'Cannabis' acts as antidepressant

BBC ^

[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."

[-YYZ-]

Uh, perhaps successful, smart and happy people who smoke pot don't tend to share that fact with a lot of people, seeing as it is an illegal substance that a significant portion of society still disapproves of? I'd be willing to bet that you have many acquaintances who partake that you have no idea about.

[-YYZ-]

Uh, perhaps successful, smart and happy people who smoke pot don't tend to share that fact with a lot of people, seeing as it is an illegal substance that a significant portion of society still disapproves of? I'd be willing to bet that you have many acquaintances who partake that you have no idea about.

[TKDietz]

How much strong stuff is out there and how strong is it? Here's a little gem I found on the ONDCP's website:

"Marijuana potency as characterized by THC content is rising. According to data from the Marijuana Potency Monitoring Project, the average potency of samples of all cannabis types increased from 3% in 1991 to 5.2% in 2001. The potency of commercial-grade marijuana increased from 3.1% to 5% during the same period. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, commercial-grade marijuana THC levels were under 2%. The concentration of THC in sinsemilla was about 6% in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and averaged more than 9% in 2001."

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/marijuana/

Now, you always hear them talking about some sample they tested that was 30% THC or some ridiculously high amount and then insinuating that this is what all the kids are smoking today. In reality, pot anywhere close to that strong is exceedingly rare. Note that the average of all sinsemilla was only around 9% in 2001, and the average of all types, commercial grade and sinsemilla together, was only 5.2% that year. So it looks like the lions share of what they are seizing is cheapo Mexican commercial grade marijuana with relatively low THC content that they say was around 5% in 2001. It was actually slightly lower than that according to the University of Mississippi's Marijuana Potency Monitoring Project that tests what few samples law enforcement decides to send them so the government can have these numbers to hype.

The government is hyping this super pot myth to scare people. Nobody was ever smoking this under 2% pot you hear about, at least not on purpose, and not very often if they did run across it because it's no fun to smoke something that won't do anything to you but give you a headache and make your throat hurt. We used to call it "match weed" when I was younger because that was the stuff you wouldn't smoke unless you were "matching a joint" with a guy with better pot..."I'll spark up a doobie if you'll match me." Mostly ditchweed like that was being sold to tourists or neophytes and undercover cops who were always willing to pay too much for anything they could get their hands on. Everybody else knew where to get decent pot most of the time. The first time I ever smoked pot was 1978 and it was some pretty darned potent sinsemilla.

Shoot, most countries that allow industrial hemp production set the THC level at 1% because pot that strong doesn't have psychoactive effect. Why would people smoke crap that weak or only a hair better that wouldn't do much more than make them hack and wheeze? There was always fairly strong pot out there that would get you just as high as anything out there today. Even if it was maybe 3 or 4% THC, all you had to do was smoke a little more to get the the same effect you would get from the average stuff out there today. And there was powerful stuff that even if it wasn't as strong on average as the more powerful stuff today, the same effect could be (and was) reached with a few more puffs.

Most people aren't smoking the really strong stuff anyway, in large part because it is incredibly expensive compared to standard commercial grade pot, especially for teens and other young people who don't tend to have money growing out of their ears. On top of that, not everyone wants to smoke super strong stuff even if they can afford it because when it's too strong it's hard to smoke just enough to get you that pleasant buzz you are after without getting too stoned. When it's really strong a puff or even a half a puff can make all the difference. With weaker pot it might take several more puffs to reach that level.

Pot smokers who want to get so baked they sit there glued to the couch unable to carry on a coherent conversation are in the minority. They're like the idiots (and often are the same idiots) who always feel like they have to chug-a-lug every alcoholic beverage in sight until they pass out. That all may be fun a few times when you're young and dumb, but few people want to make that a regular occurrence.

Don't believe the hype. People aren't getting any higher today than they were twenty years ago.

[goonie4life9]

Where is your proof it is a myth? Do you have a citation?

[tiki]

Yea, maybe. I live in a small town and I've been here 47 yrs and grew up with most of the population. I've smoked pot with a lot of them and drank with a lot of them, lawyers, doctors, politicians and pond scum too. You know a lot more about people in a small town because you know who sells and you know who buys.

I did say it was anecdotal evidence but I don't know one, single successful person who continued to smoke grass on a daily basis after college and I know a lot of people.

[deltanine]

i'm just offering you my personal experience, goonie. Take it for what its worth.

I should ask you where your proof is that pot smokers are taking in more THC than they did 30 years ago? Even if the marijuana is stronger nowadays, that doesn't prove that an individual smokes as much as they did with less potent strains.

[TKDietz]

I bet that's true for most people. I remember a few years back walking in on a friend of my father's and another guy on dad's private boat dock smoking a joint while they were fishing for crappie. They asked me not to say anything to my father because he wouldn't understand. I didn't because I knew how much my dad disapproved of marijuana and I knew how good of a friend my father considered this guy to be, so I didn't want to spoil that for dad. Besides, I had made a promise. That was years ago and he still doesn't know one of his buddies likes to smoke a joint on occasion. The guy is very successful, a sixty something year old self-made millionaire who is well liked in the community. I wouldn't have believed he smoked pot if I hadn't have seen it with my own eyes. I still feel a little guilty about not telling my father.

There are all sorts of people out there who smoke a little pot that few would ever suspect of doing it. I live in a nice neighborhood and I've seen neighbors doing it that I never would have dreamed smoke the stuff. I know several successful people in the community who do it, some I've heard about and others who told me about it themselves. People around here know I'm a lawyer who handles a lot of drug cases and sometimes that will just come up in conversations. I've also represented people in other matters where the question has to be asked and have been truly surprised by some of the people who admit to doing it at least every once in a while. It's a lot more common than people realize. People with money who do it just tend to be more secretive about it and tend to not do things that bring themselves under police scrutiny that could get them busted. They have more to lose than the people we see so often in court.

