There has been a long debate over legalization, but is marijuana a good thing? Recent studies show that while certain chemicals in marijuana damage adolescent brains, they are beneficial to adults, especially those with diseases such as Alzheimer’s.
Veronica Campbell, a neuropharmacologist from Trinity College in Dublin, says that marijuana truly works both ways.
A recent study conducted by Campbell and her team used the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) chemical from marijuana—the chemical responsible for the high—and tested it on newborn, adolescent, and adult rats. In the newborn and developing adolescent rats, THC exposure resulted in brain cell death. In contrast, it was not as detrimental to neurons in adult rats.
Why does this happen? “We don’t know,” said Campbell in an interview with Scientific American Mind. “It’s still being investigated.”
“The most psychoactive cannabinoid chemical [in marijuana] is tetrahydrocannabinol,” explains Dr. Jeffrey Henderson, director of Murine Imaging and Histology at U of T. “THC receptors in the brain are concentrated in the hippocampus (the part of the brain associated with long-term memory), amygdala (associated with processing the memory of emotional reactions), and the cerebellum (associated with motor controls and sensory perception), which are all affected when one gets high.” Henderson points out, “the most clearly confirmed medical benefits of marijuana are anti-nausea, enhanced appetite, and pain decrease, [yet] long term usage may still be toxic to the brain.”
Campbell’s recent study highlighted the overall effects of THC on the human brain. The “slaughter” of young neurons by THC, as Campbell calls it, could explain why some who smoked pot while pregnant have children with cognitive impairment and why some adolescent marijuana users show brain damage in their still-developing neural circuits.
As neurons mature and cells age, their biochemistry also changes. Endocannabinoids (the chemicals that regulate important functions in the brain, such as thought and perception) start to shift and regulate different functions. These endocannabinoids appear to assist in the survival of neurons in adults. This is extremely important in patients with Alzheimer’s disease, as it improves mental function by decreasing levels of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, which contributes to memory loss. It also suppresses the toxic effects of the abeta protein, which kills brain cells.
Henderson explains, “THC acts by mimicking the actions of endocannabinoids, which normally exist in our brain. All of these agents work by suppressing a part of the normal inhibitory signals in our brains.”
“While there is some evidence to suggest that THC derivatives may reduce Abeta aggregates in culture, a number of the mechanistic aspects of how this occurs are presently unclear. There is evidence to suggest that THC derivative competitively stalls the enzyme acetylcholinesterase, as well as prevents Abeta aggregation, a key pathological marker of Alzheimer’s disease,” says Henderson.
Before we start encouraging Alzheimer’s patients to smoke up, Campbell told Scientific American Mind that “the beneficial effects of the THC are in much lower concentrations of the chemical that are found in the actual plant that people use to get high.”
A new challenge is to isolate the important chemicals of cannabinoids in marijuana and see which ones, including the THC molecule, have a protective effect on neurons.
In small doses, there are some components of marijuana that when cultivated properly, could be potentially lifesaving. Overall, raw marijuana is still harmful when used over long periods of time.
Numerous studies are still being conducted in this area, so it looks like smoking a bowl isn’t the answer quite yet.
Comments
I haven't personally fact checked this, but Marc Emery has. I have listened to him explain that no daily human Cannabis consumer over the age of 52 has Alzheimer's.
It's elegantly ironic that a medicine that is effective at discarding obsolete neurons is also effective at stimulating growth of new neurons, and preventing useful neurons from dying.
What more can a brain ask for except for that medicine to become universally legal?
Have we lost our minds with Cannabis prohibition?
The benefit to harm ratio for Cannabis is about as high as it gets - Cannabis is safer than table salt, drinking mater, chocolate chip cookies, coffee, Aspirin, etc...
The last time I checked, Life still had a 100% mortality rate, and Cannabis has yet to cause a single death.
Nov 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM
This is the best FUCKING ARTICLE EVER
Nov 16, 2009 at 03:42 PM
"In small doses, there are some components of marijuana that when cultivated properly, could be potentially lifesaving. Overall, raw marijuana is still harmful when used over long periods of time."
Harmful how exactly? Studies have shown that smoking marijuana actually decreases the likelihood of developing lung cancer and that it actually cures some cancers by triggering cancer cells to die.
Can we get some scientific data on exactly what harm long term use of raw marijuana causes?
Nov 16, 2009 at 07:31 PM
I don't understand why we are still sending people to jail for growing and smoking this stuff.
Quoted from a different article:
Dr. Assad recalled that when working as a doctor in Dakahualia, a state in Eastern Egypt, "I never had to admit a patient for an overdose or withdrawal. The only time I was called to admit a patient was an overdose of hashish when the patient had overeaten and was constipated."
Nov 16, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Marijuana: Is there anything it can't do?
