'Cannabis' acts as antidepressant

BBC ^

[traumer]

A chemical found in cannabis can act like an antidepressant, researchers have found.

A team from Canada's University of Sasketchewan suggest the compound causes nerve cells to regenerate.

The Journal of Clinical Investigation study showed rats given a cannabinoid were less anxious and less depressed.

But UK experts warned other conflicting research had linked cannabis, and other cannabinoids, to an increased risk of depression and anxiety.

They suggested this could be because different cannabinoids acting at different levels have contradictory effects.

Cannabinoids have been shown to relieve the symptoms of multiple sclerosis and pain relief in humans.

They are naturally present in the body, as well as being found in cannabis.

'Complicated effects'

The Canadian researchers gave rats injections of high levels of one artificial cannabinoid, HU210, for a month.

The animals were seen to have nerve cell regeneration in the hippocampus, which is linked to memory and emotions.

The hippocampus has been shown to generate new nerve cells throughout a person's or an animal's life, but this ability is reduced if cells are engineered to lack a cannabinoid receptor protein called CB-1.

In the Canadian study, rats given the cannabinoid were also found to be less anxious, and more willing to eat food in new environments - a change which would normally frighten them.

However, research has previously linked use of the drug cannabis to long-term damage to mental health, and to increase the risk of mental illness in those who are already genetically susceptible.

In addition, short-term high doses of cannabinoids had also been shown to produce anxiety-like effects in rats and depression-like effects in mice.

But other studies had found that low-doses of cannabinoids helped to reduce anxiety in rodents.

The Canadian team said: "These complicated effects of high and low doses of acute and chronic exposure to cannabinoids may explain the seemingly conflicting results observed in clinical studies regarding the effects of cannabinoid on anxiety and depression."

'Raw cannabis is risky'

Professor Robin Murray, of the Institute of Psychiatry, questioned whether the anti-anxiety and antidepressant effects seen in the animals would be replicated in humans.

He said: "This is a very big leap of faith as they have no data on humans, and the supposed animals' models of anxiety and depression that they use don't have much in common with the human conditions."

Paul Corry, Director of campaigns and communication at Rethink said: "Cannabinoids are an exciting new area for medical research, but it is important to recognise that there are over 60 active ingredients in cannabis - synthetic cannabinoid may be showing evidence of nerve regeneration.

"But as also pointed out in this study, the effects of cannabis on the brain are complex and produce conflicting evidence.

"For most people with severe mental illness, raw cannabis remains a risky substance.

"All medical research needs to be checked before it would make a difference to the hundreds of thousands of people living with severe mental illness in the UK."

[Nipplemancer]

dude, that's why i'm like, totally never sad. awesome.

[DC Bound]

rats given a cannabinoid were less anxious and less depressed

Right.

[USNBandit]

study showed rats given a cannabinoid were less anxious and less depressed

[freepatriot32]

ping

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[308MBR]

Reckon what the market for Prozac-Elavil-Advantia et al would be if an American could step out in his back yard (or in a box on a window ledge) and grow some reefer?

"Partnership for a Drug Free America", sponsored by Annheuser/Busch, Jim Beam Distilleries, Merck, Bayer, Wyeth, etc and enforced using your tax dollars while taking manpower that would be better used in patrolling the borders and hunting suitcase nukes.

Pardon me if I missed the societal benefits inherent in letting the federal gummint stretch the Commerce Clause a few miles too far in the effort to buy votes.

[goonie4life9]

You know, I had to do research on Cannabis for a Health Psychology class. What is interesting is that researchers have consistently found that the higher levels of THC in modern day cannabis are strongly correlated to (and some researchers found was a cause of) a diagnosis of schizophrenia in the cannabis user.

[sagar]

THAT'S JUST AWESOME!!!

[Billthedrill]

In the Canadian study, rats given the cannabinoid were also found to be less anxious, and more willing to eat food in new environments - a change which would normally frighten them.

Poor little buggers got the munchies. Not a lot more to it than that.

