Hidden Health Science

Posts Tagged ‘Cannabis’

Cannabinoids (marijuana) administration after experiencing a traumatic event blocks the development of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-like symptoms in rats, according to a new study conducted at the University of Haifa and published in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology.

“We found that there is a ‘window of opportunity’ during which administering synthetic marijuana helps deal with symptoms simulating PTSD in rats,” said Dr. Irit Akirav of the University of Haifa’s Department of Psychology, who led the study.

In the study, which Dr. Akirav conducted with research student Eti Ganon-Elazar, the researchers set out to examine how administering cannabinoids (synthetic marijuana) affects the development of PTSD-like symptoms in rats, whose physiological reactions to traumatic and stressful events is similar to human reactions.

In the first part of the study, the researchers exposed a group of rats to extreme stress, and observed that the rats did indeed display symptoms resembling PTSD in humans, such as an enhanced startle reflex, impaired extinction learning, and disruption of the negative feedback cycle of the stress-influenced HPA axis.
The rats were then divided into four groups. One was given no marijuana at all; the second was given a marijuana injection two hours after being exposed to a traumatic event; the third group after 24 hours and the fourth group after 48 hours.

A week later, the researchers examined the rats and found that the group that had not been administered marijuana and the group that got the injection 48 hours after experiencing trauma continued to display PTSD symptoms as well as a high level of anxiety.

By contrast, the PTSD symptoms disappeared in the rats that were given marijuana 2 or 24 hours after experiencing trauma, even though these rats had also developed a high level of anxiety.

“This indicates that the marijuana did not erase the experience of the trauma, but that it specifically prevented the development of post-trauma symptoms in the rat model,” said Dr. Akirav, who added that the results suggest there is a particular window of time during which administering marijuana is effective. Because the human life span is significantly longer than that of rats, Dr. Akirav explained, one could assume that this window of time would be longer for humans.

The second stage of the study sought to understand the brain mechanism that is put into operation during the administering of marijuana. To do this, they repeated stage one of the experiment, but after the trauma they injected the synthetic marijuana directly into the amygdala area of the brain, the area known to be responsible for response to trauma. The researchers found that the marijuana blocked development of PTSD symptoms in these cases as well. From this the researchers were able to conclude that the effect of the marijuana is mediated by a CB1 receptor in the amygdala.

Rachel Feldman
University of Haifa

by Sebastian Sheppis and Justin Silver
from Issue #376 of the Health Freedom Network Newsletter

The cannabis plant is both a subject of wonder and of derision. The plant is so ingrained into western culture as “evil” that its ban was included in the charter for the League of Nations and later the United Nations.

The cannabis plant family includes several plants, some of which produce tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) in quantities large enough to be absorbed by humans. Most cannabis plants are actually benign – these are commonly known as “hemp” and have been grown for most of known human civilization. THC-producing plants are commonly called “marijuana” in the U.S. and have varying levels of THC in them according to their strain (hybrid type).

The Politics of Pot

For centuries, cannabis has had known medicinal uses, but the scientific exploration of those uses has been stilted by political opposition and societal pressures against marijuana as a street drug. Although little evidence exists to show cannabis as a negative recreational substance – especially as compared to the effects of alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, and other drugs both legal and not – the push to keep it as an illicit substance remains.

Despite this, while illegal in all parts of the world, cannabis has been decriminalized in many areas and legalized as medication in others. Currently, cannabis as a medicine (or for personal use) is legal in Austria, Canada, Finland, Germany, Israel, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and 15 states plus the District of Columbia in the United States.

Cannabis In Science

The discovery of cannabinoids, receptors in most animals, including humans, that react specifically with the compounds present in cananbis, changed the way medical science looked at marijuana as medicine. This discovery in the 1990s lead to a wide scale research push into the beneficial uses (and possible synthesis) of cannabis and its active compounds. In 2010, more than 2,500 reputable scientific studies about cannabis were published world wide.

Cannabis has been found to be beneficial for the amelioration of nausea and vomiting, stimulation of hunger, lowering of intraocular eye pressure, for relief of muscle over-stimulation (spasms), and more. In fact, the studies showing the efficacy of cannabis and cannabinoids continue to grow daily.

