Posted on 10/13/2005 2:38:13 PM PDT by Wolfie
Marijuana Compound Spurs Brain Cell Growth
In rat study, synthetic cannabinoid also boosted rodents' mood
THURSDAY, Oct. 13 (HealthDay News) -- When it comes to the controversy surrounding medical marijuana, an international team of researchers is busy stirring the pot by releasing findings that suggest the drug helps promote brain cell growth while treating mood disorders.
According to the study in rats, a super-potent synthetic version of the cannabinoid compound found in marijuana can reduce depression and anxiety when taken over an extended period of time.
This mood boost seems to be the result of the drug's ability to promote the growth of new brain cells, something no other addictive drug appears able to do, the researchers say.
The findings, which appear in the November issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, remain preliminary, however.
"Our results were obtained from rats, and there's a big difference between rats and humans," said study co-author Dr. Xia Zhang, of the neuropsychiatry research unit in the department of psychiatry at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada. "So, I don't really don't know yet if our findings apply to humans. But our results indicate that the clinical use of marijuana could make people feel better by helping control anxiety and depression."
The new findings come on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June granting federal authorities the power to stop doctors from prescribing marijuana. That decision also bars individuals from cultivating the herb for medical purposes.
The decision overrides laws currently on the books in 11 states which had legalized the use of marijuana for patients receiving a doctor's approval. According to the ruling, the Supreme Court justices made their decision on the basis of interstate commerce regulations rather than on an evaluation of the pros and cons of medical marijuana use.
But does medical marijuana work? To help settle that question, Zhang's team focused on the potential of a synthetic laboratory-produced form of the cannabinoid compound naturally found in the marijuana plant.
Humans and other animals also naturally produce the compound, and are known to have cannabinoid receptors lying on the surface of cells in the nervous system and the immune system.
Prior research has shown that, when exposed to cannabinoids, these receptors can provoke an anti-inflammatory and anti-convulsive response. They can also instigate a range of psychotropic effects such as euphoria.
The current study focused on a particular formulation of synthetic cannabinoid known as HU210 -- a compound which Zhang described as the most powerful cannabinoid in the world.
The authors explored both the short-term and long-term effects of exposure to HU210 in rats.
To measure the drug's short-term response, they gave adult rats a single injection of HU210. To study the same drug's effect over the longer term, the researchers gave a separate group of adult rats twice-daily injections of the cannabinoid over a two-week period.
Autopsies revealed that by the end of the 10-day HU210 treatment regimen, new neurons had been generated and integrated into the circuitry of the hippocampus region of the rat's brains. This process, known as neurogenesis, was still in evidence a full month after treatment had been initiated.
Neurogenesis was not triggered in response to brain cells being killed through cannabinoid exposure, the researchers add. In fact, HU210 injections did not appear to prompt any loss of neurons in the hippocampus.
Cannabinoid use appeared to boost mood, as well: According to the scientists, behavioral tests suggest that long-term treatment reduced the rodent's anxiety- and depression-linked behaviors.
For example, one month post-treatment, treated rats deprived of food for 48 hours were quicker than similarly deprived, non-treated rats to begin eating food when it was finally offered to them in an unfamiliar environment.
The researchers believe treated rats may have been less anxious in the manner they handled this novel situation. They stress the results were not related to cannabinoids' appetite-stimulating effects, since the treated rats' eating behavior was similar to that of untreated rats when they were offered food in a familiar setting.
Treated rats also responded in a less anxious manner to swimming and climbing tests, and displayed shorter periods of immobility compared with untreated rats. The latter finding was interpreted to mean that HU210 had an antidepressant effect on rats receiving the cannabinoid over the longer term.
However, while long-term administration of higher doses worked to reduce anxiety and depression, lower doses did not appear to have the same effect, the researchers added.
Zhang and his associates credit cannabinoid-linked neurogenesis with the apparent mood shifts seen in the animals.
The hippocampus area of the brain where the neuronal growth occurred is key to the regulation of stress and other mood disorders, Zhang's team point out. This region is also important to the control of cognitive processes such as learning and memory.