I smoked pot for years and it didn't affect me at all. .lla ta em tceffa t'ndid ti dna sraey rof top dekoms I

Kreegah! Watch out for the giant purple lobsters!

[armymarinemom]

You know, I had to do research on Cannabis for a Health Psychology class. What is interesting is that researchers have consistently found that the higher levels of THC in modern day cannabis are strongly correlated to (and some researchers found was a cause of) a diagnosis of schizophrenia in the cannabis user.

Not a big surprise. What concerns me is that users are getting younger and younger. Just what does this do to a developing brain? After attending the protest in D.C. I think I have an answer.

[goonie4life9]

Yeah, it is scary. I don't think most people realize that the cannabis floating around today is not the cannabis of 20 years ago.

[moonpie57]

I smoked pot for years also and you are right about the munchies. Also, how can you be depressed when you are laughing your fanny off over the least little thing? I also remember being "on the nods", so it may also be good to help the poor rats sleep :)

[mc6809e]

Let's see how many conservatives are believers in freedom.

[mc6809e]

You know, I had to do research on Cannabis for a Health Psychology class. What is interesting is that researchers have consistently found that the higher levels of THC in modern day cannabis are strongly correlated to (and some researchers found was a cause of) a diagnosis of schizophrenia in the cannabis user.

Ah, but maybe they do it as a form of self-medication.

That would be just like Americans, wouldn't it?

[Not_Who_U_Think]

This just in:

Squirrels, under the influence, tend to play with their nuts rather than store them.

[DC Bound]

My comment was intended to question the notion that rats feel depressed, or that if they do, it can be measured.

[deltanine]

"Let's see how many conservatives are believers in freedom."

Not many apparently. I mean, come on, all those pot smokers are schizophrenics and don't deserve freedom.

Haven't you seen Reefer Madness?

[Mister Baredog]

a diagnosis of schizophrenia in the cannabis user.

I believe it's called "Reefer Madness". LOL.

[goonie4life9]

I understand that. It is a valid question. I was responding more to the researcher generalizations to humans.

[goonie4life9]

I don't think it has anything to do with schizophrenics not deserving freedom. But, like I said, the THC levels in pot today are not the same as they were 20-30 years ago. As such, it is important to study the effects. If pot use, with levls of THC of 20-30 years ago, produces no ill effects, I can understand the argument that restricting it is limiting freedom. However, if today's pot produces negative effects that far outweigh the positive effects, it is important that people are made aware of this.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Regardless of the "truth" of this report - it is sad that such research is only NOW being done - Cannabis was so demonized for years that no serious research on possible benifits could be done.

[Wolfie]

Psychosis, Hype And Baloney


The mainstream media is eating it up, but a new study claiming a link between marijuana use and psychosis should be approached with great caution.
As the month began, the worldwide press jumped all over a study in the March issue of the journal Addiction purporting to show a causal link between marijuana use and psychosis. "Drug Doubles Mental Health Risk," the BBC reported. "Marijuana Increases Risk of Psychosis," the Washington Times chimed in.

Such purported links have lately become the darling of prohibitionists, but a close look at the new study reveals gaping holes unmentioned in those definitive-sounding headlines.

Before we look at the study itself, let's consider some basics: If X causes Y, it's reasonable to expect a huge increase in X to cause at least a modest increase in Y, but this has not been the case with marijuana and psychosis. Private and government surveys have documented a massive increase in marijuana use, particularly by young people, during the 1960s and '70s, but no corresponding increase in psychosis was ever reported. This strongly suggests that if marijuana use plays any role in triggering psychosis, that effect is weak, rare, or both.

For this reason, researchers should approach "proof" that marijuana causes serious mental illness with great caution. The researchers in this case, a New Zealand team led by David M. Fergusson of the Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, seem to have done just the reverse.

Fergusson's team looked at a group of 1,265 New Zealand kids who were followed from birth to age 25 and assessed at various points along the way for a variety of physical, mental and social problems and issues. At ages 18, 21 and 25 they were assessed for both marijuana use and supposed psychotic symptoms. Having found a correlation, with daily users reporting the highest frequency of psychotic symptoms, they then applied a series of mathematical models. These models are designed to adjust for possible variables that might confound the results and to assess whether the marijuana use caused the symptoms or vice versa.