The compounds in cannabis or the plant or resins it produces are used to treat side effects and symptoms in AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis and others.

Using Cannabis for Medication

Public perception commonly treats marijuana use as a “hippie” or “pot head” thing with visions of young people coughing thick smoke in rooms covered in psychedelic posters and drawings. The reality is that most medicinal cannabis users do smoke, but often they use vaporizers, water filtration systems (bongs or hookas), etc.

While the press seems enamored with the more creative (but generally less effective) cannabis intake methods such as “pot brownies” or THC-imbued candy and soda pop, many serious medical users are finding more potent and less debilitating ways to ingest their medication.

A growing number of medicinal users, however, are getting right to the compounds that do the most good by distilling or otherwise processing cannabis buds and resins to create pastes, cremes, tinctures, and other ways of using the medicine without smoking or even getting the associated high (psychoactive effects).

Pharmaceutical companies, by the same token, are working on both synthetic and naturally-derived options for isolating and distributing cannabinoids as pills. While the practice is controversial, it is lending some legitimacy to the idea of medical cannabis in the wider medical community.

The Future of Medical Marijuana

Although the current market and science behind cannabis as a medicinal plant is still young, the fundamentals behind how it works and why it works have been ironed out enough that refuting it as a medication is to ignore science. Yet those who continue to refute its medicinal properties are either in the scientific establishment themselves (often as medical practitioners) or attempt to cite scientific backing for their claims.

Although some side effects and psychological possibilities may exist for cannabinoids, these are far fewer and less severe than the same side effects for most pharmaceuticals that are legally on the market. Many of the so-called studies that claim marijuana has extreme adverse effects, such as schizophrenia in teenagers, are fraught with bad methodology or questionable conclusions and are what the medical industry calls “proof of preconception” – they are created merely to “prove” a preconceived notion.

Sadly, that latter event is something that happens all too often in today’s politically-charged science, especially in medicine.

Sebastian Scheppis and Justin Silver are the owners of CannaCentral.com, a medical marijuana directory and community website. The site features location-based search tools for strains and dispensaries, useful medical and clinic information and more.

 

by Aaron Turpen, CannaCentral

Not long ago, I became involved in a discussion in a chat room regarding marijuana legalization. The ad hoc debate became a roiling turmoil of one and two liners that filled the chat box with discussion too fast for anyone to keep up with. Strangely, the two primary debaters, myself and a person who’s a member of the Eagle Forum, were the only ones involved who were civilized during the process. We both agreed, via private message, to forgo the debate and hopefully meet up sometime in the future for another.

What I learned from this discussion turned madhouse post-fest are two important things:

1. people who can type fast often become like the screamers who “win” debates by filling the available space with rhetoric – ala Rush Limbaugh;
2. the legalization of marijuana (and all drugs, probably) seems to be more a question of religious philosophy for most people rather than a rational one – ala “Hope” and “Change.”

Debate As Marketing
Obviously, winning a debate by yelling is not really winning, it’s just dominating it through interruption and, frankly, being louder than the other person. Most of the time, this is not seen as “winning” by the audience viewing the debate and reflects negatively on the person using this tactic.

Most debaters, unless they’re professionals (aka politicians), realize that debates are not about convincing the person being debated, but are about convincing the audience watching the debate that a given opinion is the correct one. In other words, debate is a form of marketing – you’re working to convince not the person who opposes you, but instead those who witness the debate. This is true whether the debate is live, on television, in a Facebook comments string, or in a chat room.

It should be obvious that if a person is squaring off against another person on a subject, they are “sold” on their own viewpoint and do not plan to concede. Picture this: if a follower of Islam and a follower of Christ were to debate one another, would you really expect the Muslim or the Christian to suddenly change their mind, mid-debate, and convert to the other’s religion? Not very likely. This goes with any debate subject – the two debaters are, by definition, religious fanatics for their own viewpoint.