Among the common addictive drugs, marijuana alone appears able to promote neurogenesis when used over time and in the right dosage, the researchers say. In contrast, prior research has demonstrated that chronic administration of cocaine, opiates, alcohol and nicotine inhibits brain cell growth.
"If our results can be confirmed in humans, we should anticipate the chronic use of marijuana as a medical treatment for anxiety and depression," Zhang said.
However, he cautioned that "this treatment is not the same as smoking marijuana. Whether smoking marijuana can produce the same effect, we just don't know."
Dr. Perry G. Fine, a professor of anesthesiology at the University of Utah School of Medicine Pain Research Center, said more than enough data has already been gathered to confirm medical marijuana's potential benefits.
"It's great that there's new science, but to me this is no longer an epiphany," he said. "It's just proving what's been long-suspected. We're behind the curve with the cannabinoids largely because of the stigma of marijuana going years and years back."
"I think most people with clinical expertise in the area of palliative medicine know that if patients had access to all the tools we currently have, we could certainly do a whole lot better to help people live with multiple chronic diseases," he added. "The social policies are way behind our technology, and that's where we need some catching up."
So any statement not explicitly supported by quotes and stats should be taken as an opinion? I think we'll have to agree to disagree; to me that's clearly contrary to the standard rules of English usage.
Who do think you are - the "falsehood fascista" who can slander according to his whim and will?
No slander involved: to say a statement is a falsehood is merely to say it is false.
"Violence" is the effect to which you attribute criminalization of drugs is the cause. Read and parse your comment at the top of this post.
*CAUSE & EFFECT*
Effect = result
Cause = why
Circular logic fallacy: cause = cause; effect = effect.
"Cause/Why: Crime.......victims....disorder..atrocity "
Drug selling and use have no victims (with the exception of parental use to a degree that prevents them from meeting their obligations ...
*OH? And that is not a good enough reason? Is it that you are so selfishly driven by Soros' pro-drug agenda that you are unaware, do not care about the myriad of social and health problems, and destructive consequences directly related to drug use and addiction? My social concerns are not for movie stars and others like Nobel Prize winners who can afford their drugs, governesses and defense attorneys.*
which happens with the drug alcohol, but is rightly not seen as sufficient reason to ban that drug for all adults).
*Keep the argument on the merits of drug decriminalization. Alcohol is a different issue and problem.*
As for "disorder..atrocity," these slippery terms could be used by the Taliban to justify their laws, so they need considerable refinement before they're suitable for use in a free society.
*Your above comment is as irrelevant as it is irrational. In my lexicon, "disorder" and "atrocity" are not "slippery terms". You cannot dignify your illogical argument by your slippery dealing the "Taliban" card.
Too sophomoric: "...could be used by the Taliban..."
"...for the same reason that Soros' wearing pants is not an argument for our not wearing pants, Soros' supporting drug legalization is not an argument for our not supporting drug legalization."
Pants are inanimate and have no affect upon us.
Using his immense wealth, Soros is a megalomaniac attempting to deconstruct American culture, society and governance ideals - the breakdown begins with decriminalization of drugs. Soros would have America conform to HIS inverted worldview. How many subversive fronts and nefarious entities deceptively bloat their motives with idealist words like "democracy", "freedom" and "justice"? (E.g., the American Civil Liberties Union.)
George Soros' "orgy-porgy...SOMA" final solution is easily understood by reading prophetic *Brave New World*.
One has to wonder what kind of euphoria a pot smoker or other kind of illegal drug user has when he/she fails to pass the drug screen and loses or can't get a decent job.
"It's phrased as an impression or as an opinion. A statement of fact would be supported by quotes and stats which could be refuted."
So any statement not explicitly supported by quotes and stats should be taken as an opinion?
*I am saying unless you offer proof when you assert the content of a statement is a "falsehood in a public forum, you should not refer to it as a "falsehood" because it's slanderous to do so. Of course, it is confirmed that you and I operate in very opposing ethical spheres. I am not given to sophomoric rhetorical games as you seem to be.
*You and I are referring to ONE SPECIFIC STATEMENT written by another poster which was NOT a statement of fact, but an expressed opinion which YOU characterized as a "falsehood". Furthermore, YOU erroneously attributed that statement to me to justify YOUR calling me, in effect, a liar.*
I think we'll have to agree to disagree; to me that's clearly contrary to the standard rules of English usage.