Whatever model was applied, the correlation held up. But the reported "growing evidence" that "regular use of cannabis may increase risks of psychosis" depends completely on the validity of the underlying data, and those data raise some screamingly obvious questions.

Psychotic symptoms were measured using 10 items from something called Symptom Checklist 90. Participants were asked if they had certain ideas, feelings or beliefs that commonly accompany psychotic states. The researchers did not look at actual diagnoses, and the symptom checklist is not identical to the formal diagnostic criteria listed in the DSM-IV manual. Perhaps most important, they only used 10 "representative" items from a much larger questionnaire.

These 10 items focus heavily on paranoid thoughts or feelings, such as "feeling other people cannot be trusted," "feeling you are being watched or talked about by others," "having ideas or beliefs that others do not share." This presents a big methodological problem, because it is well known that paranoid feelings are a fairly common effect of being high on marijuana.

But the article gives no indication that respondents were asked to distinguish between feelings experienced while high and feelings experienced at other times. Thus, we are left with no indication at all as to whether these supposed psychotic symptoms are long-term effects or simply the normal, passing effects of marijuana intoxication. While it's possible the researchers had these data and didn't see a need to report them, the failure to do so is downright bizarre. It's like reporting that people who go to bars are more erratic drivers than people who don't, without bothering to look at whether they'd been drinking at the time their driving skills were assessed.

Even if these were long-term effects, the researchers seem not to have considered that what might be an indication of psychosis in other circumstances could be an entirely normal reaction for people who use marijuana. Consider: Someone using a substance that is both illegal and socially frowned-upon almost by definition has "ideas or beliefs that others do not share." This is not a sign of mental illness. It's a sign of a rational person realistically assessing his or her situation.

The same goes for "feeling other people cannot be trusted." Just ask Robin Prosser, the Montana medical marijuana patient arrested last summer on possession charges by the cops who came to save her life after she'd attempted suicide because she was in unbearable pain after running out of medicine.

Fergusson reports very little raw data, so we don't know which symptoms came up most often, or whether the differences in average levels of symptoms between users and non-users came from a few people having a lot of symptoms or a lot of people having a couple symptoms. The heavy-user group, with the highest levels of supposed psychosis, reported an average of less than two symptoms each. So it is entirely possible that the entire case for marijuana "causing" psychosis is based on marijuana smokers having the completely reasonable feelings that they have beliefs different from mainstream society and thus should be a tad suspicious of others.

"Proof" that marijuana makes you psychotic? No. Not even close. But don't expect the mainstream media to figure this out.

Bruce Mirken is communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. Mitch Earleywine, Ph.D., is associate professor of psychology at the University of Southern California and author of "Understanding Marijuana" (Oxford University Press, 2002).

[krshnbrn]

I don't think most people realize that the cannabis floating around today is not the cannabis of 20 years ago.

That's largely another drug war myth. But even if a slight increse in strength is true, we don't see all alcoholics running around with a bottle of 190 proof Everclear in their hands.

[WhiteGuy]

Actually it doesn't...............

But Oreos and Doritos do!

[TKDietz]

I had no experience with marijuana thirty years ago, but I did smoke a little as early as twenty seven years ago and I can tell you there was plenty of strong pot out there back then. It may vary well be that the average is a little higher than it was twenty years ago, and that the strongest marijuana is stronger than the strongest of twenty years ago, but it all does the same thing. Unless it's just so weak that it makes you sleepy and gives you a headache before it ever gets you high, it will all do the same thing if you smoke enough of it. The marijuana of today is not some new drug. Just like beer and distilled spirits are the same drug that will do the same thing, stronger marijuana and weaker marijuana are the same. And just as it works with alcohol, people tend to consume less of the stronger marijuana than they would of he weaker stuff.

