Print 63 comment(s) - last by TheEinstein.. on Jul 19 at 6:39 AM

  (Source: University of Bonn)
Scientists have found that the CB1 receptor has a signal system that protects nerve cells

Researchers from the University of Bonn and the University of Mainz have found a way to protect the brain from degeneration.

Professor Dr. Andreas Zimmer, team leader at the Institut für Molekulare Psychiatrie at the University of Bonn, along with Dr. Andras Bilkei-Gorzo, study leader on Zimmer's team, Önder Albayram, principal author on Zimmer's team, and a group of researchers, have discovered that a certain receptor can play a large role in preventing degeneration of the brain.

A receptor is a protein that is capable of binding to other substances which leads to a chain of signals. One receptor in particular, called the cannabinoid-1 (CB1) receptor, allow cannabinoids like THC bind to it, which causes a person to feel the effect of marijuana for example. Now, researchers have found that this receptor plays a role in brain degeneration.

Scientists have found that the CB1 receptor has a signal system that protects nerve cells. When the receptor is switched off, the brain ages much faster.

Researchers were able to make this discovery by studying mice of all different ages, from six weeks old to 12 months old. They were each given the task to find a submerged platform in a pool, and when the researchers moved it, they had to find it again. This tested their ability to learn.

Some mice in each age group had the CB1 receptor turned off using gene technology while others had their CB1 receptor on. According to the results, mice with switched-off CB1 receptors performed more slowly and had a "diminished learning and memory capacity." Also, these mice showed a loss of hippocampus nerve cells, which is the part of the brain that forms and stores memories.

As the mice aged, those with the CB1 receptors turned off showed increased brain degeneration and inflammation processes in the brain. On the other hand, mice with CB1 receptors turned on were able to perform the tasks with normal learning and memory-related abilities, and their nerve cells remained healthy as they aged.

While this requires further research, scientists hope to use this information to develop therapies that protect the human brain from aging too quickly, preventing ailments like dementia

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Time to smoke?
By DaSHinVegas on 7/13/2011 12:20:58 PM , Rating: 3
Looking for clarification here. If that same receptor is the one that binds to THC then wouldn't the consumption of THC cause an increase in production of the receptor ergo causing an increase in the beneficial things attributed to that receptor.

Is it time to smoke in the interests of brain health?

RE: Time to smoke?
By Dr of crap on 7/13/2011 12:25:51 PM , Rating: 3
Light 'em and let's have some fun.

It's more than just medicinal, man, it helps my brian do it thing, man!

RE: Time to smoke?
By Manch on 7/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Time to smoke?
By theapparition on 7/14/2011 10:23:09 AM , Rating: 4
Please. Any beneficial effects on the brain by smoking marijuana is countered by the health effects of excessive consumption of Fritos and pizza.

RE: Time to smoke?
By Smilin on 7/14/2011 1:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
Funions are vegetables dude and cheetos have calcium.

RE: Time to smoke?
By GrandMareg on 7/13/2011 12:27:28 PM , Rating: 5
No. Excessive excitation of any receptor results in the down regulation of said receptor. Your brain tries very hard to keep things balanced. If this study is to be believed then introducing cannabinoids to a human body makes you dumber over time.

Something we know already.

RE: Time to smoke?
By Danger Danger on 7/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Time to smoke?
By kmmatney on 7/13/2011 6:40:03 PM , Rating: 1
That's not correct. In the study, they genetically modified mice so that they didn't have the receptor - those had more brain degeneration. It has nothing to do with exciting the receptors, it just studied what happens when you don't have them.

Basically, anyone who is highly reactive to smoking weed will have a lot of these receptors (you are born with them) and should have less brain degeneration (whether or not they smoke pot).

RE: Time to smoke?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/13/2011 12:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
I think we're confusing THC's other chemical side-effects with it's, potential, increase in receptor activity.

RE: Time to smoke?
By Smilin on 7/13/2011 1:49:30 PM , Rating: 3
Something we know already.

Which study proved that again?

RE: Time to smoke?
By Gungel on 7/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Time to smoke?
By Smilin on 7/13/2011 2:29:28 PM , Rating: 3
I have two Mensa members that I work with who have smoked daily for decades. In fact of the dozens of people I know who smoke there is only one that I would consider average or below average intelligence. My father just finished his doctorate is psychology and he smoked for years.

