"Really, I hadn't heard that before." -one...
"Naw, it's a just another load of carp!"- too...
Posted on 10/13/2005 9:49:35 PM PDT by traumer
A chemical found in cannabis can act like an antidepressant, researchers have found.
A team from Canada's University of Sasketchewan suggest the compound causes nerve cells to regenerate.
The Journal of Clinical Investigation study showed rats given a cannabinoid were less anxious and less depressed.
But UK experts warned other conflicting research had linked cannabis, and other cannabinoids, to an increased risk of depression and anxiety.
They suggested this could be because different cannabinoids acting at different levels have contradictory effects.
Cannabinoids have been shown to relieve the symptoms of multiple sclerosis and pain relief in humans.
They are naturally present in the body, as well as being found in cannabis.
'Complicated effects'
The Canadian researchers gave rats injections of high levels of one artificial cannabinoid, HU210, for a month.
The animals were seen to have nerve cell regeneration in the hippocampus, which is linked to memory and emotions.
The hippocampus has been shown to generate new nerve cells throughout a person's or an animal's life, but this ability is reduced if cells are engineered to lack a cannabinoid receptor protein called CB-1.
In the Canadian study, rats given the cannabinoid were also found to be less anxious, and more willing to eat food in new environments - a change which would normally frighten them.
However, research has previously linked use of the drug cannabis to long-term damage to mental health, and to increase the risk of mental illness in those who are already genetically susceptible.
In addition, short-term high doses of cannabinoids had also been shown to produce anxiety-like effects in rats and depression-like effects in mice.
But other studies had found that low-doses of cannabinoids helped to reduce anxiety in rodents.
The Canadian team said: "These complicated effects of high and low doses of acute and chronic exposure to cannabinoids may explain the seemingly conflicting results observed in clinical studies regarding the effects of cannabinoid on anxiety and depression."
'Raw cannabis is risky'
Professor Robin Murray, of the Institute of Psychiatry, questioned whether the anti-anxiety and antidepressant effects seen in the animals would be replicated in humans.
He said: "This is a very big leap of faith as they have no data on humans, and the supposed animals' models of anxiety and depression that they use don't have much in common with the human conditions."
Paul Corry, Director of campaigns and communication at Rethink said: "Cannabinoids are an exciting new area for medical research, but it is important to recognise that there are over 60 active ingredients in cannabis - synthetic cannabinoid may be showing evidence of nerve regeneration.
"But as also pointed out in this study, the effects of cannabis on the brain are complex and produce conflicting evidence.
"For most people with severe mental illness, raw cannabis remains a risky substance.
"All medical research needs to be checked before it would make a difference to the hundreds of thousands of people living with severe mental illness in the UK."
"Really, I hadn't heard that before." -one...
"Naw, it's a just another load of carp!"- too...
Only after repeatedly leaving them out entirely.
Instead of spluttering and evading, explain them. You're not afraid to even try, are ya?
"If an addict is someone who has used a drug in the previous month (a commonly used, if overly broad, definition), then only 5 percent of Americans who have sampled meth would be called addicts."
Right there where I underlined. Learn to read.
I neither believe nor have posted that. I notice that you have abandoned the subject of marijuana, and are playing silly word games ... and playing badly, at that.
You'll know before I do.
Perhaps you could have the minimal decency and backbone to ping me when talking about me. And perhaps you could show where in this thread I have addressed constitutional issues, or where on any thread I have denied federal authority to regulate INTERstate commerce ... or lacking that, explain why you are propping up straw men rather than addressing what I have actually posted.
I never said you did. I don't even think you can.
If "5 percent of Americans who have sampled meth would be called addicts", and an addict is "someone who has used a drug in the previous month", then 5% of Americans have used meth in the previous month, according to YOUR source.
This is a lie. Learn to comprehend what you read, rather than simply regurgitating lies and distortions that even you can't explain.
Then why drag in that red herring ... if not to dodge my actual arguments?
I don't even think you can.
Sure I can: the Constitution grants Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, but not commerce within a single state ... a self-evident truth that was overturned by the FDR Supreme Court to the current-day delight of pro-WOD pseudoconservatives.
I don't expect you to quake in fear, MrLeRoy, I expect you to die.
(Figuratively)
Learn to read. The quotation I posted said (emphasis added), "If an addict is someone who has used a drug in the previous month (a commonly used, if overly broad, definition), then only 5 percent of Americans who have sampled meth would be called addicts." That is, 5 percent of Americans who have sampled meth have used meth in the previous month.
Mojave was correct. You can't address constitutional issues -- at least not consistently.
Earlier this year, in response to "you do concede that a pre-FDR court has ruled that Congress may regulate intrastate traffic under the Commerce Clause?", you responded:
"They ruled that Congress may do so to prevent hindrance to interstate traffic, so a qualified yes."
What a marroon.
The word "interstate" doesn't even appear in the Constitution.
but not commerce within a single state
Wrong. If that commerce affects commerce among the states or impedes the ability of Congress to enforce the laws necessary and proper, Congress may act.
a self-evident truth
A tacit admission on your part that you're begging the question.
that was overturned by the FDR Supreme Court
False. RP has repeatedly posted cases that precede that court.
Like I thought, you can't address those issues. Not honestly or effectively anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.