Talk:JWH-018

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Legal Status Updates?

I notice that the information about United States "Legal Status" is outdated by some months. Would it be possible to have a knowledgable party update that and any outdated sections there? (Thank you for your contributon!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.39.167 (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate legal info

Just a minor point, jwh is legal in the US and also there is no such term as "pharmaceutical law". That term sounds like something coined by an interested party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.137.216 (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Also worth noting is the legal status in the picture on the right states it is scheduleII in canada which it is not.| CANADA | June 3 2010 | The Chemical JWH-018 is notcontrolled in Canada. Also note the Most current CSDA can be found here[1] | accurate up to and including the last amendments made on may14,2010. JWH-018 is neither controlled nor scheduled in Canada. |-

An additional minor inaccuracy, there are not six coastal counties in Mississippi, there are three. Also, it remains legal in one of them as of August 13th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.134.39 (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-38.8/

New Picture to Replace the Molecule

I don't think that when most people want to view this page that the molecule diagram is going to help them visualize this compound. I propose that we change that picture with an actual picture of the chemical itself. This way people know what it looks like without an electron microscope.

No. The chemical info boxes have a standard format that includes the chemical structure. Also, a random picture of a white powder more or less lacks encyclopedic value and serves mostly illustrative purposes. Please add new talk page sections to the bottom. Cacycle (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian ban

it should be included the austrian ban on "spice". sources are yahoo uk GMA news and others. --neolandes 22:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neolandes (talk • contribs)

"Transdermal Delivery" Research Claim

The claim that it's being studied for transdermal delivery should be removed. It's a shameless ploy by a recreational vendor from New Zealand (selling a very inferior and polluted product, I might add, that has no basis in fact. The mere inclusion of a drug in a patent as such does not mean it is actually being researched for such a use as it implies. The patent's aim is to prevent others from delivering ANY cannabinoid transdermally without paying the owner a high fee. As such products are likely in the future, they have great incentive to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.96.159 (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a wiki, go ahead and remove that sentence :-) Cacycle (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, JWH-018 is not mentioned once in the citation for that statement, I'm removing it now. 11:41, 17 January 2010

legal situation in Switzerland

moved here from the article page:

JWH-018 is "banned" in Switzerland.[1]

This information is incorrect, I have deleted it previously but someone insists. You can check out the complete list of illegal drugs here:

http://www.swissmedic.ch/produktbereiche/00447/00536/index.html?lang=de&download=NHzLpZeg7t,lnp6I0NTU042l2Z6ln1acy4Zn4Z2qZpnO2Yuq2Z6gpJCDdH1,fWym162epYbg2c_JjKbNoKSn6A-- (sorry if the link doesn't work find it yourself, it's pretty easy to navigate).

I can assure you that JWH-018 is currently still legal in Switzerland - and we have no idiotic analogue laws. At most they could prosecute you for selling an unapproved medicinal substance or dangerous food additive or something like that (there have been precedents) but the punishment is nothing compared to illegal drug dealing (fine vs. prison).

So please delete this BS once and for all - that is until JWH-018 is really illegal in Switzerland (it will happen, probably when the EU puts out a directive as they did for 2C-I, 2C-T-2 and 2C-T-7).

And please edit this post to make it "serious" - I am not a wikipedia editor just an expert in narcotic laws.

As far as I know, JWH-018 is not banned in Switzerland, though selling the product "Spice" is a problem due to local smoking laws. As this article isn't about "Spice", I have to agree with with the "expert in narcotic laws". ;)

References

  1. ^ Germans say goodbye to herbal high

Soon to be delegalized in Poland

This substance is on the list of 18(?) Substances soon to be delegalized (criminalized) in Poland:

Argyreia nervosa - Hawaiian Baby Woodrose, Banisteriopsis caapi - Ayhuasca, Calea zacatechichi - Dream Herb, Catha edulis - Khat, Echinopsis pachanoi - San Pedro (cactus), Piper methysticum - Kava Kava, Leonotis leonurus - Wild Dagga, Mimosa tenuiflora - Jurema, Mitragyna speciosa - Kratom, Nymphaea caerulea, Peganum harmala, Psychotria viridis, Rivea corymbosa, Salvia divinorum, Tabernanthe iboga - Iboga, Trichocereus peruvianus, Benzylpiperazine - BZP, JWH-018 - Spice

the bill (author of the bill: Grzegorz Sztolcman?) was accepted by Polish Sejm (for - 404, against - 5, and 2 abstent)[1] [2], Polish Senat [3] and the President of Poland [4].


