Jump to content

Talk:Nabiximols

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sativex

[edit]

From the article: "Sativex Is basically a Liquid form of Marijuana with one exception, it cannot get you high"

Is this true? I would imagine that the only difference from marijuana is the delivery method, i.e., smoked vs. mucous membrane absorption/ingestion; if the THC and cannibidiol weren't affecting the central nervous system, how would they relieve pain?. Can anyone verify this? It seems a rather unsubstantiated and unscientific claim, but I'll leave it alone til some perspective is gained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.68.139 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this unsupported assertion. If taken in sufficient amounts, Sativex will produce a high similar to smoking a spliff. JFW | T@lk 21:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but the instructions for the medication -specifically- state that 'intoxication' is a common side effect, especially when starting off. They also say that if intoxication occurs, one should taper back usage of the medication until it no longer is a problem. - Pacula 14:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I actually have used this medicine and it can get you extremely high. To get high from it, I've noticed that I had to do about three to four doses (sprays) at once, although I have taken as many as 10-15 sprays at once. The effects, in my opinion, are slightly distinguishable from smoking cannabis though. It's kind of like a cannabis-high with less of the feelings of mental euphoria but with more of the physical "body high" effects. Keep in mind this is a cannabis high that comes through ingestion rather than smoking, so be prepared to be quite high for a long period of time, with the high "spiking" upwards during digestion. I have been so stoned off Sativex at times, after dinner, I felt like I was losing my mind and could no longer comprehend or remember movies or television that I was watching. Often I would simply lose conciousness when getting that high. I would definately not recommend going out in public after doing more than two doses of this stuff. Torkmann (talk) 05:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information

[edit]

"(Sativex will remain a Schedule 1 controlled drug in the UK)"

The UK doesn't use the Schedule system that America does. It uses a system of drug classes (Class A, B, C). Do they mean it's Class C (the same as cannabis atm) or what? Haddock420 01:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That came straight from the GW Pharmaceuticals press release dated 2005/11/15. Anarchist42 23:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The UK uses classes and schedules - for example Anabolic Steroids are Class C, Schedule III, I believe, which means that they are illegal without prescription but do have medicinal purposes. Cannabis medications would therefore most likely be in this class and will remain illegal without prescription.

Just to clarify, the Class system (A, B, C) refers to criminal classification, whereas the schedule system refers to Medical classification. The latter really just has implications for uses, and prescription and storage requirements. Schedule 1 for example means that there is no medical use for it, unless specified by a home office license, which it was in this case. (It is now Schedule 4, but remains class B). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.226.171 (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

Lilly had tinctures as medicine. Where did Sativex get credit for the worlds only pharma product? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.135.19 (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A woman didnt suffered a fatality

[edit]

Lucky she didn't die. The Real Walrus 23:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re above: You can not suffer a fatality and not die, thats contradiction in terms. Does any one know the LD50 of THC and CBN? 08:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)~

From the Merck Index, 12th edition. 9349. The LD50 was measured in rats at 1270mg/kg (males) and 730mg/kg(females) given as an oral suspension in oil. It was 40mg/kg in male and female rats by IV. The value for inhalation in rats (corrected for particulate losses etc) was 42mg/kg. The values are reported for the Δ9-THC isomer. Jeff Dahl 22:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph

[edit]

This paragraph reads like an advertisement or promotional material from the company (bold text added to point out what I see as unencyclopedic, non-neutral text)

'"In February 2007, GW and Otsuka Pharmaceutical announced an exclusive agreement for Otsuka to develop and market Sativex in the United States. Otsuka is a major global pharmaceutical company, best known for its antipsychotic blockbuster medication, Abilify. Sativex has received permission from the US regulatory authority, the FDA, to enter directly into late stage Phase III trials in the US. The first large scale US trial in the US for cancer patients is expected to start in summer 2007. The 300-patient, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study will evaluate the effect of Sativex in relieving average daily pain, reducing the use of breakthrough opioid medications, improving the quality of sleep and relevant aspects of quality of life among other outcome measures."'

