actively editing this page, so hopefully someone here can figure out what needs to be updated. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 27 October 2011
Please add the following to the safety section:

A 13 year old boy died at UPMC Presbyterian Hospital in Pittsburgh PA in October 2011 from lung injuries caused by smoking synthetic marijuana (K2).

Reference: http://www.wtae.com/news/29602905/detail.html

http://newsone.com/nation/associatedpress3/boy-dies-after-smoking-fake-weed-out-of-pez-despenser/

13 year old in Pittsburgh had double lung transplant from smoking K2. He has since died. You you add this to the Saftey section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrblonde432 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Spkguitar (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

http://newsone.com/nation/associatedpress3/boy-dies-after-smoking-fake-weed-out-of-pez-despenser/

13 year old in Pittsburgh had double lung transplant from smoking K2. He has since died. You you add this to the Saftey section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrblonde432 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking I would prefer to wait until more details are known (such as toxicology reports) as Mephedrone demonstrates the media often don't get this right. As far as I can find, this would be the first directly caused death in which case it will probably be written about by scientists at some point in the future. SmartSE (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Said 13 yr old boy smoked the synthetic cannabis through a pipe fashioned from a plastic pez dispenser which in turn combusted releasing cyanide gas among other harmful vapors causing massive chemical burns on the surface of his lungs, died of pneumonia following taking immunosupressant drugs after double lung transplant. Damage was from smoking plastic, and the same outcome would have resulted had he been trying to smoke marijuana, tobacco, tea leaves, or any other substance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.185.17 (talk • contribs)


 * Got a source for that? SmartSE (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * D'oh. Ignore that. Know I've noticed the URL... what great reporting! SmartSE (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Safety Concerns
I have added the latest reports as to the safety of synthetic cannabinoids. It seems this article was in large part devoid of any safety information for drugs that people are ingesting in ever increasing numbers? Is this really what the editors of this article stand for? Party on! Glennconti (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources you added were only a few months old - and we had included what was known before. Thanks for updating it. SmartSE (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

edit request, 13-04-2012
The detection of synthetic cannabinoids is not correctly displayed, although the right (German) sources are mentioned. (Headline: Synthetic cannabinoid ingredients) Here is my proposal for change:

In December 2008, a Frankfurt-based pharmaceutical company was the first to discover a synthetic cannabinomimetic compound, JWH-018, in Spice products* [15][17][18]**. In January 2009, researchers at the University of Freiburg in Germany announced that an active substance in Spice was an undisclosed analogue of the synthetic cannabinoid CP 47,497.[11] Later that month, JWH-018 and CP 47,497 along with its dimethylhexyl, dimethyloctyl and dimethylnonyl homologues, were added to the German controlled drug schedules.[12][13] In May the analogue of CP 47,497 was named cannabicyclohexanol.[14]

Another potent synthetic cannabinoid, HU-210, has been reported to have been found in Spice seized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.[19] An analysis of samples acquired four weeks after the German prohibition of JWH-018 took place found that the compound had been replaced with JWH-073.[20]


 * Source: "Steup, C.: Untersuchung des Handelsproduktes "Spice"" (in German). http://usualredant.de/drogen/download/analyse-thc-pharm-spice-jwh-018.pdf
 * Source no 16 is not online anymore; sources 15, 17 and 18 all refer to JWH-018 being discovered in December 2008.

--141.2.88.10 (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC) (sorry, I only have a German Wiki account which does not allow me to post in English WP)

Edit request on 15 May 2012
Under the legal status section for United States, paragraph 2:

PROPOSED AMENDMENT: "Several states independently passed acts making it illegal under state law, including Iowa {insert footnote}...."

FOOTNOTE TEXT: Iowa Code § 124.204(4)(u) (defining a Schedule I controlled substance to include "synthetic equivalents of the substances contained in the Cannabis plant, or in the resinous extractives of such plant, and synthetic substances, derivatives, and their isomers with similar chemical structure and pharmacological activity to those substances contained in the plant....").

SOURCE: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/ACO/IC/LINC/Section.124.204.pdf

I am a licensed attorney in the State of Iowa, license number AT0002669.

Yours truly,

Asfultz (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Aaron S. Fultz Law Office of Aaron S. Fultz 1525 Airport Road, Suite 103 Ames, IA 50010-8231 (515) 268-5601

Asfultz (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thank you for the edit request and for providing a source. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request 29 May 2012: Adding citation to legality in Louisiana
Section 5.5.2.

"Louisiana in August 2010" can be changed to "Louisiana in August 2010, and other synthetic cannibinoid groups and analogues in July 2011" with citation below.

Here's what happened: In 2010, the 5 standard Spice compounds were made illegal. The 2011 law makes any synthetic cannibinoid illegal if it fits in certain chemical groups, whether it is an exact chemical match or not. The goal is to get around the manufacturers just designing new compounds when one is declared illegal

(See http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=732821 "Present law (Schedule I)(C)(32) prohibits specific chemical compounds as synthetic cannabinoids. Proposed law repeals present law and adds to Schedule I chemical groups containing any synthetic cannabinoid salts, isomers, or salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, or salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation, including all synthetic cannabinoid chemical analogues in such groups.")