You're just repeating unproven stereotypical crap perpetuated by Cheech and Chong movies.

How about you produce some facts or stfu.

RE: Time to smoke?
By tng on 7/13/2011 3:04:17 PM , Rating: 3
Really? Last guy that I worked with that smoked pot on a daily basis had a long term memory that could be measured in minutes before he forgot something. Got so bad that I started sending emails with info instead of telling him so I had a record....

Goes to show you that results may be different. My experience and yours are far from a scientific study of everybody who smokes...

RE: Time to smoke?
By Wiggy Mcshades on 7/13/2011 6:22:16 PM , Rating: 3
Pot is allegedly suppose to diminish your short term memory, this guy may of just been an idiot.

RE: Time to smoke?
By Smilin on 7/14/2011 9:41:31 AM , Rating: 2
Correct, neither experience constitutes a study. I'll trust my experiences over yours though. Like I said I know dozens of people who use and show no signs of reduced cognitive ability (or short term memory loss surprisingly). You've mentioned one and have no way of knowing what actually caused his deficiencies through a single correlation. He could be lacing with formaldehyde or huffing on the side for all you know.

Find me a well-conducted study and I'll be happy to read it. Until then I have made enough observations to be very comfortable in my opinion. I won't try to force this opinion on someone else but neither will I stand by and just let the guy above rattle off some tripe like "it's a FACT it makes you stupid, everybody knows that!" (The stupidity of such a statement makes it self ironic)

RE: Time to smoke?
By TheEinstein on 7/19/2011 6:39:32 AM , Rating: 2
RE Your requested Study

While I am not aware of any study, I can tell you I have known a lot of people who smoke Pot. I have known several growers (now since long disassociated) and I am NOT a user (nor do I support using at all).

My personal observations, as a Statistician include these:

A certain percentage of the population has no effect from pot other than the short term 'high'.

A certain percentage of the population has a major long term effect that increases with each usage. To whit I know/knew three such individuals who have reached severe mental degradation in their ability to reason, remember, and react. Further mental issues include paranoia, delusions, and irrationality.

A certain percentage of the population has beneficial aspects from using, including increased appetite, vision improvements, and other reported health benefits.

A certain percentage of the population has short term problems from pot, not on a scale with the long term, but similar in scope.

A certain percentage of the population has problems with addiction after using pot, and have moved on to higher drugs.

I could site personal knowledge of people of all types here, but to such it would violate their rights to privacy.

Studies have been steered to aiming to one side or another at times, and some studies have shown all of the above. What the actual percentages are, I cannot tell you.

RE: Time to smoke?
By Topweasel on 7/14/2011 10:16:12 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah well I have short term memory issues that start well before my first puff and honestly as a rare smoker (once a year if that) I doubt that any measurable degradation has happen due to that rare use. So while I am not a great control person, you can have memory issues without being a "pothead". Who's to say that he just doesn't have good memory and that smoking pot doesn't necessarily help or hurt him.

There are obvious issues with pot and pot users but I think that is more of a societal issue. The lifestyles of a lot of pot users are poor and think that is driven by its illegal nature. By being illegal you automatically limit the potential user base. So while you can have high functioning users, a lot of users will be societal outcasts and people who frankly don't give a damn.

RE: Time to smoke?
By Fritzr on 7/13/2011 3:10:46 PM , Rating: 5
You tell 'em

And for the tobacco smokers who would like something to refute all the anti-health claims you can cite the many centenarians who smoke and have smoked most of their life, such as George Burns. All those studies showing negative effects are canceled out entirely by centenarian chain smokers :P

As for the people you work with. Mensa filters based on a person's position on the intelligence Bell curve and pays no attention to lifestyle. I am sorry, a very carefully filtered sample of 2 (out of millions who could qualify) is not a meaningful statistic. As for your sample of friends. Lets look at the control population--how many of your friends (who you chose as friends) are below average intelligence? There is a definite bias.