Ttg53 (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide Legal Status

Section in question: "In most other countries JWH-018 remains legal at present, although it might potentially be deemed a controlled substance analogue in certain jurisdictions where very broadly worded drug analogues laws are in force. JWH-018 is unlike any known illegal cannabinoid, and thus is not subject to various analogue acts."

It is unknown whether JWH compounds are subject to analogue acts, because as stated right before that, broadly worded analogue acts may cover JWH.

I don't think that "JWH-018 is unlike any known illegal cannabinoid, and thus is not subject to various analogue acts." should be here, because it is misleading, and is a very important legal topic for those dealing with possible legal ramifications. I believe a trial must come to pass that states whether or not JWH 018 etc., are or are not subject to the analogue acts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TiredTendencies (talk • contribs) 04:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article about JWH-018

excellent article with references available - we could possibly integrate alot of the information here?

Topics include:

  • 1Introduction to JWH-018 (1-pentyl-3-(1-nahpthoyl)indole)
  • 2Pharmacology and Pharmacokinetics of JWH-018
  • 3Using JWH-018
  • 4The health risks of JWH-018
  • 5Producing JWH-018
  • 6Forms of JWH-018
  • 7The legal status of JWH-018
  • 8The history of JWH-018
  • 9References

link: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90909#The_health_risks_of_JWH-018

PlasticShark (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The health risks section would be very helpful. --Malkuth1 (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources would not be considered reliable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). Cacycle (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be responsible people, don't be putting health risks and other subjects related to consuming a research chemical on Wikipedia. Very stupid.Yetiwarrior (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's your opinion. A person considering consuming this compound is not likely to decide against it simply because wikipedia doesn't detail health risks for them. You might as well educate them with what information is available and then they may use that info to decide against it. True that is also an opinion but seems equally valid if not more so if the main concern is to reduce harm that is likely to occur otherwise. Adimus28 (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a How-To guide and sources need to be reliable if they are going to be included. If a reader wants to use the drug, there are other places on the internet they can go to for information. As for health risks, reliably-sourced information is as valid a topic as any other. MartinezMD (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In "spice"?

This article: Auwarter, V. (2008). Spice and other herbal blends. J. Mass Spectrometry. Suggests this is doubtful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.91.158 (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK Status

Apparently this is going to be illegal in the UK as of 23rd Dec 2009, however I'm not sure which of the 2 statutory instruments covers this specific substance for the reference (and therefore haven't edited the article for now, there are articles about "legal highs" being banned, but none mentioning the actual chemicals) - they made 2 orders with different substances listed in each, and the chemical names are different to the ones in the article, any chance someone with some chemistry knowledge could have a look and see which chemical in the orders matches this chemical?

I believe it's either the whole Dihydrogen Monoxide thing with chemical names, or they've listed a variation of this chemical with the "or variations by changing..." part covering this chemical as well. It might also be useful to do the same for the other JWH articles at the same time (Order 3135 and Order 3136) 77.99.248.157 (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should Reference 8 be regarded?

The article linked to says: "Also, like I said before, we don’t know where this data has come from, clouding the issue even further."

Shouldn't it be disregarded then? Especially cos JWH-018 might be harmful the information from this source make it sound quite harmless possibly affecting peoples decision to try it. 78.48.152.131 (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both references 7 and 8 are referencing special interest groups. This seems like a direct conflict of interest. And when it comes to man made drugs I think it's very important to get a real objective analysis on the substance in question. I certainly don't trust these sources enough to recommend this article to a friend or family member interested in learning more about JWH-018. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiXiStigma (talk • contribs) 20:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should some mention be made to it's forms

It can be bought online in herbal blends but also the sale of the pure formula is available which are 2 very different things. The pure formula is very concentrated (1mg is alot for instance...) and likely to be far more dangerous than spice which is said to have around 2-3mg in a whole packet, mention to this should be given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.38.80 (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The dosing of packages of the spice blends is said to be on the order of 75mg per 3 gram package. A typical dose of JWH-018 is thus several mg.

66.30.116.16 (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Ban?

I've found conflicting evidence on whether or not the state of Kentucky has banned JWH-018/spice products. Some sources say it has been banned, while others say that as of 5/14/2010, only Kansas has banned it. We need a citation for the Kentucky section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.160.212 (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dates?

This article is missing dates for this discovery and work.71.112.33.190 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Serotonin Syndrome

Where is the information regarding JWH-018 and it's indole moiety potential for causing Serotonin syndrome? 71.112.204.234 (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should this not be altered?

