![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 11 of 11. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by shasling on May 11, 2009, at 22:19:59
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
Posted by chumbawumba on May 11, 2009, at 22:25:06
In reply to THC, posted by shasling on May 11, 2009, at 22:19:59
Interesting...
bong hits for science?
Posted by bleauberry on May 12, 2009, at 17:56:26
In reply to THC, posted by shasling on May 11, 2009, at 22:19:59
THC sucks. Bigtime. I've tried it. It only has distant similarities to the the whole plant, primarily in terms of appetite and sleep.
It was very good at calming and antianxiety, but for depression? Not. On the other hand, the whole plant in tiny doses is a fantastic antidepressant. There is something else going on beside THC.
Those researchers are wasting their time and someone's money. What they should be doing is researching how to give consistent doses of the whole plant suitable for a pharmacy.
Posted by Zyprexa on May 13, 2009, at 1:39:26
In reply to Re: THC, posted by bleauberry on May 12, 2009, at 17:56:26
What they should do is legalize weed!
Posted by SLS on May 13, 2009, at 6:19:52
In reply to Re: THC, posted by Zyprexa on May 13, 2009, at 1:39:26
> What they should do is legalize weed!
I remember trying to drive while being stoned on weed. For me, I found it to be more of a challenge than driving while being stoned on alcohol. Because of this, I would now refuse to get into a car with a driver who was under the influence of marijuana. I doubt my personal experience with this substance is unique.
Should it be legalized for uncontrolled distribution amongst the general population? I am undecided.
I really don't know how to feel about this. I do wish that marijuana and the brain's natural endocannabinoid systems were the focus of more research with the goal of exploiting the plant and producing as many medicines as is possible from it. It might be that there are medicinal substances in marijuana that do not depend on THC to have a therapeutic effect. THC is probably the offender when it comes to inducing psychosis. Still, there are over-the-counter medicines that do the same thing if taken in high enough dosages. Dextromethorphan comes to mind. The only thing is, marijuana has been reported to be associated with an earlier onset of schizoprhenia by some study groups.
Just because we have legalized the general distribution of one psychoactive substance does not indicate that it is socially desirable to legalize more. Perhaps there should be no control on the distribution of any substance. There would be no need to have a prescription for anything. I would abhor this practice were it to be implemented.
- Scott
Posted by desolationrower on May 13, 2009, at 10:24:00
In reply to Re: THC, posted by SLS on May 13, 2009, at 6:19:52
uh what? if you're going to be speeding around in a multi-tonne vehicle, you should make sure you can pay attention to things. And anyway as long as there's delivery burrito places, why would anyone be driving around stoned??
Penalizing people for their recreational substnaces is just such a bizarre thing to be wanting to do.
And, f*ck this research. A pharmaceutical company tells me that their pseudo-weed is safe, but that easily home grown green is not?About the only useful thing that could come from decriminalized cannabis is that you wouldn't have huge beurocratic ompanies promoting their bland crap the way coors et al do with booze. the market would be diverse and not controlled by business executive wankers.
-d/r
Posted by Sigismund on May 13, 2009, at 16:10:58
In reply to Re: THC, posted by SLS on May 13, 2009, at 6:19:52
>I found it to be more of a challenge than driving while being stoned on alcohol.
So they drive (and maybe crash) very slowly.
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
Posted by Zyprexa on May 13, 2009, at 20:23:29
In reply to Re: THC » shasling, posted by Questionmark on May 13, 2009, at 18:41:15
I read the whole thing and mostly agree.
I've driven stoned for about 10 years and never had an accident. My first time getting stoned I later drove home and made it alright. You just have to know if you are ok to drive.
I don't smoke now but would if it were legal. Probably not a lot, as its better in small amounts.
Look at amsterdam they have less smokers than the US and its legal there. Or mostly.
Posted by shasling on May 13, 2009, at 21:21:45
In reply to Re: THC » shasling, posted by Questionmark on May 13, 2009, at 18:41:15
I just posted some info i came across,if you read closly my position was not pro or con,i was just sharing some info i came across.
Posted by Questionmark on May 16, 2009, at 6:13:15
In reply to Re: THC, posted by shasling on May 13, 2009, at 21:21:45
> I just posted some info i came across,if you read closly my position was not pro or con,i was just sharing some info i came across.
No i wasn't i criticizing you in any way for your comments relating to marijuana or what have you.
But i did think you should have looked at the study/article more carefully so that you did not waste all that time making comments about a simple piece of info that you all seemed to have had overlooked. Not a big deal though we are human after all; simple mistake. I hope i did not offend.
But yeah i don't care whether someone is for or against marijuana prohibition (as long as they gave rational reasons for the position regardless of their stance). From what i remember you didn't touch on that subject which is of course fine.I must sleep now. Take care.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.