Your position stated as a tautology:
*You associate with people who are above average intelligence
*Some of those you associate with are pot smokers
*Therefore pot smoking does not depress intelligence

Wrong conclusion. The correct conclusion is that some pot smokers are above average compared to the total population. The Bell curve implies this and your selection bias implies that you will select from the intersection of the set of all pot smokers and the set of all who have above average intelligence when citing examples among your friends.

As for your father (1 person out of the population) consider the Bell curve when stating that you consider him near the middle of the curve rather than being a statistical outlier located on one of the tails of the curve. As for Mensa, they are by definition outliers ... instead of saying 2 Mensa (out of millions) try the percentage of Mensa eligible vs the percentage of non-Mensa eligible. 10% vs 90% if I remember correctly, it is many years now since I looked into Mensa. (Their acceptance rate is a lot higher than that, since applicants tend to apply only if they think they may qualify :P )

If the anti-pot people are right about pot having a negative effect on intelligence, consider what your PhD father might have been without a mental depressant :D

You must always control for selection bias when using statistics as an argument.

RE: Time to smoke?
By aharris02 on 7/13/2011 4:00:28 PM , Rating: 5
The point is that generalized assumptions are made about pot-smokers, and like any generalizations, there are plenty of examples where that assumption is simply not true.

As for the argument that people's intelligence levels are changed by pot smoking: that is simply not true. Learning capacity? Debatable. Intelligence? No.

If anything motivation (willpower) is the mental faculty that should be questioned, and I would argue that willpower is an internal function that a person either controls or doesn't, regardless of marijuana abuse.

A weak-willed person will remain non-motivated while smoking pot, just as a strong-willed person will either retain their willpower while smoking pot or stop smoking because they dislike not being in control of themselves.

With that last part said, I believe that more control is retained under the effects of marijuana than alcohol.

RE: Time to smoke?
By Fritzr on 7/14/2011 4:56:26 AM , Rating: 2
The article makes no assumptions or statements about potsmokers.

It does say that the cannabinoid receptors that are activated by cannabinoids including, but not limited to, THC appear to delay deterioration of the brain.

If anything potsmoking should accelerate degeneration by blocking whatever signaling chemical is normally used by the cannabinoid receptors. However that is a separate unrelated study that will need to be completed to see whether this "obvious" assumption is right or wrong.

Our assumptions about what should be often disagree with reality. When that happens we end up with either religious canon or a change in what we believe.

RE: Time to smoke?
By Smilin on 7/14/2011 9:56:15 AM , Rating: 2
Your position stated as a tautology:
*You associate with people who are above average intelligence
*Some of those you associate with are pot smokers
*Therefore pot smoking does not depress intelligence

That is not my position. You were fine right up until the third bullet. The rest of your post while accurate is a waste since you're debating a position that I've not taken.

You must always control for selection bias when using statistics as an argument.
You seem to be criticizing my study when I've not made one. Let me go ahead and sum up my position:

.. The statement "Everyone knows pot makes users stupid" is Bullsh11t.

There. Don't read any more into it.

If you want to break the aforementioned postion down some:
* Using pot makes one stupid.
* If one uses pot then they are stupid.

Would knowing a single intelligent pot smoker logically ruin this argument?

RE: Time to smoke?
By Fritzr on 7/16/2011 12:13:14 AM , Rating: 2
Your position stated as a tautology:
*You associate with people who are above average intelligence
*Some of those you associate with are pot smokers
*Therefore pot smoking does not depress intelligence

That is not my position. You were fine right up until the third bullet. The rest of your post while accurate is a waste since you're debating a position that I've not taken.

Your stated position as I read your post is: Pot smoking does not depress intelligence based on my friends and family who smoke pot.

That might be wrong, but it was you who said that was the reason you believe that pot smoking does not depress intelligence. Remember, readers do not have anything except your post and follow up replies with which to decide what your position may be.

The sample set is statistically flawed. If you wish to back up your assertion that pot smoking does not depress intelligence, you may try again with a statistically valid sample.

I do not make any claims regarding the effects on intelligence. I do make a claim regarding the validity of your observations.

Further the article was in no way connected to pot smoking or other forms of THC usage. If you go back and read the article, the reference to THC is that the receptors being studied are the ones THC binds to. From the tone of the article, that is an unimportant side issue that has little bearing on their research.