Debate is about the audience, not the debaters. Those who realize this are most often the ones who succeed in amateur debate circles (blog commentary, chat rooms, and so forth). That is because these people will never do the two big no-nos when it comes to swaying an audience: they will never use personal attacks (ad hominem) and they will never attempt to flood the conversation (“yell”) with their own view, largely ignoring counter points.

Marijuana as Religion
The question of religion isn’t about organized theology, but is rather a question of what the person believes to be true – evidence or no. Marijuana legalization has become an ingrained, often knee-jerk response mechanism (either for or against) that precludes rationality. This religious fervor is on both sides of the argument and is very prevalent in the discussion.

Many proponents in favor of the legalization of cannabis are just as fanatical as those who are opposed. The marijuana religion is alive and well on both sides of the argument. Here are a few snippets from that chat room debate, coming from both supporters and detractors of the legalization question. I don’t have a record of the chat itself (at the time, I didn’t consider it worth saving), so these are off the top of my head and without attribution. They will serve to illustrate my point, however. Myself is referenced as “Pro” and the Eagle Forum member who argued against me is labeled as “Con.”

“Pro, you are an idiot. Of course if more of this crap is put on the streets more teenagers and kids will use it! Duh!”

“Con doesn’t know anything. He’s a jackass jackboot who probably works for the government or is a narc cop. Why is anyone even listening to this loser?”

“All of you people who want to legalize marijuana are just potheads who want to sell it to our kids at school without going to jail.”

“Marijuana is totally safe and completely natural! There’s plenty of scientific evidence to show that it’s not going to hurt anyone and actually cures things like cancer. This is why they don’t want it legalized!!”

Attempting to respond to these religious fanatics, whether pro or con, is a losing proposition. There were more of them (several on each side) than there was me and most of their arguments are based on questionable (if any) evidence.

Take the first one in the above list. Alcohol is legal, yet surveys have shown that more teenagers use (illegal) marijuana than use (legal) alcohol. Obviously prohibition hasn’t slowed down demand or availability.

Now look at the last argument, which is supposedly pro-legalization. This is also blatantly false for two reasons. First, marijuana has been shown to cause bronchitis and may be a contributor to some other problems, such as immuno-suppression and possibly psychosis (though evidence for the latter is inconclusive). It’s also not exactly natural, since decades of husbandry has lead to most marijuana available on the street today being more heavily laden with THC than it’s natural counterparts. Usually THC that affects CB1 receptors (producing a “high”).

Truth in Debate
Were the debate free of dogma, however, neither side would be able to argue on the same points. The evidence that marijuana is beneficial far outweighs the evidence that it is not – assuming studies conducted in the 1960s and ’70s to promote the governmental prohibition view are discounted. The evidence for social ramifications, however, is very much in the air and highly anecdotal and is where the anti-legalization viewpoint usually stands.

No matter which side you are on with marijuana’s legalization, it should be realized that the debate is not about dogmatic points of view and political rhetoric. This is, sadly, where most of it falls.

The Real Issue At Hand
The real debate about marijuana’s legalization should be centered on only one thing (as should all political debate): is the suppression of liberty for one group of people somehow justified by the real-world positives it brings to others? In other words, has the prohibition of marijuana (the removal of our liberty to use it if we wish) somehow benefited society as a whole enough that this infringement on personal liberty is “worth it?”

If the arguments that say it has done so are true, then we must consider the other things in our society which cause death and life destruction as well: alcohol, personal motor vehicles, firearms, legal pharmaceuticals, the military, elective plastic surgery, police actions, processed and fatty foods, competitive youth sports..

All of the above (and many more) have had a far greater impact on society and health than has marijuana. So, by logic, all of these should be considered ready for prohibition and removed from our list of allowed liberties by the same argument used against marijuana.

This, of course, brings a larger, more philosophical question to politics: who “owns” our personal liberties and can we really cede them in any way that is involuntary? That is the core of most political debate and is especially prudent in the debate over marijuana’s legalization.

Resources:
The author has no prescribed political affiliation. He is libertarian and anarchist by politics, but does not belong to any political party, so is classified as an “independent.”