Particularly the last part: it seems predictive rather than narrative. Also "expected to start in summer 2007" -- it is now 2008, so wherever this came from (no citation either) it needs to be updated. I don't have the resources to correct this paragraph without damaging the good parts. User:Pedant (talk) 07:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the word 'blockbuster' is inappropriate. Mjpresson (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in the "effectiveness" section, the expression "a trend towards" doesn't mean anything, it is what drug companies say when the results are disappointing, or they don't understand the statistical methods used i.e. i'm guessing a neutral observer didn't write this. It is easy to find negative opinion of the results in the medical literature Andywhatever (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More details for availability

[edit]

I'm a wiki newbie, and would like to rewrite to break out the position on availability by country. In particular the UK situation, where although the medicine is approved, the funding decisions of many health authorities make it impossible to actually obtain it. This is well attested in various news articles. I would submit that (UK wise) this is a very important fact, as the existence of SativeX has repeated been used in attempts to short circuit the wider issue of UK drug laws, and the medicinal values of cannabis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNoBrainer (talk • contribs) 18:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nabiximols (Sativex): is it cannabis in UK law?

[edit]

'Schedules' in the UK are of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 (MDRs), and nabiximols may be schedule 1, which includes cannabis
I have yet to find any government statement, however, that nabiximols is cannabis for purposes of either the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA), where cannabis is class B, or the MDRs, and government departments seem reluctant to respond to freedom of information requests on the issue
Generally, G W Pharma and the UK government are creating the impression that nabiximols is not cannabis, but for MDA and MDR purposes there seems to be nothing else it can be
See also Which ‘Controlled Drug’ is Sativex? at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/which_controlled_drug_is_sativex, Is Sativex cannabis? at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/is_sativex_cannabis and Sativex ingredients at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/sativex_ingredients_2
Laurel Bush (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The MDRs are intended to regulate medicinal use of drugs classified as ‘controlled drugs’ in the MDA, and have five schedules, such that the degree of regulation is very high for schedule 1 drugs and very low for schedule 5 drugs
The opiates codeine and dihydrocodeine in ‘undivided doses’ of not more than 100mg, for example, are class B in the MDA and schedule 5 in the MDRs
There seems to be no crime of simple possession for schedule 5 drugs or schedule 4 part II drugs
Laurel Bush (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always said cannabis would be legalised when the drug companies( plus the medical profession ) could make money off it. Of course its still illegal to grow your own!

[edit]

As the Dylan song, Union Sundown goes "I can see the day coming when even your home garden is gonna be against the law" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.234.70.92 (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, opium has been legal for decades, in the form of morphine ;-) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So tired of stoner conspiracy theories. Plenty of people and groups make money off of tobacco, opium, etc. (all things you can grow on your damn own really easy, opium is like a weed.) Also, claiming a 1:1 THC/CBD combination product is medicinal cannabis is stretching the definition of cannabis. Considering that cannabis spp. has a much higher ratio of THC to CBD and other alkaloids, this isn't remotely like cannabis. Just like you wouldn't call cocaine a coca plant or morphine opium. C6541 (Talk ↔ Contribs) 19:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No conspiracy, sativex is a whole plant extract of cannabis, it is nothing more than glorified cannabis tincture, exactly the same stuff that Queen Victoria used to help with her period cramps. It contains all of the other present cannabinoids as well as a full terpenoid and flavonoid profile. The 50/50 ratio of THC to CBD comes from the fact that sativex is extracted from two different strains of cannabis, one high in THC and one high in CBD. These are then blended, alcohol and peppermint oil is added and the product is complete. They don't simply extract this and that compound as many have been led to believe. Sativex IS cannabis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.20.178.44 (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]

The entire section is unbalanced, biased, it is written poorly and many of the claims are unsourced and do not have citations. Someone needs to sort it out or it should be deleted--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nabiximols. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nabiximols&oldid=1204134576"