RE: Time to smoke?
By Smilin on 7/18/2011 9:31:26 AM , Rating: 2
Explaining because you won't scroll up is getting tiresome.

Here is my assertion:
It has not been proven that pot makes you stupid.

Now really. Stop reading any more into that. You're trying to prove and disprove statements I've not made. The thing you seem to be having a problem with is my observations. They are correct observations but you seem to think I'm reading more into them than exists.

If someone says that pot absolutely positively makes you stupid then wouldn't it take just ONE example to prove that statement false?


I do not make any claims regarding the effects on intelligence. I do make a claim regarding the validity of your observations
Seeing as they are my observations how would you validate or invalidate them? That's f'n stupid. Ah that's right. You're NOT questioning my observations. You're questioning an assumption that could be made from my observations that I'm not making.

Further the article was in no way connected to pot smoking or other forms of THC usage. If you go back and read the article, the reference to THC is that the receptors being studied are the ones THC binds to. From the tone of the article, that is an unimportant side issue that has little bearing on their research
Very little of this discussion has squat to do with the article.

RE: Time to smoke?
By Manch on 7/13/2011 11:29:38 PM , Rating: 1
I work with over a thousand people daily that do not smoke weed and they have degrees of various levels. So what. The four people you know that smoke is no more a hard fact than the thousands i work with that dont. Where's your facts?

RE: Time to smoke?
By Smilin on 7/14/2011 9:59:41 AM , Rating: 2
My facts about what? What is it you've read into my words that you think I'm trying to prove?

RE: Time to smoke?
By Manch on 7/14/2011 12:40:44 PM , Rating: 2
You jump on him to show facts or stfu so I'm asking where's yours?

RE: Time to smoke?
By Smilin on 7/14/2011 1:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
He made an assertion. I didn't.

Disproval of his assertion just requires logic, not any sort of evidence. You probably aren't getting this are you? Looky...

1. Pot makes people stupid.
2. Exhibit A: some pot smoker that is smart.

Two disproves One. Period.
Now if you want to go back and put some qualifiers on statement one like "..some people.." or "gratuitous pot smoking to the point of oxygen deprivation.." then we can talk. Until then you can have a tasty bag of stfu too.

RE: Time to smoke?
By Manch on 7/14/2011 11:33:14 PM , Rating: 1
No it doesn't. 2 could be an outlier. 2 could just be your word that the pot smoker is smart(as it is in this case). Your word does not make it so. You have nothing to back up your claim to disprove his statement. Now you may disapprove of his statement, but you did not disprove it.


to prove (an assertion, claim, etc.) to be false or wrong; refute; invalidate

think (something) wrong or reprehensible; censure or condemn in opinion;to withhold approval from; decline to sanction

As to wether or not marijuana makes you dumb:

So maybe instead of firing up that doobie and forgetting the difference between disprove and disapprove pull your head out of your @ss and realize the little world you live in does not apply to all and nor do your personal experiences make fact for all.

RE: Time to smoke?
By Smilin on 7/15/2011 11:46:30 AM , Rating: 2
Ah. I see.

So it is now your assertion that there is not a single solitary individual anywhere on the planet that smokes pot and is intelligent.


Thanks for the dictionary definitions. It makes your post look super smart and convincing. The personal insults are even better!

RE: Time to smoke?
By Golgatha on 7/14/2011 12:46:24 PM , Rating: 2
anecdotal evidence and a small population size to draw conclusions about the long term effects of smoking marijuana for the general population.

Produce some facts indeed.

RE: Time to smoke?
By Smilin on 7/14/2011 1:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
Who drew conclussions about the long term effects of smoking marijuanna for the general population? I don't seem to recall saying any of that. Let me scroll up... Nope, didn't say any of that.

WTF are you talking about?

RE: Time to smoke?
By wordsworm on 7/17/2011 3:53:51 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, Chong is an actor and plays a role. In interviews he's intelligent. He and Cheech brought comedy to what too many people inexplicably feared and made them, many of them, laugh. Have some respect for the guys who have had the balls to take public the fact that marijuana is harmless.

