This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chemicals Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It seems like there is no agreement if this is a cannabinoid or not. I'm going to look for a source that it is a cannabinoid. If no one can fine a citation by April we can remove it.--155.254.6.51 (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitly no terpene and is absolutly not related to Cannabinoids so we should change this.--Stone 15:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oleamide can be considered a cannabinoid because the term is applied to any compound that interacts with the cannabinoid receptor, even if it is structurally unrelated to THC. See anandamide for another example. Also sometimes the natural peptides that interact at the CB receptors are referred to as "endogenous cannabinoids". --Ed (Edgar181) 17:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all there are no natural peptides that activate CB receptors. Secondly, the evidence is scant, at best, that Oleamide activates CB receptors and evidence that oleamide does NOT activate CB receptors is more voluminous and convincing, and third, oleamide could technically be considered 'related' to cannabinoids because it is broken down by FAAH which also terminates anandamide however it is not, itself, an endocannabinoid. The only two endogenous substances known to activate CB receptors are anandamide and 2-AG and I can find you a thousand papers to support that, if you like. There is some evidence that other polyunsaturated N-acyl ethanolamines (such as linoleoyl ethanolamide or docosahexaenoyl ethanolamide) may also be able to activate CB receptors weakly but this evidence is weak. Roadnottaken 18:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was thinking of another receptor when I wrote that statement about peptides. There is certainly report of cannabinoid agonism by oleamide, but I'm not familiar enough with the field to weigh conflicting evidence. Since this is your area of research, feel free to categorize oleamide and anandamide as a cannabinoid or not as you see fit. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The oleamide/CB connection is confusing and somewhat controversial but I'm adding another line in the text to explain it. Roadnottaken 18:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! I look onto the topic from the chemistry side and there you simply you would never put something in a group which is labled terpenes which is a fatty acid derivate, but with a sentence about Cannabinoids like acting or having the same effect like Cannabinoids is the ideal solution.--Stone 07:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've pointed out before, the evidence that Oleamide activates CB receptors is extremely sparse. The one paper that is cited suggesting that is accompanied by a commentary (in the SAME issue of the SAME journal) that says this: "A wider interpretation that the compound acts as an endocannabinoid in vivo is perhaps premature. The in vivo data so far reported in the literature give conflicting information regarding the contribution of CB1 receptors at least for some of the actions of exogenously applied oleamide (see Leggett et al, 2003) and there is, to my knowledge, no evidence to indicate that the compound is involved in the endocannabinoid tone that is believed to modulate neurotransmitter release, neuroprotection and other important physiological events." I'm not suggesting that we remove all mention of an oleamide/CB connection, but it has to remain listed as 'controversial' because that is the state of the field right now. Roadnottaken (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This should properly be categorized as a Eicosanoid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.254.6.51 (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article should include the fact that JWH-018 and oleamide are the main active ingredients in Organic Worx Smoke, which makes me worried since surely it can't be safe to smoke it?

Oleamide was discovered and characterized by Benjamin Cravatt III and Richard Lerner at The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, CA.

Surely oleamide the chemical was known before Cravatt's work? MeSH has had an oleamide entry since 1981. Maybe Cravatt/Lerner were the first to discover it in cerebrospinal fluid? AxelBoldt (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fair point. I've fixed the corresponding text. Roadnottaken (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "Recreation use" section: There is no documented evidence of Oleamide being used specifically as a recreational drug. However, it was found in large quantities in the smoking blends "Smoke" and "Skunk" alongside the synthetic cannabinoid. The purpose of the addition of oleamide to these blends is unclear. I don't think it is necessary to have a section for recreational use that states that there is no evidence of recreational use. Secondly, oleamide's presence in "smoking blends" is just trivia when the reason it is there is "unclear". If someone wants to expand and/or clarify these statements, perhaps it can be added back in to the article. ChemNerd (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the information as more than just trivia. Identifying the ingredients in these blends is very important, and information on their ingredients is quite hard to come by (obviously the vendors try to keep them secret). These products are used by hundreds of thousands (if not millions) worldwide, most of them clueless as to what they contain. It's not as if the article is overly cluttered. Including this information won't do any harm, and from searching through discussion forums I have seen this little snippet of information do a lot of good.

Living under a rock (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Oleamide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070127054121/http://www.wrchem.com:80/Products/OLEAMIDE.htm to http://www.wrchem.com/Products/OLEAMIDE.htm

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]