The Eagle Forum’s official stance on marijuana’s legalization can be found at these links: Part 1 and Part 2

Cananbinoid-Induced Immune Suppression and Modulation of Antigen-Presenting Cells by Tomas W. Klein, Guy A. Cabral, Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology, 2006.

Pharmacology and effects of cannabis: a brief review by C. Heather Ashton, FRCP, The Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2001.

Cannabinoid receptor type 1 (Wikipedia), aka CB1

Thanks to the War on (some) Drugs, things like marijuana are illegal while others actually known to be much worse, like alcohol, are perfectly fine. Meanwhile, because prohibition does not change the demand for substances made illicit, some alternatives appear to replace them “legally” on the market. Often, of course, these are pharmaceuticals, but sometimes other alternatives appear as well. This doesn’t make them any less dangerous.

A new marijuana alternative that is sold under the trade names Spice or K2 has emerged in America. The herbal substitute for pot has been in Europe for several years, but is only now emerging in North America. It’s less than “natural” and contains some compounds that are not exactly “herbal” either.

Packets of Spice have several (and varying) ingredients listed and these are always natural herbs. They are not, however, an exhaustive list of ingredients. Most countries with ingredients labeling laws only require it for products made for human consumption. Since Spice and K2 are sold as “incense” rather than as a smokeable product, they are exempt from these rules. So while ingredients such as Baybean and Siberian Motherwort may be included in the package, they are not the active ingredients.

The active ingredient is usually a compound called JWH-018, though another called CP-47,497 may also be used – though the latter has only been found in any frequency in Germany.

JWH-018 and CP-47,497 are synthetic cannabinoids created in laboratories for use in pharmacology testing and were never meant for human consumption. JWH-018 is synthesis number 18 of over 100 created by Clemson University organic chemist, Professor John W. Huffman. The compound was one of many made to test in-vitro (non-human/animal testing) reactions to CB1 and CB2 (see below).

Similarly, CP-47,497 was created by drug maker Pfizer as a test compound for the same purpose. During the 1970s and 1980s, these and similar tests were common amongst many in pharmacology who were hoping to make THC-mimicking pharmaceuticals.

CB1 and CB2 are cannabinoid receptors that all humans carry which react specifically to cannabis. Natural THC, or that derived from naturally-occurring marijuana plants, reacts with both CB receptors equally. Most strains of marijuana sold on the street, however, are bred to mainly react with CB1 (usually when smoked or when heat is applied to the THC molecule). CB1 is the psychoactive receptor while CB2 seems to harbor the pain reducing and inflammation lowering effects of THC.

Unlike other “fake pot” alternatives, however, most users of these new offerings claim that they do get a marijuana-like high from the packets. This is, of course, due to the synthetic THC in the packets and not the herbal ingredients. Many other alternatives to pot have the same herbs in them and produce no such effect.

One doctor in Utah says that when the school year starts, he often sees more patients who’re adversely effected by the Spice and K2 compounds. He says that they appear to have negative “upper” effects, similar to caffeine or other stimulants, with some psychotic additions – paranoia, hearing voices, etc. Doctors in Europe have noted the same and many European countries have outlawed the marijuana alternative.

Many U.S. states and areas are following suite after ill-effects were reported in their jurisdictions.

What NaturalNews readers will want to note, however, is not the good or ill effects of the fake marijuana, but instead its unnatural ingredients. JWH-018 and CP-47,497 were created by Big Pharma as test molecules and were not meant for human consumption. They are, in short, chemicals made to mimic THC, but are man-made.

Resources:
Spice, K2 – the Synthetic Marijuana: the Good, the Bad, and the Deadly by Aaron Turpen, CannaCentral.com

The Story of Spice by Andrew Jack, Financial Times

Spice: the big issue by Tam Rounds, Utah Statesman

What’s the buzz?: Synthetic marijuana, K2, Spice, JWH-018 by Abel Pharmboy, Terra Sigillata/Scienceblogs

Across the United States, debates about medical marijuana fester in many communities and states. Currently, fourteen states of the fifty in the Union plus Washington, D.C. have legalized marijuana for medical use. Yet in those states, and many others who are considering similar measures, the argument rages on.