RE: Time to smoke?
By Cerin218 on 7/13/2011 2:34:30 PM , Rating: 1
Yay! Another truly imbecilic comment from an idiot. I know several people that smoke on a daily basis and are just fine mentally. I smoked every day for twelve years and still manage to be the systems administrator for a technology company of 110 people. My brain us used every day to supplement the ignorance of a great many of the users I am responsible for. If anything it helps me relax at the end of a day of teaching idiots like you have to create a shortcut, and to figure out which printer they just printed to, or which folder they deleted from the network. You make me wish stupidity was painful.

RE: Time to smoke?
By Manch on 7/13/2011 11:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe stupidity is painful and you've just smoked too much weed for the past 12 years to remember!

RE: Time to smoke?
By wordsworm on 7/17/2011 10:34:19 AM , Rating: 2
In that case, I'm sure you give lots of folks a headache.

RE: Time to smoke?
By aharris02 on 7/13/2011 2:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
For every example of a pot-smoking bum (The Dude), there are examples of people who have been able to use that substance and still excel in life.

To believe otherwise is to make an ignorant generalization.

RE: Time to smoke?
By tng on 7/13/2011 3:09:14 PM , Rating: 3
Kinda like with alcohol? Some people can handle it, some can't.

Myself, I would prefer a really good beer over a doobies... or.. good boobies over doobies...

RE: Time to smoke?
By aharris02 on 7/13/2011 3:05:20 PM , Rating: 2
Don't you remember? It was the one where they suffocated rats with 100% marijuana smoke, then declared that based on their results, they discovered marijuana smoke, not oxygen deprivation, causes brain damage.

RE: Time to smoke?
By Smilin on 7/14/2011 10:09:04 AM , Rating: 2
No, I didn't rememeber that.... wonder what that means? :P

By Danger Danger on 7/13/2011 12:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
So in theory, ingesting THC through cannabis may keep the your brain healthier for a longer period of time? It's interesting to note that those whose receptors were turned off suffered memory and brain cell loss. Opponents of Cannabis claim memory loss and frying brain cells are the very reason cannabis shouldn't be legalized. A true medicinal use for refer sounds right around the corner.

By amanojaku on 7/13/2011 1:15:53 PM , Rating: 2
There are a variety of credible studies supporting the idea of marijuana smoking as a means to fight off mental and physical debilitants, including those related to age.

However, smoking pot is a double-edged sword for two reasons. The first is that smoking anything is bad for you. You're inhaling toxic particulate matter that scars the lungs, reducing breathing capacity and increasing the risk of heart disease. The hot air isn't any better; it dries out the oral and nasal tissues, and even burns them in some cases. The result is reduced ability of the nose to filter the air breathed in and less mucus, and less saliva in the mouth and throat. That means you get more bacteria, so you're sick more often, and your breath stinks.

Secondly, pot has hundreds of chemicals. 25% of the US population is at risk of the psychoactive chemicals leading to increased mental health issues. Namely, people are partly cracked, and pot, alcohol, prescription drugs, stress, etc... are the wedges that turn a crack into a split.

Despite the risks, I'm in favor of legalizing drugs. Most people have done them, anyway, and there are enough societal deterrents to keep the bulk of the population from abusing the stuff. After all, alcohol is legal. Again.

By Smilin on 7/13/2011 1:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
smoking anything is bad for you. You're inhaling toxic particulate matter that scars the lungs, reducing breathing capacity and increasing the risk of

Agreed, but this is a result of prohibition, not a reason for it. There are other ways to ingest cannabis but they are driven underground by virtue of it being illegal.

Cooking is one of the best ways but it will stank up your house for 1/2 a day. Because of pot stigma this is unacceptable even if it doesn't make you get caught.

Vaporizers release cannabanoids without combusting the plant itself. They are not mass produced so are very expensive and again not as discrete as say a joint smoked in the garage.

There are also lab based extracts, liquids, and pills. Most generally disliked because they leave out some cannabanoids that pot contains and sort of ruin the 'secret sauce' that scientists are aware of but don't fully understand.

By torpor on 7/13/2011 2:13:52 PM , Rating: 2
You should note that alcoholic beverages are now, and have for a long time been, a part of human foodstock preservation.