*Your gaming is clearly contrary to standard ethical rules.
"Who do think you are - the "falsehood fascista" who can slander according to his whim and will?"
No slander involved: to say a statement is a falsehood is merely to say it is false.
*It is a slander if you do not provide proof of falsehood.
I suggest you supplement your education with beginning courses on Logic and Ethics - you're sorely lacking in both - undoubtedly due to an ill-liberal curriculum.
Stephen Sondheim, one of the great innovative geniuses of musical theatre (and music in general), has been cited as saying that he often indulges in the holy herb when writing music, and that it frees his mind up to explore less conventional sounds, and that's probably because music is all "patterns" and no reasoning is involved. Lyrics are another matter, since they involve a certain amount of reasoning and coherent linear thought, so he doesn't write them when stoned. Sondheim's work has won Oscars, Grammys, Emmys, loads of Tonys other awards. Not bad for a lover of mary-jane, eh? He doesn't like cocaine, though, and can't create with it because it makes him too "jangly".
I have found that some of my best work is produced when I indulge, and to test that, I listen when I'm not stoned, and it sounds just as good. You can give your anecdotal evidence if you like, but I have my own as well.
And playing music uses a different part of the brain from writing it, so that's possibly why your friend didn't play that well when stoned (or he might not have been that talented in the first place). Which doesn't really explain why Louis Armstrong, another musically innovative genius who was fond of weed, was such a good player.
BTW, Satchmo lived to a pretty good age, and Sondheim, my friend and mentor, is now 75 himself.
Ahh, go have a doobie...
Not that crack and weed are the same thing. Or are you saying they are?
Maybe Reagan should have had some ganja. It might have at least forestalled his later Alzheimer's, if the researchers mentioned in the OP are correct.
Really?
ALL of them?
Oh for crying out loud.....
LOL!!
You say: I don't understand the first sentence of your above comment. No, I've never experimented with any drugs and never will. I don't take meds. I don't drink, but I cook with beer and wine.
I say: Alcohol is an intoxicant, a behaviour-modifying drug. You cook with beer and wine. No matter what you might have heard, the alcohol doesn't evaporate completely in cooking. So every time you try out a NEW recipe that involves wine or beer, you are in fact experimenting with drugs. And you are consuming alcohol -- even if you're not technically drinking it, you're at least eating it (although one could say you ARE drinking it if it's in a sauce).
So what's the difference between that and a hash brownie, other than the fact that one has been deemed "legal" and the other "illegal"?
""All the jazz musicians and blues musicians and rock musicians were heavy MJ users............. ""
"Really? "
No , actually I always make broad and false statements.
I take it you know of 2 or so that never did.
Yeah, I hear that's going around....And it's really infectious....although there is effective treatment.
No, to REDUCE violence rescind criminal DRUG law.
You cannot say "All violence is caused by criminalization"
I don't say that.
BTW, attempting to make your argument by citing Prohibition in the 1920's is like my citing unregulated Morphine use in the 1800's to make my point.
Go ahead ... but since opiate addiction is higher now than then, you'd be making MY point.
The cause of (criminal) violence among drug dealers and the drug scene subculture is caused by the criminals' inherent anti-social disconformity.
Criminalization-inflated profits give them greater means and resource to act on their inherent anti-social disconformity.
Have you ever heard the term "logical falsehood"? It has nothing to do with lying deliberately. Words can have more than one definition, you know. I think "logical falsehood" is what he was referring to because of the inconsistencies on Purpleland's argument.
Wrong ... alcohol is a recreational drug.
In my lexicon, "disorder" and "atrocity" are not "slippery terms".
Standard English usage does not find those to be precise terms; if you want us to use your personal lexicon, you'd better translate it into S\standard English for us.
Pants are inanimate and have no affect upon us.
False ... ever gone pantsless in winter? But even if it were true, your statement is no rebuttal of mine.
Murder has rightly been criminalized as an activity because it does harm to others. If I want to smoke a spliff with my friends, I am harming no one, and that activity shouldn't be criminalized. I'm sorry if you don't understand the difference between harmless and harmful activities. The rest of us do, and so did Jesus.
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.