As for marijuana making everyone crazy, I just don't believe it. I could see how people with mental illness would gravitate toward marijuana just as they gravitate toward other intoxicants in an attempt to get some relief from their difficult miserable lives, and I could see how like other intoxicants it might exacerbate an existing condition, but I haven't seen any solid proof that it actually causes mental illness. All we really have in these studies is proof of a link, proof of correlation, but not proof of causation.

It seems to me that if marijuana is really making so many people crazy, we'd have a much higher instance of serious mental illness in states with higher rates of marijuana use than in states with the lowest rates of use. In order to test this theory, I looked at data from the The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), which collects data on both mental illness and drug use. My thinking was that if marijuana really causes serious mental illness, there would be correspondingly higher rates of mental illness in states with higher rates of marijuana use. Doesn't that make sense?

First I looked at the state with the highest past month marijuana use, New Hampshire. In that state 10.23% reported use of marijuana in the past month on the last survey and and according to SAMHSA 8.8% of New Hampshire's population suffer from serious mental illness compared to the national average of 8.76%. Then I looked at the state with the lowest marijuana use, Utah. There only 4.00% reported past month marijuana use but SAMHSA says 10.97% suffer from serious mental illness.

Now, that was interesting to me but there are too many variables that can come into play that call into question the results from just two examples. So, I dug a little deeper and looked at the ten states with the highest and ten states with the lowest marijuana use. The national average past month marijuana use was 6.18%. The top ten states averaged 8.93%. Serious mental illness in these states averaged 8.73%, compared to the national average of 8.76%. Serious mental illness in the ten states with the lowest marijuana use averaged 9.44%, even though past month marijuana use only averaged 4.73% in these states.

Why is it that the states with the highest marijuana use actually lower rates of serious mental illness than the states with the lowest marijuana use? I honestly don't know. I don't think you could conclude from that that marijuana use reduces mental illness, but it certainly does call into question research that shows that marijuana use drastically increases mental illness.

Here are the tables I used from SAMHSA's 2003 NSDUH. The link to the past month marijuana use by state is here: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k3State/appB.htm#tabB.3

The link to the serious mental illness numbers by state is here: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k3State/appB.htm#tabB.21 "

[wildbill]

So cannabis is an anti-depressant if used moderately. Giggle. Duh! Giggle.

What would we do without researchers on federal grants?

[goonie4life9]

Actually, THC levels have been proven to be higher in modern cannabis. And again, I never said ALL me mental illness, just schizophrenia. More specifically, the increase was directly linked to the increased THC. When there were lower levels, there was no difference. Either way, it is still important to have information out there so people can make an informed decision.

[radioman]

found that the higher levels of THC in modern day cannabis

Drug war myth...Right up there with the albino alligators in the sewers of NYC!
.

[UCANSEE2]

Here we go again. What makes you believe anyone would accept factual documentation?

[UCANSEE2]

albino alligators with infrared vision.

[radioman]

What concerns me is that users are getting younger and younger

That is from the "Meth Is Death" DEA website.
According to the DEA:
"1 in 7 high school students will try meth";
"99 percent of first-time meth users are hooked after just the first try";
"only 5 percent of meth addicts are able to kick it and stay away";
"the life expectancy of a habitual meth user is only 5 years."

Do the math.
13.4 percent of Americans die as a result of methamphetamine abuse within five years of graduating from high school.
According to the Census Bureau, there are more than 20 million 15-to-19-year-olds in the U.S., so we are talking about hundreds of thousands of deaths a year, and that's not even counting people who start using meth after high school.
Hundreds of thousands of teen deaths every year from meth!
Where are the bodies?
. .

[radioman]

THC levels have been proven to be higher in modern cannabis

Where is that proof? Have you got a reference?
.

[Protagoras]

No minds will be changed, very few different poster will participate in the thread. There will be lots of name calling and innuendo.

Business as usual.

[goonie4life9]

Yes. Henry, J.A., Oldfield, W.L.G., & Kon, O.M. (2003). Comparing cannabis with tobacco. British Medical Journal, (v.) 326, (p.) 942-943. Percent of THC in cannabis 20 years ago was approximately 0.5%. Today, it is approximately 5%, and Nederweed (smoked in the Netherlands) averages 10-11%.