Grain doesn't keep very well. Bread, worse. Beer will keep for seasons. Wine will keep for years. Distilled spirits are involved in baking things like fruitcake because it preserves the contents. (although the case for things like whiskey is a lot weaker)

Now, granted, we have refrigeration, dehydration, food-grade waxes, chemicals, canning and other methods to preserve foods. But there's a long, long history of alcohol being a necessary part of the food mix before these things were discovered - it's not really comparable to recreational drugs, from weed to tobacco or heroin.

By Solandri on 7/13/2011 4:44:17 PM , Rating: 2
Not just food preservation, but also liquid preservation. Back in olden times, water would grow fetid if left in a bottle for a few days (bacteria in it would grow and multiply). The alcohol in mead, ale, beer, and wine prevented this, so those drinks would keep for months if not years.

If you needed a transportable water supply which would last you months or even weeks (e.g. military campaigns, long voyages on ship), it had to be barrels of an alcoholic beverage, not barrels of fresh water. Otherwise you were tied down to well water, or had to gamble that you'd find a freshwater spring along the way before dying of thirst. It wasn't until the invention of canning and bottling in the early 1800s that you could carry fresh water with you for any length of time.

Alcohol literally was what freed man to wander and explore the world. Before alcohol, the most you could travel about a few days away from a known fresh water supply before you risked dying of thirst.

By Makaveli on 7/13/2011 8:35:39 PM , Rating: 1
"Secondly, pot has hundreds of chemicals. 25% of the US population is at risk of the psychoactive chemicals leading to increased mental health issues. Namely, people are partly cracked, and pot, alcohol, prescription drugs, stress, etc... are the wedges that turn a crack into a split."

Love general statements like this.

If you buy from an idiot then sure your bud will have lot of chemicals some people I know are smarter than that and only smoke natural stuff so grown outdoor no chemical all natural light (The Sun) etc.

When you buy from middle men you deserve it.

By JKflipflop98 on 7/14/2011 1:44:41 AM , Rating: 3
The act of burning the weed releases hundreds of chemicals. . . you don't have to spray them with anything. But I'll be sure to take your advice and never buy any weed off of you.

By Starcub on 7/14/2011 12:41:22 AM , Rating: 2
Despite the risks, I'm in favor of legalizing drugs.

And I'm in favor of allowing people who chose to smoke pot to do so only in sealed rooms, and of allowing them to subsidize national health insurance at premium rates.

By wordsworm on 7/17/2011 4:01:19 AM , Rating: 2
Second hand tobacco smoke is really a lot nastier than marijuana smoke. Marijuana smells pretty good, really. If it was dirt cheap, I could see myself burning sticks of it just for the smell.

In any case, I'll support the closed room idea when people do the same with cars. You know, only folks who drive in closed rooms ought to be allowed to use motor vehicles so that they don't pollute.

By tng on 7/13/2011 1:32:24 PM , Rating: 2
Don't think that that was in the article. The THC reference was brought in purely as an example of the receptor location....

By Fritzr on 7/13/2011 2:32:21 PM , Rating: 4
Cannabinoid receptors promote brain health.

Overloading receptors is equivalent to removing a portion of them. Very likely excessive THC replacing whatever signaling chemical these receptors receive would have negative effects.

But that is what studies like this are designed to discover. Sometimes reality is not quite what we would think it should be :)

By tng on 7/13/2011 2:57:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, didn't read the original study, but the way it was used here made it seem that the THC was just a reference and not the point of the study in anyway.

Somewhere there is going to be someone who will turn this study into a promotion of how pot helps your memory.....

By Blatanttruth on 7/13/2011 4:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
Hate to burst your assumption bubble, but cannabinoids stimulate the receptor...Thus its named appropriately. So the question I pose to you is, does stimulation usually turn a receptor off or on.....DUH, the light can't turn on until you stimulate the switch. (Though the smoke through inhalation does kill brain cells.)

By tng on 7/13/2011 4:27:39 PM , Rating: 2
Over-stimulation can turn them off....

By Topweasel on 7/14/2011 10:01:32 AM , Rating: 2
The one limiting thing would be consumption. While it may not be as detrimental as Tobacco smoking, I doubt we will see a Surgeon General ever sign off on refer as refer.