[robertpaulsen]

What do they mean by "hooked"? Can they be "hooked" but not use it (like an alcoholic that doesn't drink)? What's their definition of a "meth addict"? Is that the same as "hooked"?

What's a "habitual meth user", and is that different than an addict or being "hooked"?

Whoa! Now what do they mean by "methamphetamine abuse"? Is that "habitual"? Or does that mean a whole bunch at once? Does someone who's "hooked" abuse meth, or only addicts do that? Or habitual meth users?

Hey radioman, since this is so clear to you, maybe you can explain it to the rest of us.

[armymarinemom]

I never got into the discussion of Meth. I was discussing Cannabis and it's effects on a developing brain.

[robertpaulsen]

"Let's see how many conservatives are believers in freedom."

I don't consider a person getting f^&*ed up on drugs to be "free". Just the opposite, as a matter of fact. So maybe you'll want to rephrase that.

Something like, "Let's see how many conservatives are believers in irresponsible, selfish hedonism."

[WildTurkey]

That is from the "Meth Is Death" DEA website.

According to the DEA:

"1 in 7 high school students will try meth";
"99 percent of first-time meth users are hooked after just the first try";
"only 5 percent of meth addicts are able to kick it and stay away";
"the life expectancy of a habitual meth user is only 5 years."

Do the math.
13.4 percent of Americans die as a result of methamphetamine abuse within five years of graduating from high school.

According to the Census Bureau, there are more than 20 million 15-to-19-year-olds in the U.S., so we are talking about hundreds of thousands of deaths a year, and that's not even counting people who start using meth after high school.

Hundreds of thousands of teen deaths every year from meth!
Where are the bodies?

I see you didn't provide a link. And for good reason!

You didn't get that off of a DEA site.

It isn't on a DEA site.

You most likely got it off of reason.com, which you plagarized without giving credit to.

The list you posted (same as reason.com) is misquoted by reason.com inorder to make a false point (Do the math).

So, you have been totally outed for:

1. Lying

2. Plagarizing

3. Altering posted information to suit your own gains.

4. Not verifying your information before posting.

That's why we trust NOTHING you post.

[WildTurkey]

That is from the "Meth Is Death" DEA website.

No. The "Meth is Death" is NOT a DEA website.

Lie or honest mistake? (1)

[WildTurkey]

According to the DEA:

No. Not according to DEA. According to reason.com as they posted falsely. But at least they were honest enough to credit the right source when they altered the information inorder to prove their false point. (2)

[robertpaulsen]

"But even if a slight increse in strength is true, we don't see all alcoholics running around with a bottle of 190 proof Everclear in their hands."

You're assuming people buy alcohol for the same reason they buy pot. Not a good assumption. At all.

Look at the marijuana seed ads on the internet. They discuss the level of "high" you get, and how kick-a$$ potent it is.

Many people drink low-proof beer and wine, and very few liquor drinkers go for the 190 proof stuff.

[WildTurkey]

"1 in 7 high school students will try meth";
"99 percent of first-time meth users are hooked after just the first try";
"only 5 percent of meth addicts are able to kick it and stay away";
"the life expectancy of a habitual meth user is only 5 years."

No. You did not get this from your claimed source since it is not what is posted on any DEA site and when reason.com posted it on their source, they posted it incorrectly. Are they lying or was it an honest mistake?

[goonie4life9]

I know. I was being a little ornery since you asked for proof.

[robertpaulsen]

"Why is it that the states with the highest marijuana use actually lower rates of serious mental illness than the states with the lowest marijuana use?"

Because the amount of coffee consumed in those particular states is almost double the national average.

Hmmmmm. Had you going there, didn't I? Thought you overlooked something, didn't you?

Well, the fact that I made you think demonstrates that there may be many other factors involved. All can contribute, one way or the other.

Your attempt to isolate and compare only two of them (pot and mental illness) is faulty.

[WildTurkey]

Do the math. 13.4 percent of Americans die as a result of methamphetamine abuse within five years of graduating from high school.

According to the Census Bureau, there are more than 20 million 15-to-19-year-olds in the U.S., so we are talking about hundreds of thousands of deaths a year, and that's not even counting people who start using meth after high school.

Here is the reason.com post. Much is word for word in your post. It looks like you have plagarized some, altered other content and omitted content to 'make your point'. Honest mistake? hmmmm. At least reason.com gave the proper credit when they altered the actual wording to suit their purpose ... But then again, they, like you, didn't link. Typical. Post a lie and hope most people will be gullible and believe it without bothering to check the truth.

--------------------------reason.com--------------------

Do the math (which the Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference clearly didn't), and you will see that 13.4 percent of Americans die as a result of methamphetamine abuse within five years of graduating from high school.

According to the Census Bureau, there are more than 20 million 15-to-19-year-olds in the U.S., so we are talking about hundreds of thousands of deaths a year, and that's not even counting people who start using meth after high school.

[robertpaulsen]

Yep.

And sooner or later, Protagoras will show up on the thread and post, "No minds will be changed, very few different poster will participate in the thread. There will be lots of name calling and innuendo. Business as usual."

Oh, wait. You're Protagoras, and you've already posted that. My bad.

Well, that should do it. We're all here. The circle is complete.

[mc6809e]

I don't consider a person getting f^&*ed up on drugs to be "free". Just the opposite, as a matter of fact. So maybe you'll want to rephrase that. Something like, "Let's see how many conservatives are believers in irresponsible, selfish hedonism."

I don't give a damn if you think it's "irresponsible, selfish hedonism". Freedom means freedom from others, freedom from people like you that believe they know what is best for everyone else.

Mind your own damn business and mind mine.