In the usage section John W. Huffman's opinion is quoted: "It's like LSD, the only thing it is good for is getting you high." Is it not wrong to quote this statement, as LSD does have potential medical usages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.213.94.224 (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing, but it should stay. After all, it is only his opinion. The article makes no statement regarding the medical use of LSD, only that the creator of the subject of this article believes LSD has no medical use. Hence the use of the word "opined", which basically means "to state one's opinion". --ErgoSum•talk•trib 17:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the cited source for that quote is little more than hearsay. Can anyone find an original source of Huffman saying that? 137.229.182.28 (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone copy this JWH-018 two-dimensional metabolite diagram selection?

Tentative structure of the identified urinary metabolites of JWH-018 and also the M8-M11 from the former image: possibly formed via an via an epoxide intermediate(?). If these can be redrawn, they'd be a great contribution to the article. Nagelfar (talk) 07:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addiction section seems unnecessary

One case of addiction hardly seems important enough to create a whole section for. Theguy0000 (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacology section

I created a new "pharmacology" section. I included the previously named "metabolism" section as a subsection titled "pharmacokinetics," and also created a "mechanism of action" section.

This all seemed proper to make this article more similar to other drug articles. However, I think the "mechanism of action" section should be modified or added to by someone who more fully understands pharmacology. Theguy0000 (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say in the source that JWH-018 is full agonist?--Custoo (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor gramatical error

Great article. I found one minor gramatical error.

In the last sentence in the Toxicology section it says " however, he noted that these are all these symptoms can be seen at high dosages of marijuana."

I believe it should read something like "however, he noted that these are the same symptoms that can be seen at high dosages of marijuana." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.70.65 (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Health Canada

"received...package back....today ...this time rejected by "Health Canada."

This was e-mail from a vendor of herbal incense.

Perhaps there should be some mention that health canada is regulating despite laws against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.78.9 (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source for the information? An email is not a reliable source. ~~ GB fan ~~ 17:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't 'an email'- it was an email from a VENDOR who shipped and it was returned by Health Canada. Call it a rumor if that's not reliable enough for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.92.120 (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this "email from a VENDOR" is published in a reliable source it is not reliable and we do not publish rumors. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US/NC legality

Looking around for details of when the hammer is to fall in NC, I found an article in which a legislator says that legislation can't be introduced before 2011, and the comment on the edit changing NC's status to "legislation proposed" says "update arkansas". Yuubi (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make that edit, you're looking at the wrong user. Try asking Easyzeh. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 22:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legality US

Should it state that the new DEA ban is only on certain chemicals such as JWH-018 as stated by them or should it say that all JWH compounds are now illegal due to the analog act? Would the other JWH compounds be considered analogs of JWH-018? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.92.120 (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article is specifically about JWH-018 there is no reason to discuss the other chemicals and their legal status. We as editors here on wikipedia can not make the determination if the analog act applies to anything. It would be original research for us to do that. We would need to find a reliable source that explains what chemicals this includes under that act. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate Info in History Section

It is stated that JWH-018 is an analog of THC. This is not true, and is why JWH-018 was initially unscheduled, as it is not a structural analog of any illegal compound (i.e. THC). JWH-018 is based on an indole group, not the triple-carbon rings of THC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.80.129 (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last Sentence Under Usage.

"However, even a responsible user may accidentally overdose on the drug and experience negative side effects." No citation and borderline original research; removed - Gunnanmon (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Detection In Biological Fluids...

The citations for the "Detection in Biological Fluids" are out of date. Field urine and oral panels exist for JWH-018, 073, and possibly 250, and are available for purchase through Redwood Toxicology.

See links below...

http://www.redwoodtoxicology.com/services/synthetic_cannabinoid_testing.html

- Urine

http://www.redwoodtoxicology.com/documents/services/3370_JWH_FAQ.pdf

http://www.redwoodtoxicology.com/documents/services/3369_jwh_sellsheet.pdf

- Oral

http://www.redwoodtoxicology.com/documents/services/3370_JWH_FAQ.pdf

http://www.redwoodtoxicology.com/documents/services/3383_jwh-oral.pdf

http://www.redwoodtoxicology.com/documents/services/3392_oral_fluid_benefits.pdf

- Gunnanmon (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From 3370_JWH_FAQ.pdf...
"How is JWH-018 and JWH-073 metabolized in urine? Both JWH-018 and JWH-073 metabolize extensively in humans via oxidation and glucuronide conjugation. Depending on dosage, the hydroxylated JWH-018 and JWH-073 and the carboxylated JWH-018 metabolites can be detected up to 72 hours in urine. Parent drug excreted in human urine has not been reported."