MS and Alzheimer's cure in one convenient, easy to roll, leaf.
Put that in your Apotex and smoke it! Ma-ha!
Nov 17, 2009 at 01:06 PM
If you want to quickly understand something important, please jump to the last two paragraphs and skim through.
A simple understanding of the words used by this author would show that the person writing this article does not poses the ability to understand or to accurately report the material enclosed in this discussion, and is therefor not able to make sound unbiased judgement toward accuracy of information, as seen in the choice of a clearly biased source article. This article contradicts itself (likely due to the lack of understanding of the words used in this article, but nonetheless shows that the author is not sufficiently competent to distinguish likewise authors ability to comprehend or to not comprehend the subject matter, incidentally the source article is one relying heavily on assumptions and not proven peer reviewed data or so it would seem from reading this article, though given the duplicitous nature of this writing, who can be certain? Either way it should be standard practice to review the entire literature on the subject and to have a good understanding of it before attempting to teach the lay public, something which you yourself do not even know the meaning of the words used.
Please read the last two for a simple glaring example. I thought to myself wow, that is amazing a study seems to have disputed everything ever known about acetyl choline. Wait a minute, this is after all simply one author here and it is in fact inconsistent with the majority of authors on the subject however there is plenty of good quality research into the matter that does not come from commonwealth countries.
In the better interest of fair and accurate information:
Please quote information and identify the source of information not entirely clear to you (article author), instead lumping together words which the meaning of is not fully understood. For example anyone knows that Acetyl Choline (a substance required for neuroconduction) is not Acetyl Choline Ester-Ase (an enzyme ("-Ase") which is responsible for breaking down ...
Acetylcholinesterase, also known as AChE, is an enzyme that degrades (through its hydrolytic activity) the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, producing choline and an acetate group. It is mainly found at neuromuscular junctions and cholinergic synapses in the central nervous system, where its activity serves to terminate synaptic transmission. AChE has a very high catalytic activity — each molecule of AChE degrades about 5000 molecules of acetylcholine per second. The choline produced by the action of AChE is recycled — it is transported, through reuptake, back into nerve terminals where it is used to synthesize new acetylcholine molecules.[1]
Acetylcholinesterase is also found on the red blood cell membranes, where it constitutes the Yt blood group antigen. Acetylcholinesterase exists in multiple molecular forms, which possess similar catalytic properties, but differ in their oligomeric assembly and mode of attachment to the cell surface.
Nov 24, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Just to clarify I did not intend the above remark to be understood as an emotional attack on the theVarsity writer, but rather a general reminder that in these times of great disparity of purported information, we as enlightened persons must do our best to insure that we do not contribute to the possibility of our intentions being misconstrued as information by another person or agency used to quote or provide inspiration for the purpose of undermining the discovery of honest fair information.
I want to implore at this point also, people please consider that it is common knowledge that sensory enhancers and or substances which facilitate generalized awareness are subject to the rules of set and setting. Such that in an intolerant culture such as one occupied by the commonwealth, users of this substance are infinitely more susceptible to experience anxiety, fear or at the very least a physical stressor resulting from the perception that their actions are either risky or exiting. Chronic adrenal over exertion has a very destructive activity on the body and mind and this is a fact often left out of so called studies meant to in some way to discredit something. We have the option of understanding if a person or agency was not attempting to sully the name of something in some way or in some light, it would behove of he, she or them to be more thorough and to not be accepting of conclusions which are drawn without taking into consideration factors that would confound the experience of analysis, notwithstanding the possibility that they themselves may be inadequately schooled in the scientific method, forgetting to emphasize what a theory is, and at least emphasizing the weaknesses contained in the theory. In conclusion, so called "researchers", should be bound by some kind of code of integrity where information is whole and inclusive and where shortcomings are clearly and completely stated. What the intention is of the researcher going into the effort, should be clear in their statements about it as well, in case any bias is present, whether it be for example any one of social, cultural, moral, religious, spiritual, legal, governmental, prohibitionist, puritan, discriminatory, intolerant, hierarchial, monarchistic, etc. views.
A good researcher would list all the pros and cons of the issue at hand, review all the relevant literature possible, and debate on the all shortfalls and advantages possible with regard to them self as a researcher, the research itself, the intentions of the research and the researcher, as well as the institutions or individuals who made possible or requested this research. Possible conflicts of completeness of scientific process, accuracy or interest should be highlighted not ignored.
A lot of information CAN help. A little information DOES not help. Ignorance is bliss. Enlightenment requires dedication.
As a side note, what are the chances that a person attempting to present a veiled prejudice as if it were a fact, will inform the unaware populace of this in doing so?
Food for thought.
What makes humans obsessed with passing judgment on nature and existence, as if either might be overtaken by the mind's desires or fears.
Nov 24, 2009 at 01:25 PM
Post a Comment