Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 12/27/2005 7:26:46 AM PST by billorites
Marijuana--or more specifically its active ingredient, tetrahydrocannabinol--has a well-documented tendency to stimulate hunger. And while scientists have traced this property to cannabinoid receptors in the brain, they have had little understanding of the neural circuitry underlying this effect.
Understanding this circuitry has important practical implications because blocking the cannabinoid receptor, CB1, offers a promising approach to treating obesity. One such compound, rimonabant (trade name AcompliaTM) is already undergoing clinical testing.
In an article in the December 22, 2005, issue of Neuron, Young-Hwan Jo and colleagues report how the circuitry of CB1 is integrated with signaling by the appetite-suppressing hormone leptin. The CB1 receptor is normally triggered by natural regulatory molecules, called endocannabinoids.
In their studies, the researchers concentrated on the lateral hypothalamus (LH) of the brain, known to be a center of control of food intake. Their studies involved detailed electrophysiological measurements of the effects of specific neurons that they had identified in previous studies as being important in endocannabinoid signaling.
Their studies revealed that activation of CB1 receptors, as by endocannabinoid molecules, induced these neurons to be rendered more excitable by a mechanism called "depolarization-induced suppression of inhibition" (DSI).
What's more, they found that leptin inhibits DSI. However, they found that leptin did not interfere with the CB1 receptors themselves. Rather, leptin "short-circuits" the endocannabinoid effects by inhibiting pore-like channels in the neurons that regulate the flow of calcium into the neurons. Such calcium is necessary for the synthesis of endocannabinoids.
In further studies of mice genetically altered to be leptin deficient, the researchers found the DSI to be more prolonged than in normal mice. Thus, they said, the findings "implicate this mechanism for leptin receptor/endocannabinoid signaling in contributing to the maintenance of weight balance...." The researchers also included that "upregulation of endocannabinoid signaling in the LH may explain, at least in part, the increased body weight consistent with a prior report of elevated endocannabinoids" in such leptin-deficient mice.
The researchers concluded that their findings "are consistent with the hypothesis that the integration of endocannabinoid and leptin signaling regulates the excitability of neurons on appetite-related circuits."
They also wrote that "the cellular mechanisms of recently developed antiobesity drugs, such as rimonabant, may include decreased endocannabinoid signaling and hence decreased excitability of LH circuits related to appetite, even in the context of leptin insufficiency or resistance."
WODdies aren't big on personal responsibility.
I think his tagline says it all.
Horsefeathers. No amendment of the Bill of Rights can trump another, they were passed at the same time, as a package.
Now the real question is whether the 9th amendment binds the state governments. Rights reserved to the people verses powers reserved to the states. Oh, and to the people. People have powers and rights, governments only have powers.
Several states have passed laws semi-legalizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes. The Feds have overridden them at every turn. So much for both the 9th and 10th amendments, as far as the drug warriors are concerned.
bump for later
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
And, you still get stoned. :)
There are worse side effects for a medicine to have.
If the morbidly obese had willpower to do anything besides overeat, they wouldn't be morbidly obese.
Administer as needed.
That's a silly question to attempt to answer 40 years later. Nevertheless, the drug problems in the USA and its creation of a world wide market in drugs is the result of both the USA, Canada and Western Europe attempting to treat the mentally ill on a community based, out-patient basis. From Sarah Jane Moore to Mark Chapman, to David Hinkley and Patrick Purdy, of the Stockton School yard Massacre, all were mental patients being treated at a community clinic.
Fortunately, like with alcohol, there would be a level test. Heck a large fraction the population could probably get a positive indication for MJ, just by second hand smoke in the halls and public areas of businesses and residences such as apartment buildings.
That's a silly question to attempt to answer 40 years later. Nevertheless, the drug problems in the USA and its creation of a world wide market in drugs is the result of both the USA, Canada and Western Europe attempting to treat the mentally ill on a community based, out-patient basis.
So you have no evidence but you'll make the claim anyway. Typical Drug War 'logic.'
From Sarah Jane Moore to Mark Chapman, to David Hinkley and Patrick Purdy, of the Stockton School yard Massacre, all were mental patients being treated at a community clinic.
And they were all pot smokers? Or are you dragging in red herrings?
Keep hitting that one piano key, my friend.
>>>So shove your, "Why are you here?" where it belongs, you friggin ignorant moron!>>>
I have reported you for abuse.
Questioning your reason for being on a conservative website when you obviously have a thing for limiting freedoms of private citizens is not quite the same as calling you an ignorant moron.
Actually, I think the War on Drugs is a bad policy. Money spent and wasted on a futile effort. Better the money had been spent on mental facilities.
why even bother with some of nutty responses, Like spitting into a tornado.......stay safe
I will. It's the only one in tune.
Again, horsefeathers. The second amendment is being infringed because the notion of an armed populace scares many politicians, and for good reason I might add. Now, they use the rise in crime and drug abuse as an excuse, but it's not the real reason. In fact, as we know, crime drops when the law abiding are armed.
The attacks on the second amendment started well before the '63 law that you cite. The first major attack at the federal level came in the 1930s, with the passage of the ('34) National Firearms Act, and the ('38) Federal Firearms Act. For those, especially the former, they used the crime caused by the prohibition of alcohol as the excuse, even though by then, prohibition had been repealed, although the crime syndicates remained. Then there was the 1968 Gun Control Act, which was passed using as the excuse events that happened after your '63 law, but not so much after that the societal effects had yet had enough time to grow enough to be really be noticeable.
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.