"What are the cut-off levels? There are no cut-off levels for RTL’s Urine Synthetic Cannabinoid Test. Toxicology result reporting for JWH-018 and JWH-073 will indicate either “Detected” or “Not Detected.” The cut-off level for the oral fluid test is 0.5 ng/mL for JWH-018, JWH-073 and JWH-250."
- Gunnanmon (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My $0.02 - although I'm sure some level can be detected, it doesn't necessarily equal being determinable in the same sense I can send off a sample and get a number. A cut-off value is the function of a qualitative test, or am I misunderstanding something? Regardless, the section looks fine as I currently see it, making no assertion on levels. MartinezMD (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can send off a sample and get "detected" or "not detected". Please have a look at the links. I'm not trying to say the detection section is completely inaccurate, I'm just trying to establish that you can in fact test for JWH-018. - Gunnanmon (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NMS Labs Synthetic Cannabinoid Testing...
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100915007043/en/NMS-Labs-Performs-Urine-Tests-Metabolites-Synthetic
http://www.nmslabs.com/services-forensic-K2-testing
http://www.nmslabs.com/test-catalog/Synthetic%20Cannabinoid%20Metabolites
http://www.nmslabs.com/tests/Synthetic-Cannabinoid-Metabolites--Qualitative---Urine/4280U
http://www.nmslabs.com/tests/Synthetic-Cannabinoid-Metabolites-Screen--Qualitative---Urine--Forensic-/9561U
- Gunnanmon (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it can be detected in urine, but "detected" vs "not detected" is qualitative, not quantitative. You changed the statement in the article about it being "quantitated". And the links you provide are for a qualitative test. That is my only point on all this.MartinezMD (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed the sentence in the article about quantitative urine measurement. Since a level would be artificially altered just by drinking a couple glasses of water, a quantitative level would not be offered in the market. If they can get a serum level, a machine could *easily* substitute urine but it would be irrelevant. Let the issue rest.MartinezMD (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Since a level would be artificially altered just by drinking a couple glasses of water, a quantitative level would not be offered in the market." You could make that same argument about urinary cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, opiates and PCP (the NIDA 5), but of course these commercial tests all have specific quantitative reporting levels. Hetoi (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what's your agenda in this? Also, I'd say it would be more accurate to say a quantitative measurement for urine is not currently offered, but then I'd ask what is the point of making the statement? MartinezMD (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My "agenda" is to collect and disseminate information on the quantitative levels of xenobiotics in human biofluids, for use by those who measure and/or interpret such data. If we indicate that the urinary JWH-018 metabolite has apparently not yet been quantitated following ingestion of a particular dose, perhaps that would encourage someone who already has this information to provide it, or to engage in a study to obtain it. JWH-018 is considered by many to be a marijuana substitute; the quantitative presence in urine of the major marijuana metabolite is relied on heavily by drug testing laboratories and in legal proceedings internationally. The numbers are often interpreted by experts who opine on the recency, duration and/or magnitude of usage. These measurements were not always possible; someone had to be the first to perform them. Hetoi (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urine can be quantitated since you can put urine into the same GC/MS analyzer as serum. So the issue is not whether the urine specimen can get a quantified result, but rather has someone studied the kinetics yet, which is a different statement to be made and would require different wording.MartinezMD (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had contacted by email two of the authors who had reported on the primary urinary JWH-018 metabolite to ask if they could tell me the quantitative amounts that were found, and they replied that they had only performed qualitative testing. So it seems to me that the statement "this metabolite has apparently not as yet been quantitated" is quite appropriate and would be easily understood by anyone interested in this sort of information. It is my hope that someone will fill in the missing information in the near future, as analytical toxicologists will be asked to interpret their findings when they begin performing this test on a regular basis. It doesn't need to be a full-blown kinetic study, even a single random specimen from an individual user would provide a starting point. Hetoi (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few published papers that we'd have to review before making a firm statement. Maybe you have access to these? It'll take my library a day or two to get these to me:
  • Sobolevsky, T et. al. Detection of JWH-018 metabolites in smoking mixture post administration urine. For. Sci. Int. 200: 141-147 (2010).
  • Hudson, S et. al. Use of high-resolution accurate mass spectrometry to detect reported and previously unreported cannabinomimetics in ‘herbal high’ products. J Anal Tox. 34: 252-260 (2010).