[CodeToad]

"'Cannabis' acts as antidepressant"


Laughter is the best medicine and potheads laugh at everything.

[deltanine]

I know from many years of personal experience and anecdotal evidence from dozens of acquaintances who partake of the herb.

When a person smokes marijuana they generally stop smoking once they are "stoned". If anything, more potent marijuana is likely easier on the lungs as it takes less smoking of it to get a person high.

[goonie4life9]

No necessarily true. The smoke itself may be less, but that does not mean the body handles the higher levels of THC just as it would the lower levels.

[tiki]

I didn't read the article but there was one yesterday that said that marijuana increased brain cells or something so I guess if you smoke it you should be smart and happy.

Just a little anecdotal evidence, I know a few people who have smoked grass around 30 yrs, they are not successful, they aren't smart and they aren't happy.

[deltanine]

I'm trying to tell you that regardless of how high the THC level in the marijuana is, a person will generally only smoke enough to get high. They aren't taking in more THC than they did 30 years ago. That's a myth.

[-YYZ-]

Uh, perhaps successful, smart and happy people who smoke pot don't tend to share that fact with a lot of people, seeing as it is an illegal substance that a significant portion of society still disapproves of? I'd be willing to bet that you have many acquaintances who partake that you have no idea about.

[-YYZ-]

Uh, perhaps successful, smart and happy people who smoke pot don't tend to share that fact with a lot of people, seeing as it is an illegal substance that a significant portion of society still disapproves of? I'd be willing to bet that you have many acquaintances who partake that you have no idea about.

[TKDietz]

How much strong stuff is out there and how strong is it? Here's a little gem I found on the ONDCP's website:

"Marijuana potency as characterized by THC content is rising. According to data from the Marijuana Potency Monitoring Project, the average potency of samples of all cannabis types increased from 3% in 1991 to 5.2% in 2001. The potency of commercial-grade marijuana increased from 3.1% to 5% during the same period. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, commercial-grade marijuana THC levels were under 2%. The concentration of THC in sinsemilla was about 6% in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and averaged more than 9% in 2001."

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/marijuana/

Now, you always hear them talking about some sample they tested that was 30% THC or some ridiculously high amount and then insinuating that this is what all the kids are smoking today. In reality, pot anywhere close to that strong is exceedingly rare. Note that the average of all sinsemilla was only around 9% in 2001, and the average of all types, commercial grade and sinsemilla together, was only 5.2% that year. So it looks like the lions share of what they are seizing is cheapo Mexican commercial grade marijuana with relatively low THC content that they say was around 5% in 2001. It was actually slightly lower than that according to the University of Mississippi's Marijuana Potency Monitoring Project that tests what few samples law enforcement decides to send them so the government can have these numbers to hype.

The government is hyping this super pot myth to scare people. Nobody was ever smoking this under 2% pot you hear about, at least not on purpose, and not very often if they did run across it because it's no fun to smoke something that won't do anything to you but give you a headache and make your throat hurt. We used to call it "match weed" when I was younger because that was the stuff you wouldn't smoke unless you were "matching a joint" with a guy with better pot..."I'll spark up a doobie if you'll match me." Mostly ditchweed like that was being sold to tourists or neophytes and undercover cops who were always willing to pay too much for anything they could get their hands on. Everybody else knew where to get decent pot most of the time. The first time I ever smoked pot was 1978 and it was some pretty darned potent sinsemilla.

Shoot, most countries that allow industrial hemp production set the THC level at 1% because pot that strong doesn't have psychoactive effect. Why would people smoke crap that weak or only a hair better that wouldn't do much more than make them hack and wheeze? There was always fairly strong pot out there that would get you just as high as anything out there today. Even if it was maybe 3 or 4% THC, all you had to do was smoke a little more to get the the same effect you would get from the average stuff out there today. And there was powerful stuff that even if it wasn't as strong on average as the more powerful stuff today, the same effect could be (and was) reached with a few more puffs.

