Posted on 04/19/2003 3:26:12 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
19 April 2003
Cannabis, the third most popular recreational drug after alcohol and tobacco, could win a new role as the aspirin of the 21st century, with growing evidence that its compounds may protect the brain against the damaging effects of ageing.
Although the drug distorts perception and affects short-term memory, it may also help prevent degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Huntingdon's and motor neurone diseases. Scientists at the Institute of Neurology in Queens Square, London, say the "huge potential" of cannabis compounds is emerging, as understanding of its biological and pharmacological properties improves.
Professor Alan Thompson and his colleagues wrote in Lancet Neurology: "Basic research is discovering interesting members of this family of compounds that have previously unknown qualities, the most notable of which is the capacity for neuroprotection."
The results of two trials in patients with multiple sclerosis are expected this summer and the first cannabis-based medicines are being considered for licensing. None of them will have the psychoactive properties of the raw drug when smoked or ingested.
Professor Thompson's team says: "Even if the results of these studies are not as positive as many expect them to be, that we are only just beginning to appreciate the huge therapeutic potential of this family of compounds is clear."
Cannabis was thought to affect the cells like alcohol by seeping through the cell membrane. But in 1990 the first cannabinoid receptor was found, which revolutionised the study of cannabinoid biology. The discovery revealed an endogenous system of cannabinoid receptors, similar to the opioid system, to which the drug bound when it was ingested. Just as endorphins are the body's natural equivalent of heroin, a fatty acid called anandamide (Sanskrit for "inner bliss") is the natural equivalent of cannabis.
The natural system of cannabinoid receptors plays a role in maintaining the balance of chemicals in the brain which regulate the rate at which neurons fire. By altering this system, scientists believe it may be possible to slow or prevent the process of brain decay. David Baker, lead author of the Lancet review and senior lecturer at the Institute of Neurology, said: "Alzheimer's disease is the result of very slow degeneration caused by the death of nerve cells. We probably don't see symptoms until 30 to 40 per cent of the nerve cells have died. Something regulates this decay and if we could slow it by even a small fraction we might delay by a decade the point where someone loses their memory."
But cannabis is a double-edged sword, with potentially damaging side effects. "It may be possible to develop drugs that allow selective targeting of different areas of the brain and spinal cord and there may be a way of limiting the negative effects," Dr Baker said.
A study by Dr Baker and colleagues, in which the natural system of cannabinoid receptors was removed in mice, showed that the rate of nerve loss was increased, indicating its role in preserving brain function. The study, which has been accepted for publication in a medical journal, "really clinches the argument", Dr Baker said.
He added: "Cannabis has gone from the drawing board into trials in record time, largely because of patient pressure. Hopefully it will work and be acceptably safe."
Hey, it was lying out there for all the world to see and upon to comment.
There's always FReeper mail to keep these things private.
I thought my joke was pretty funny, but these things are relative.
I am a "declare surrender on the WOD, it is a waste of time and $$$" kinda person myelf, not that you asked, but since you want to limit the thread to only those you ping, I wanted to qualify myself.
The reference you site is a book and not a medical journal. Is Zimmer and Morgan's work on this subject published in any medical journal?
But seriously, this is NO suprise to anyone following British research of the last ten years. They have been making great strides un-encumbered by U.S. style Prohibitionism.
Oh, I forgot about that.
It was on the New York Times bestseller list for umpteen months, wasn't it??? </sarcasm>
First I am neutral on this subject. No lean either way...
Now, do we want a total ban on MJ? What about the countless adults, who work everyday, pay their taxes and mow their grass, who once or twice a week take a couple hits of a doob befor Fasier comes on, or while another couple are over and you all are playing cards?
I fully understand the need for prohibition, but I also understand that there are a lot of responsible users in the country. They don't "Get High" every minute of the day. They don't "Waste away". Their biggest thorn is the corporate screening. Because of the idiot who burns a joint in the bathroom at work, every employee must be clean...while the white collar goes and has a couple martinis for lunch...
Justa thought...
You do realize what this means, don't you? Soon, U.S. pharmaceutical companies will find themselves at a competative disadvantage. Which means that in short order, their bought and paid for representatives in Congress will be singing the praises of cannabis-based medicines.
I always lurk these threads, but this one is the first on FR that I chimed in on...
Beware the FR Drug War thread, its habit forming.
Hey, you and the Feds are on the same page. From the New York Post:
FEDS TURN UP THEIR NOSES AT WHITE-COLLAR COKEHEADS
Hundreds of yuppie cokeheads snared by a sting - including doctors, lawyers and professors - are getting off because prosecutors say they're "genteel users" who can manage their habits, sources told The Post. "The attitude seems to be, these are not snot-dripping junkies on someone's doorstep, these people are more acceptable, so [federal prosecutors] are uncomfortable locking them up," said a source familiar with the decision.
Law-enforcement sources say U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White has chosen not to prosecute any of the white-collar powder purchasers caught in a massive home-delivery cocaine sting nearly a year ago. Sources have estimated the number of buyers between several hundred and 2,000-plus.
No, of course not. They cite studies found in many types of journal, some medical, many from research funded by the US Government. I count 65 pages of cites to references.
If you don't like their conclusions, then find the book and refute it. Buckley, Jr. did a column couple years back using the data found in it. Perhaps you can find it in his archives on the web. 
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.