MartinezMD (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have both paper copies and the pdfs. But they would need to be sent to an individual, not put onto an open access site. 173.60.107.159 (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting them, hopefully by tomorrow. Any comments you have on what they say would be welcome. MartinezMD (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hudson article applies strictly to dosage forms, not biofluids. Sobolevsky et al. reported on the qualitative presence of JWH-018 metabolites in the urine of 3 intoxicated users. The other folks who did that were Moller et al. in Drug Test. Anal. 3: in press, 2011. (PMID:20872894) Hetoi (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not thrilled with the wording (since I'm not sure there isn't other data out there), I've reverted the edit back. Clearly it's an area of research that needs more study. I have a couple of the articles now, but am waiting on more. Hudson notes that the legal issues obtaining the substrates was complicating quantitative research (of the parent compound) and it may be a hindrance into the future. MartinezMD (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. If any new data is released, I will update the information here. The Moller group told me in an email that they have some semi-quantitative data and plan to do more work along those lines in the future. Hetoi (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updates to the story of a player who supposedly died of a jwh-018 overdose

I believe it's important for Wikipedia to get it right, to present the facts, and to allow people to decide the truth. Almost all of the edits I made to this page were initially removed, which I must admit made me feel very welcome as a first-time wikipedia author (I have since replaced them with a much shortened version and will be watching this page very carefully). Hard to know what agendas other authors might have for presentation of this controversial material.

Presenting the facts is not speculating, and I can tell you as a physician that the symptoms described for this case in no way match what you typically see with cannabinoid overdose so now I'm very doubtful about the coroner's report. I presented only the facts, and presented them in detail. I have edited my contribution to remove some of the details, but the evidence does not support the hypothesis that this kid died of jwh-018 and the wikipedia article should not take that position if it cannot be supported by sufficient evidence. Showing both sides is imperative, and if that's not important to authors here then I'm wasting my time.

I don't know what he died of, I can only provide an alternative hypothesis that fits the data better than the current hypothesis, which I've done.

If you have studied the physiology of AAI synthetic cannabinoids you know exactly what I'm talking about so please be willing to acknowledge that. We are not here to support an establishment position, in fact, I believe good wiki journalism should be investigative when required, not just didactic!

- Pie — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhoenixPie (talk • contribs) 01:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed much of your edits because it included a lot of speculation, such as about bath salts because you did not provide a source (I took it as being your theory). It can be a bit frustrating, but entries in WP have to be reliable and as editors we can't further our own alternate theories. If some official source does, we can report that theory.
Also, this article is about JWH-018, not bath salts nor Police Chief Martin Brown or his actions. As it stands already, the report is a single anecdote whose criteria for use is on the borderline. Expanding the section gives it undue weight in the article. In an article about that police department, or the athlete, a larger section about this would be more appropriate. For here, two sentences (one mentioning the report of his death attributed to JWH and another saying all the information isn't available) is plenty, considering the references would provide the additional information to an interested reader.
Last, sorry if I made you feel unwelcome. That wasn't my intent. Please accept my late welcome. MartinezMD (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formula weight of molecules

Hi all,

I just noticed an editor has changed the molecular mass of this compound from the previous 2 decimal places (dp), 5 significant figures (sf) value, to a 4 dp, 7 sf value. Is this now standard practice for molecular weight values? Unless it is for the purposes of standardisation then I can see no point to such precise values. From my experience as a chemist and pharmacologist there is absolutely NO reason to ever require MW values for small molecules to be listed to 4 dp or 7 sf. The periodic table lists elements to 4 sf because this provides a good level of precision for the standard balances found in organic chem and pharmacology labs. Even chemical suppliers like Sigma-Aldrich only list their small molecules to 2 dp!

I'm aware that this sounds like pedantry, and most of the readership of such pages are able to do the simple rounding to a number of sf of their liking, but it just seems like a tremendous waste of time for everyone, both editors and readers.

Your thoughts?

BaeyerDrewson (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard procedure on Wikipedia to keep it at max to 2 decimal places. When I used to just copy and paste the molecular mass of compounds from Ghemical into the infobox they were about 5 decimal places and every single time an editor came around and rounded it up to the 2nd decimal point leading me to believe it should stay as 2. Best regards, C6541 (T↔C) 23:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on JWH-018. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on JWH-018. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3D model (jsmol) External link

Hey everyone, I was trying to update the external link to the 3D model (jsmol) as it is currently broken. I am however unable to do it as I do not have experience with this kind of 'Wikipedia box coding'.

If someone wants to help, The Wayback Mahine has a working link: https://web.archive.org/web/20200725043400/https://chemapps.stolaf.edu/jmol/jmol.php?model=CCCCCN1C%3DC%28C%28C2%3DCC%3DCC3%3DCC%3DCC%3DC32%29%3DO%29C4%3DCC%3DCC%3DC41

Happy Halloween!

Guess it was a short term issue as the link works again! Kujast (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:JWH-018"