Most people aren't smoking the really strong stuff anyway, in large part because it is incredibly expensive compared to standard commercial grade pot, especially for teens and other young people who don't tend to have money growing out of their ears. On top of that, not everyone wants to smoke super strong stuff even if they can afford it because when it's too strong it's hard to smoke just enough to get you that pleasant buzz you are after without getting too stoned. When it's really strong a puff or even a half a puff can make all the difference. With weaker pot it might take several more puffs to reach that level.

Pot smokers who want to get so baked they sit there glued to the couch unable to carry on a coherent conversation are in the minority. They're like the idiots (and often are the same idiots) who always feel like they have to chug-a-lug every alcoholic beverage in sight until they pass out. That all may be fun a few times when you're young and dumb, but few people want to make that a regular occurrence.

Don't believe the hype. People aren't getting any higher today than they were twenty years ago.

[goonie4life9]

Where is your proof it is a myth? Do you have a citation?

[tiki]

Yea, maybe. I live in a small town and I've been here 47 yrs and grew up with most of the population. I've smoked pot with a lot of them and drank with a lot of them, lawyers, doctors, politicians and pond scum too. You know a lot more about people in a small town because you know who sells and you know who buys.

I did say it was anecdotal evidence but I don't know one, single successful person who continued to smoke grass on a daily basis after college and I know a lot of people.

[deltanine]

i'm just offering you my personal experience, goonie. Take it for what its worth.

I should ask you where your proof is that pot smokers are taking in more THC than they did 30 years ago? Even if the marijuana is stronger nowadays, that doesn't prove that an individual smokes as much as they did with less potent strains.

[TKDietz]

I bet that's true for most people. I remember a few years back walking in on a friend of my father's and another guy on dad's private boat dock smoking a joint while they were fishing for crappie. They asked me not to say anything to my father because he wouldn't understand. I didn't because I knew how much my dad disapproved of marijuana and I knew how good of a friend my father considered this guy to be, so I didn't want to spoil that for dad. Besides, I had made a promise. That was years ago and he still doesn't know one of his buddies likes to smoke a joint on occasion. The guy is very successful, a sixty something year old self-made millionaire who is well liked in the community. I wouldn't have believed he smoked pot if I hadn't have seen it with my own eyes. I still feel a little guilty about not telling my father.

There are all sorts of people out there who smoke a little pot that few would ever suspect of doing it. I live in a nice neighborhood and I've seen neighbors doing it that I never would have dreamed smoke the stuff. I know several successful people in the community who do it, some I've heard about and others who told me about it themselves. People around here know I'm a lawyer who handles a lot of drug cases and sometimes that will just come up in conversations. I've also represented people in other matters where the question has to be asked and have been truly surprised by some of the people who admit to doing it at least every once in a while. It's a lot more common than people realize. People with money who do it just tend to be more secretive about it and tend to not do things that bring themselves under police scrutiny that could get them busted. They have more to lose than the people we see so often in court.

[robertpaulsen]

What do they mean by "hooked"? Can they be "hooked" but not use it (like an alcoholic that doesn't drink)? What's their definition of a "meth addict"? Is that the same as "hooked"?

What's a "habitual meth user", and is that different than an addict or being "hooked"?

Whoa! Now what do they mean by "methamphetamine abuse"? Is that "habitual"? Or does that mean a whole bunch at once? Does someone who's "hooked" abuse meth, or only addicts do that? Or habitual meth users?

Hey radioman, since this is so clear to you, maybe you can explain it to the rest of us.

[armymarinemom]

I never got into the discussion of Meth. I was discussing Cannabis and it's effects on a developing brain.

[robertpaulsen]

"Let's see how many conservatives are believers in freedom."

I don't consider a person getting f^&*ed up on drugs to be "free". Just the opposite, as a matter of fact. So maybe you'll want to rephrase that.

Something like, "Let's see how many conservatives are believers in irresponsible, selfish hedonism."