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."
Ya busted him hard.
You claim there's a difference in meaning between "interstate" and "among the several states"?
If that commerce affects commerce among the states [...], Congress may act.
Where in the Constitution does it say that?
a self-evident truth
A tacit admission on your part that you're begging the question.
Aristotle, call your office.
RP has repeatedly posted cases that precede that court.
Which don't say what he implies they say.
You claim there's a difference in meaning between "interstate" and "among the several states"?
If that commerce affects commerce among the states or impedes the ability of Congress to enforce the laws necessary and proper, Congress may act.
Willful ignorance seems to be your sole defense.
Aristotle, call your office.
His office would tell him that there's someone circulating a poor counterfeit of his thoughts.
Which don't say what he implies they say.
He already quoted you admitting they did.
Tsk.
methprevention.com is not part of the DEA nor is it part of the meth-is-death. They sell T-Shirts!
Methprevention.com - a division of MMAcreations
"At first glance, we are a talented advertising agency.
You lied and reason.com lied and all lied by taking information off of one site and crediting it to another. Sheesh.
The multi-billion dollar illicit fungible drug trade doesn't affect or involve interstate traffic?
You sunk yourself.
I thought you would be weak, but this is just sad.
His source is his keyboard.
Uh, I think it is you and reason.com that have that problem. You know, attributing data to the DEA that is on some advertising company website.
Rolling On Flooring Lying?
To which one exception, yes. Not the only.
The USSC did rule in Southern R. CO. v. U.S., 222 U.S. 20 (1911) that required safety devices are not confined to vehicles used in moving interstate traffic, but embrace vehicles used in moving intrastate traffic as well, since there is a substantial relation between the two.
You have PROVED my point! Here is your post. See how you lie.
Refute this fact. You lied! Your quote that first started all this and was the basis for your 'math'.
"the life expectancy of a habitual meth user is only 5 years." Do the math.
After catching you on 'inserted' data wrongly attributed to the DEA you come up with a new site which has nothing to do with either of the original two sites referenced.
The life expectancy of a habitual meth user is as little as 5 years.
Notice how if you use the actual quote and not your altered quote you can't do the 'math' you cited in your first quote. Thus, you and the other hundreds of websites you refer to are guilty of posting altered content so as to cast doubt on reputable organizations. I believe that would open you up to lawsuits. But y'all are probably well-protected by Soros' legal umbrella.
What are you arguing? That legislation should not be subject to a substantial affects test?
See #229. It's not everyday that one works all night to dig themselves out of a hole only to have their ace card turn out to be a joker that repudiates their entire credibility.
I don't understand what you gripe is about the quotation marks. Where I've quoted something, I think I've used the quotation marks. Where I have paraphrased, I have not. I'm not trying to do anything sneaky here.
Do you have anything of substance to add to this discussion or are you just here to pester and insult people?
I don't understand what your gripe is about the quotation marks. Where I've quoted something, I think I've used the quotation marks. Where I have paraphrased, I have not. I'm not trying to do anything sneaky here.
Do you have anything of substance to add to this discussion or are you just here to pester and insult people?
I don't understand what your gripe is about the quotation marks. Where I've quoted something, I think I've used the quotation marks. Where I have paraphrased, I have not. I'm not trying to do anything sneaky here.
Do you have anything of substance to add to this discussion or are you just here to pester and insult people?
Quit running. Who are they quoting?
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.