Citations for the new law Acts 2011, No. 420, §§1, 2, eff. July 15, 2011. http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=762070 Actual statute in new form: Louisiana Revised Statutes 40:964 http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=98877  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.237.178 (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Correction and additions.
In "Safety",it incorrectly states:

"Myocardial infarction (heart attacks) were associated with the use of the synthetic cannabinoid K2."

K2 is NOT a synthetic cannabinoid, is a BRAND NAME of a product and generic term for products which may contain any number of research chemicals, including but not limited to hundreds of cannabinoids, depending on origin, manufacturer, and local laws.

I suggest it be changed to:

"Myocardial infarction (heart attacks) were associated with the use of the products shown to contain synthetic cannabinoids."

I think there should also be added something in the Safety section explaining that in many cases, no tests are done to verify if there are OTHER chemicals(mephedrone, MDPV, etc.) present, and it is perhaps incorrectly assumed that negative reactions are from cannabinoids.
 * 2

It should also note that, as far as I can find, there are no tests that have been done to determine if the negative effects are from cannabinoids themselves, or from well known impurity issues in the often Chinese supply chain. As far as I can tell, no DEA(or other agency) tests have been done on the research chemicals themselves, to determine the purity level, and to isolate the impurities, to determine if they are causing the adverse reactions.
 * 2.5


 * 1) 3. The article states that these products have been sold since the early 2000s, and it should be noted that no adverse reactions(that I can find) were reported prior to the official discovery of such compounds in the products, suggesting that the compounds were not dangerous until law enforcement became aware of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.88.167 (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 August 2012
Hello, just to let you know that smoking incense (legal weed) is now being sold in Australia again and has been for the last 6 months or so. I am not sure as to why but I guess the ingredients have been changed somewhat to meet legal requirements. Brands available freely from the internet are Northern Lights Incense, Atomic Bomb and Green Kandi. Regards, Lynnette

58.165.124.186 (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm a stickler for sources, if I am going to add this in, I need at least some sourcing. I'll take just about anything which confirms their existence and status from a decent source. Contact me directly on my talkpage and message me, I'll update it or discuss it with you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

please add to "Legal status":

Banned on 2011: SR144528 WIN 55,212-2 JWH-133 CP 47,497 CP 55,940 HU 331 HU 210 HU 211 CP 50,556-1 JWH-073 JWH-018

Banned on 2012: HU 250 JWH-210 AM-694 AM-2201 JWH-081 RCS-4/ SR-19/ BTM-4/ E-4 JWH-122 JWH-022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ban79 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal 2
Legality of synthetic cannabis in North Carolina is a stubby orphan that probably doesn't merit a standalone article. Synthetic cannabis policy in North Carolina doesn't seem to notably differ from policy elsewhere in the United States, so I propose merging it into the US section of this article. A few sentences should be sufficient. --BDD (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Merge. Absolutely agree. It's a stub because it's a tiny law relative to the larger issue.MartinezMD (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Do it. SmartSE (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 December 2012
kronic is still for sale in NSW and not banned as from July 2011 unfortunately.

121.217.167.129 (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but we've already cited a source that says it's not banned as of June 2011, so there's little benefit in changing this to July 2011 without a source. You're welcome to re-open this request if you can find a reliable source with more up-to-date information. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 April 2013; a request with the intention to save lives
Please make additions to the safety topic concerning the confirmed link between even moderate doses of many synthetic cannabis products and epilepsy and seizures. The seizures induced by synthetic cannabis are indescriminate to any genetic predisposition and therefore can affect anyone, even users who have never experienced one. Hallucinations often result in post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) that can persist for years and elicit "flash-backs" and lead to exacerbation of pre-existing or create new neurosis in many individuals. Synthetic cannabis is an extraordinarily dangerous substance that is respected by most of the recreational usage community and as such these findings have been well documented in countless Texas hospitals and through personal experience. Symptoms of these seizures commonly present as eyes rolling back into the head, foaming at the mouth, acute urinary incontinence, hallucinations, tachycardia and dysrhythmias. Furthermore, the following colloquialisms should be added: "fake bake", "kush", "synthetics". Lastly, as an unbiased and concerned person with a future in medicine it is a grave mistake to leave this page as undaunting as it currently is. The effects of this drug have led to numerous hospitalizations daily in some areas and many claims to disregard of inaccurate information have been made. It would likely save lives to modify this page and expose this issue for what it actually is.

173.226.156.154 (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Phrasing
From the intro:
 *  There is controversy among calling Spice and K2 synthetic cannabis and is considered by some to be a misnomer, because the ingredients contained in these products are mimics, not copies of THC.

It's pretty uncontroversial though that this sentence sucks. AxelBoldt (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)