Posted by Questionmark on May 13, 2009, at 18:41:15
In reply to THC, posted by shasling on May 11, 2009, at 22:19:59
No offense at all as we all make mistakes, but you folks should look at the description of this drug more carefully (or at least Shasling-- again no offense). The drug in the study is not THC at all. It is a drug that reduces the metabolism of anandamide, which is of course the endogenous cannabinoid neurochemical of the brain (redundant?). This would result in increased activation of cannabinoid receptors.
I think THC has [varying degrees of] affinity for many but not all of the cannabinoid receptors, while anandamide-- i don't know, but i imagine-- probably has affinity for each of them(?). THC and anandamide also probably differ in their degree of affinity to certain particular cannabinoid receptor subtypes compared to the other. And i am also not at all certain but would guess that THC, at an average/ideal therapeutic dose, is much more psychoactively potent than this new test drug would be (at its average/ideal therapeutic dose). So contrary to the general perspective of this thread thus far, they may well be very different drugs.... And, as some have touched on, THC (at its average therapeutic or prescribed dose), from what i hear, is quite different (at least much more psychoactively potent-- in a bad way) than marijuana (at its average therapeutic OR sufficiently psychactive dose). So the fact that THC in prescription form was at least for awhile (this might not be true any longer) a lower class of scheduled drug than cannabis, is to me nothing less than absurd as well as mostly politically and financially motivated.
Similarly, and as some of you were highlighting, it does make my rational blood boil to think of synthetic THC and THC-and-other-cannabinoid analogues being legal prescription drugs while the actual plant or any of its preparations are not, at least federally. Again it makes no logical sense whatsoever-- as far as i can see (other than political and profit-driven senses).That said, i have been thinking recently that it may be risky to legalize cannabis while there are no reasonable and adequately effective means of preventing people from being *under the influence of it* (i.e., not just using it) while operating or doing something that may endanger others if mistakes are made-- especially something that requires more fine motor skills, sustained focus and attention, and other things with which marijuana can interfere. I still am leaning toward the side of legalization or at least decriminalization, but that's a tough criticism to tackle (the previous sentence that is).
Regardless of whether it should or shouldn't be decriminalized, however, certainly there are very many higher-ups and "experts" (an important exception being many of the researchers who have studied marijuana and its chemical constituents, it appears to me) in this country who are blatantly, ridiculously biased and who present all sorts of false or misrepresented information and unsound arguments (and all their meaningless recycled cliches) regarding the safety, dangers, and benefits of marijuana. In the presence of this, it is difficult to not go too far the other way and be a bit overly naive when it comes to this subject-- e.g., all risks of marijuana are completely explained away or said to be negligible; it is a panacea or a great medicine for just about any physical or mental affliction; and the like.
The fact is that-- as with SO many things-- it is complex. But many of the common prevailing criticisms-- far too many for me to want to take the time to discuss here-- by many of those who favor its prohibition are baseless, unbacked by sound science, and illogical.... (Sorry, somehow i managed to rant again. Now i'll be lucky if anyone reads this anyway since it's so long.)
> New study being worked on is this.....at relative LOW doses thc provides robust antidepressant and anti anxiety effect.
>
> However with the dose curve,its found too high of thc produces the exact opposite especialy psychosis.
>
> Here is a link of the thc chemical in trials now,its still dubbed a number however if u google low thc for depression youll get tons of results.
>
> Big problem obviously is how to control dosage when it is smoked.
>
> heres the link of thc trial
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URB597
poster:Questionmark
thread:895285
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20090505/msgs/895608.html