Sunday, July 12th, 2009
A recent scientific publication from a lab in the UK has established a link between migraines and mutations in the Cannabinoid Type 1 receptor (CB1R aka The”Pot receptor”). Researchers extracted DNA from individuals who were surveyed and reported suffering from migraines. The researchers found the 1st direct evidence that an isoform or mutant form of CB1R can make you susceptible to migraines.
Previous studies have shown that the natural THC our body makes, anandamide, has migraine preventative actions (on the trigeminal nerve).
CB1R antagonists (things that block the receptor) reverse this protective effect. Thus, there is significant data suggesting that the CB1R is involved with migraines.
Interestingly, the International Headache Society has yet to classify or identify any migraine-related genes despite intense research into the subject.
—-
Please donate! Every dollar helps this site bring you the latest scientific findings!
Thanks,
Jahan
Posted in Cannabination, Contributing Author: Jahan Marcu | No Comments »
Friday, July 10th, 2009
GW Pharmaceuticals announced plans to expand their research agenda by investigating the therapeutic potential of new cannabis-ethanol sprays into the realm of metabolic diseases such as Obesity and Type II Diabetes.
For this project, GW is teaming up with Mike Cawthorne, the group director of the research team that “discovered the multi-billion dollar insulin sensitizer drug, Rosigilatzone.”
The new cannabis spray will be extracted from plants which contain high amounts of CBD and THCV. CBD has shown potential to treat fatty liver diseases and hpercholesterolaemia and also blocks the psychoactive effects of Delta9-THC. THCV, a natural antagonist or Cannabinoid receptor blocker, has notable effects on increasing energy expenditure. THCV, unlike Delta9-THC, is usually present only in small concentrations on the plant. However, GW may have developed a so called THCV-rich cannabis plant.
Developing a treatment for a complex illness, such as metabolic syndrome, can be explored using two cannabinoids in combination and can potentially “be addressed with a single medicine.”
Please donate! Every dollar helps this site bring you the latest scientific findings!
Thanks,
Jahan
Posted in Cannabination | No Comments »
Friday, July 3rd, 2009
The San Jose Mercury News reported that Marijuana smoke will be added to the ever-growing list of cancer-causing materials covered by prop. 65 in CA.
Putting marijuana smoke in this category seems misplaced at best when diet colas, which contain everything from saccharine to questionably FDA-approved Nutrasweet and other chemically engineered sweeteners are not included. (Sorry if Nutrasweet or Diet Coke is on the list, but I couldn’t find it.)
It is particularly ironic that marijuana smoke will be the only smoke on the list, given the level of industrial air pollutants that are not included on the list.
The purpose of prop 65 is to protect our citizens and drinking water, yet toxic molds are not included on prop 65! Further, “businesses are not required to provide OEHHA with any information regarding their Proposition 65 warnings.” The OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) mission is to enhance public health and the environment through scientific evaluation of risks posed by hazardous substances.
It’s too bad the very studies used by OEHHA to make this decision were deeply flawed regarding the methods, leading to artificially high readings of hazardous compounds. Some of the leading cannabis researchers in the world published a three part study on cannabis smoke a few months ago. This study compared the techniques used to analyze cannabis smoke and they found huge flaws with current methods which produced exaggerated levels of side products. In some cases, the authors suggest that previous researchers left out essential information regarding their methods–making it impossible to repeat previous experiments or confirm the results! Despite credible reports which demonstrate that practically all previous research comparing cannabis and tobacco smoke is flawed and inaccurate, OEHHA went ahead and used bad science to support their politics.
A political decision like this, will undoubtedly cause confusion for years to come. After all the two main ingredients on the plant, THC and CBD, have notable anti-cancer properties. In fact, research which demonstrates that combining THC and CBD has synergistic or greater than additive anti-cancer properties, will be presented at the upcoming International Cannabinoid Research Society meeting (July 7th-11th in Chicago).
The leading researcher in this area is Dr. Tashkin, who has been employed by the U.S. government and for the last 30 years has been examining if a link does exist between marijuana smoking and cancer. He did not find a link between cannabis smoke and cancer, unless the smokers also used tobacco.
Prop 65 may cause future inconveniences for any cannabis patients who needs to be able to smoke in a public or private facilities, i.e. trying to ease their glaucoma before their eyes explode from the ocular pressure.
However, there remains two benefits to this decision:
1) Legitimacy
2) Deterrence to non-medical users
1) This is a step towards regulating cannabis. A simple regulatory mechanism such as requiring a warning label, may provide some legal protections for those who follow it. Therefore by listing the potential harms, as on every bottle of a pharmaceutical drug, it provides a bit of legitimacy because the consumer is protected or informed, and because it reinforces the reality that cannabis is a medical treatment.
2) Often I hear criticisms regarding access to medical cannabis, specifically with regard to who has access to it and who gets it. Additionally, some are concerned that people who fake illnesses to get pharmaceutical drugs will also con doctors who recommend medical cannabis. A cancer warning would deter any casual/recreational user from taking advantage of a system intended to serve the state’s seriously afflicted and chronically ill population.
What about the Science?
It has never been conclusively shown that smoking cannabis will cause, prevent, or treat cancer. What science has shown is that:
A) the active ingredients in cannabis, when isolated or in combination have anti-cancer properties.
B) Cannabis smoke contains some of the same cancer causing material as tobacco smoke.
C) People who smoke cannabis have less of a chance of getting lung cancer then non-smokers or cigarette smokers
So, there is no concrete proof that smoking cannabis will cause or fight cancer but the individual compounds in the smoke have anti-cancer and pro-cancer properties. Meaning the side products of cannabis smoke can cause cancer but the most abundant ingredients (cannabinoids) fight cancer. How they work together remains unclear, so it seems unfair to label cannabis smoke as a carcinogen because that’s only half the story.
I know neither politics nor science is about being “fair.” However, science is the pursuit of truth/facts. So in the interest of truth, let’s incorporate what is actually known about cannabis smoke into the Prop 65 warning:
“Cannabis Smoke contains compounds known to the State of California that may cause or treat cancer.”
Please donate! Every dollar helps this site bring you the latest scientific findings!
Thanks,
Jahan
Posted in Cannabination, Contributing Author: Jahan Marcu, Jahan Marcu | No Comments »
Wednesday, July 1st, 2009
The study was conducted with 6 participants who were recruited to smoke cannabis and keep a diary for 15 days. They were instructed to write in the diary immediately after smoking cannabis.
The participants were also told to write in the third person or make up a character (such as “Il Messaggero,” Italian for “the messenger”) in order to create a distance between the person and their emotions. In theory, this makes it easier to write about yourself; it may also encourage novelistic tendencies in the subjects, rather than objective reports of their experiences.
The study’s author describes three major recurrent feelings and four psychological themes recurring throughout the diaries of the individuals. The authors conclude that the major recurrent feelings in the journal were:
1) The participants had a sense of being different from the rest of society. (The study does not make note of the fact that standing apart from society remains one of the most popular themes in Western art, politics and literature.)
2) The rejected outside world was experienced as permeated by repetitive and soulless social activities, and the stress of having to deal with these activities was often regarded as unbearably suffocating. (The study does not make note of how this is different from non-cannabis users who do not enjoy the office Christmas party or visiting their in-laws any more than chronic cannabis users.)
3) Participants seemed to rebel against a consumeristic society, ‘possessed’ by (removed the) “Titans.” (The study does not make note that criticism of an overly consumeristic society is common among everyone from Pope Benedict XVI to billionaire investor Warren Buffett – neither of whom is known to smoke cannabis.)
The authors placed certain quotes into categories or themes by going through diaries looking for psychological admissions of drug abuse or dependence by the participants.
Here is quote from each of the 4 categories:
Withdrawing from everyday life
“He discovered that [smoking cannabis before going to work] was so much better, that the hours elapsed much quicker. Perhaps it was because [cannabis] made him more detached, distant. And what he needed in that job … the most boring and sterile job ever … was exactly to be detached and to be able to go into his world where, somehow, the time elapsed faster even if with no rush.”
Indulging in the here-and-now of the emotional body
“Dope amplifies his sensations, it’s like a mirror that reflects the image of what you are. It makes you feel the truth; it’s like an oracle. The only problem is that it takes your energies away. In order to look inside yourself you have to be strong … Some people do not see anything. The ability of seeing doesn’t come from the drug, because that ability you either have it or not. The drug can only amplify what you already have inside yourself. That’s why some people can smoke and some others cannot.”
The containment of the sacred space
“[Smoking] in the right situation and with the right people … those that never tried it cannot judge it scot-free … you have to know it very well in order to fully appreciate it. The joint is a ritual and one has to know it very well before getting to fully appreciate it.”
Living the addiction
“Il Messaggero remembered his dream. He was in a swimming pool completely submerged by the water. He looked around at the artificial scene (with very bright neon lights) and knew that the water was fresh but he couldn’t touch it. He was wrapped in a transparent ball, made of a sort of warm and half-solid liquid, like gel. When he woke up he was a bit disappointed … he thought that that gelatinous ball might have been the dope and he remembered that every time he dreamt about water he was happy and he always felt that he could do lots of things.”
This type of progressive study may remind one of Baudelaire’s Hash writing from 1860. An essay written by Allan Ginsberg while smoking a joint also comes to mind. However, regardless of the intentions of the author, this publication was most likely funded to explore drug abuse.
Using selective themes will slant research like this towards negative views or findings regarding drug use. Raw data, in the form of numbers or words, should not be filtered through a preconceived theoretical framework. Research needs to be analyzed objectively, that means without fitting the subject material into a political or religious framework.
The author also claims the aim of this study is to provide “insight into the phenomenon of being a cannabis user.” However, given the thousand-plus years that cannabis has been used, and that cannabis is now the single most widely used illegal drug in the world, one wonders whether the study should explore the psychology behind a more compelling phenomenon: People who have never used cannabis.
Please donate! Every dollar helps this site bring you the latest scientific findings!
Thanks,
Jahan
Posted in Cannabination | No Comments »