What is most often ignored in these discussions is the science behind the use of cannabis as a medicine. Yet there is ample scientific evidence proving the efficacy of this natural herb in treating some medical conditions. Just as there is evidence of side effects.

First, the Science

The University of California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research has done several studies into the efficacy of marijuana for neuropathic use – especially in pain reduction. They have been done using FDA standardized clinical trials with randomized, placebo-controlled procedures. These studies have clearly shown the positive effects of using marijuana as a pain reliever and medicine for patients with such chronic conditions as HIV, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, spinal cord injury, and sleep disorders.¹

A recent review in Germany showed that since 2005, there have been 37 controlled studies assessing the safety and efficacy of marijuana (and its compounds). These involved far more subjects than the average study seeking FDA approval for a prescription drug.²

These are just a few, as over 2,500 papers were published on the subject of cannabis in 2009 alone.

Next, the Baseless Debates

Many opponents of medical marijuana claim that there is “little evidence” and call for “more research, more science.” These are the more reasonable of the detractors for the medicinal use of marijuana, of course. Yet these reasonable arguments against marijuana as a medicine are pretty hollow given the vast amount of research that’s already been done with much more on the way.

Proponents of medical marijuana often ignore the research as well. Despite the common claims to the contrary, there is evidence that marijuana also has negative side effects. Most of these center on the physical effects of smoking it as well as proven cognitive negatives. Admittedly, the effects are no worse (and generally better) than the side effects associated with many prescription drugs and accepted non-prescription drugs such as alcohol or tobacco.³

Most of the arguments for or against the use of medical marijuana seem to center on social rather than science-based concerns. Rightly so, in some cases, as there are deep social issues involved with marijuana’s use (or prohibition). Many communities have benefited from the introduction of medical marijuana, however.⁴ The negative impacts of marijuana, socially, are nearly always associated with its prohibition rather than its allowance.

When All Is Said and Done

Marijuana is continually being proven to have medical uses. It’s prohibition is becoming less and less tenable as negative societal impacts are proving to be more psychologically-based than they are scientific. With 14 of 50 states in the U.S. having medical marijuana laws and with several considering full legalization of it (as is Mexico and as have some European countries), the real motivations behind those who condemn marijuana as a “hard drug” akin to synthetic street drugs such as cocaine are hard to understand.

The truth is, however, until Americans are willing to be completely honest about the issues surrounding marijuana and its use as a medicine, these senseless arguments are likely to continue indefinitely. Both sides of the argument need to concede that the other may have some points. All involved must realize that medical marijuana has enough science-based proof behind it to be considered legitimate and at the same time acknowledge that there are negatives to the use of marijuana as well.

Resources:
1 – Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research studies list

2 – Review on clinical studies with cannabis and cannabinoids 2005-2009 by Arno Hzekamp, Franjo Grotenhermen, Institute Biology Leiden, Leiden University, The Netherlands

3 – Special Marijuana Issue New Scientist Magazine, 21 February 1998

4 – Medical Marijuana Has Lawmakers Seeing Green by Aaron Turpen, CannaCentral.com

by Aaron Turpen, CannaCentral

There is a growing body of evidence that marijuana and its components possess anti-cancer properties. Yet you won’t likely see this in mainstream news and you definitely won’t see pharmaceutical companies running advertisements stating this.

The latest research comes from the State University of New York (SUNY) in Syracuse whose study in the Journal of Pharmacology (June 2010) concludes that cannabinoids delta8- and delta-9-THC stopped growth in human oral cancer cells.¹ This is specifically true of Tu183, a particularly difficult oral cancer. This was just the latest in many research reports and studies to have been published on the cancer-treating properties of marijuana and derivatives.

It’s been known for quite some time that THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) has cancer-inhibiting properties. A government-funded study in 1974 was quickly quashed after a favorable press account appeared in the Washington Post, only to resurface in the late 1990s and recently re-created by researchers in Madrid, Spain.^{2 & 3} The studies show the inhibitory effect of cannabis on brain tumors.

Marijuana has also been shown to have positive effects on other cancers, including breast cancer, lung cancer, skin cancer, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, and more.⁴

A review of clinical studies involving cannabis from 2005 to 2009 shows that 37 studies just on the therapeutic effects of marijuana or its derivatives were done in that time frame.⁵ This is over and above hard science, laboratory research into the use of cannabis as a medication.

So why is it that those who oppose marijuana as a medicine seem to have such a hard time acknowledging the huge body of evidence that’s accumulated for the past 30 or more years showing that cannabis has distinct and measurable medical benefits?

President Obama has told the Drug Enforcement Agency to stand down on marijuana raids and prosecutions in jurisdictions where marijuana has been made legal, including the 14 states plus Washington, D.C. that have medical marijuana laws on the books. Yet even with evidence in hand showing the efficacy of marijuana, government funding for studies with it are nearly non-existent. Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration continues to approve drugs whose background studies and effects are nowhere near as comprehensive or prolific as are those for cannabis.

It’s time that opponents to marijuana admit that their reasons for blocking the medicinal use of this plant are entirely social and emotional and have no grounding in fact. Death, injury, and violent behavior is far more often done under the influence of alcohol than it is under pot, yet alcohol is perfectly legal. By contrast, more arrests for victimless crimes such as mere possession or use of marijuana are made every year than are busts for any other drug – legal or illegal.

As marijuana begins to receive more and more public advocacy and as more states legalize it, opponents of its decriminalization need to admit that they may be fighting it purely for nonsensical reasons.

References:
1 – Cannabinoids inhibit cellular respiration of human oral cancer cells. by DA Whyte, S Al-Hammadi, et al

2 – Pot Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew in ’74 by Raymond Cushing, AlterNet

3 – Cannabinoids as potential new therapy for the treatment of gliomas by Daniela Parolaro and Paola Massi, Expert Review of Naurotherapeutics, Jan. 2008

4 – A Couple Of Recent Studies The Mainstream Media Forgot To Mention by Paul Armentano, NORML

5 – Review on clinical studies with cannabis and cannabinoids 2005-2009 by Arno Hazekamp and Franjo Grotenhermen, Cannabinoids 2010

Aaron’s Note: I am now writing news, commentary, and the occasional science-based feature (as below) for CannaCentral.com, one of the few professional medical marijuana sites out there.  This is one of the first two features I’ve written for them and there will be more in the future.

by Aaron Turpen, CannaCentral

Despite what the nation’s “Drug Czar” Gil Kerlikowske might say and what his office might promote, it’s being proven that driving under the influence of marijuana does not make you a dangerous driver. In fact, a new study shows that it makes virtually no difference in the driving abilities of most drivers.

Of course, that may not be saying much given the state of some highways in this nation, but at least the road hogs and blind spot lurkers don’t drive any worse while high.

Most of the studies for stoned and drunk driving were conducted in the 1970s. Driving simulators, measurement tools, and even drug potency were different then. Although studies into drunk driving have continued to the present, studies of marijuana’s effects on driving have not. A new study from researchers at the Olin Neuropsychiatry Research Center has found that marijuana’s effects on driving – including separating data between men and women – is negligible.¹

The research is legitimate, double-blind, placebo-controlled and used 85 subjects (50 men, 35 women) on driving simulators. Subjects were tested sober and then shortly after having smoked either a 2.9% THC marijuana joint or an identical placebo.

The only measurable difference in driving between those who were sober when stoned was that they tended to slow down and drive slower than otherwise. Which any safety advocate will tell you is almost always a good thing.

Other studies conducted overseas, including one in Israel published in 2008,² showed similar results.

These studies and their findings should call into question every “impaired driving” law in which marijuana is treated the same as alcohol and hard drugs.

Of course, as marijuana becomes more and more socially acceptable and laws regarding its use loosen or are eliminated, a review of laws that lump it in with other, much more impairing drugs should be conducted as well.

References:
1 – Sex differences in the effects of marijuana on simulated driving performance. by BM Anderson, M Rizzo, et al, Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, March 2010

2 – Effects of THC on driving performance, physiological state and subjective feelings relative to alcohol.by A Ronen, P Gershon, et al, Accident; analysis and prevention, May 2008