Could see a future in baked goods, but I feel the future is probably on cannabinoid based prescription pills or liquids much like the current opiate based prescriptions. It bothers me that true medical research has been so limited on that while millions get prescribed potentially addictive and much more damaging opiate based drugs.

Hopefully this can be a two prong attack, on one side a push and hard to limit full legalization of the drug through these fishy "medical" permits many states are given out, and increased development by drug manufacturers to find true medicinal use the drug.

I am not necessarily a proponent of "weed". I just see how history has given it a bad wrap and think that it is no more dangerous then alcohol and cigarettes and would like to see less absolute hate and more scientific research into the drug for both standard use and medical use and the effects of both.

It would be nice to find a solution for 60+ yr old people to stave off dementia and Alzheimer's, maybe this might help. Like to learn more about the long term benefits.

By donjuancarlos on 7/13/2011 12:19:11 PM , Rating: 4
Do doobies help or hurt?

RE: Sooo.....
By Natfly on 7/13/2011 1:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
Was curious myself, what turns these receptors "on" and "off"?

RE: Sooo.....
By Natfly on 7/13/2011 1:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
Never mind, read the sourced article.

If we switch off the receptor using gene technology, mouse brains age much faster

It states nothing about the use of chemicals which react with the cannabinoid.

RE: Sooo.....
By TSS on 7/13/2011 4:41:28 PM , Rating: 3
As far as i can tell from personal experience, it's different from person to person.

Personally, i use pot every day. People used to ask me if i was drunk on a regular basis when i used to be sober, that's not happened since i started smoking 5 years ago. To me it's been an great help and even one of the 2 reasons i'm still alive today.

I know 4 other people that smoke pot and fare well with it. one soon will have his master degree in computer science while smoking and drinking his way through college. But i also know 2 people who got destroyed by it. One started when he was 13, 6 months later he was an highschool drop out, sat home smoking all day and never got an education. the other went completly paranoid when she smoked, while being normal and happy otherwise.

I also know 1 person who i helped start smoking (his decision but where do you get the stuff, yknow) who smoked for 2 weeks and quit, said it wasn't for him and he didn't enjoy it or hate it, and hasn't done it since.

From my experience, while the general effect of cannabis is the same person to person, it's psychological side effects make the net effect differ alot from person to person. For instance, the feeling of being "stoned" is also a feeling of apathy. For me, somebody who's constantly overstimulated, it's a cure to a long standing problem. I'm not less stimulated, but i no longer care about irrelevant information, so i can focus on whats important. To somebody like the highschool dropout mentioned above, the increase in apathy is all the justification his mind needs to stop going to school - he no longer cares about the consequences.

This makes it a hard to measure drug, probably the reason why one study varies against the other. You can't generalise the results. But there is 1 thing about cannabis and indeed all drugs that's absolutely clear:

If your happy without the stuff for the love of god don't start using.

By DNAgent on 7/13/2011 12:35:55 PM , Rating: 2
Sanofi-Aventis used to market Rimonabant, which blocked the CB-1 receptors to produce a weight-loss effect. Taken off the market later when they realized it caused too many problems.

The anti-munchies? ^_^

By strapmonkey on 7/13/2011 1:48:04 PM , Rating: 2
Generally, activation of postsynaptic receptors by agonists for a prolonged period leads to down regulation of those receptors as the negative feedback inhibitory mechanisms attempt to maintain homeostasis. The human body goes to great lengths to maintain status quo.

The feedback inhibition is generally moderated by presynaptic autoreceptors in-system, but also quite often by signals precipitated by perturbations in down stream signalling systems.

Which can all be summed up quite nicely thus; it's a push-me, pull-you world.

By xrror on 7/13/2011 5:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
I think all this article is saying is that if you smoke and/or have THC in your system, and you feel no effect , you're screwed.

So if you're lacking the protein pathway that also happens to let you experience THC euphoria, not getting high is the least of your worries.

By vciucxx on 7/16/2011 11:03:07 PM , Rating: 1

I tide fashion
not expensive
Free transport

By vavavangv on 7/13/11, Rating: -1
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen

Latest Headlines

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki