Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecily
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
|
So I was curious enough to read your review, but I'm not sure I agree with their conclusions. A few snippets.
The review: "CB1 receptor acting cannabinoid agonists protected hippocampal neurons from synaptically-mediated excitotoxicity" (Abood et al. 2001). Abood & co put neurons into a solution containing kainate, which triggers neuron receptors intended for the neurotransmitter glutamate, triggering the neurons into an excited state. Cannibinoids then reversed this. So cannabis can protect you from a
glutamate storm but this should not be happening in a healthy brain. It's mostly when the neurons die, due to stroke (or, perhaps, smoking pot?!) that it becomes a problem.
The review: "Additionally, the role of endogenous cannabinoid system is suggested to be neuroprotective" (Guzman et al. 2001; Mechoulam et al. 2002). This one is probably the most supportive of your view, stating: "Regarding the central nervous system, most of the experimental evidence indicates that cannabinoids may protect neurons from toxic insults such as glutamaergic overstimulation, ischemia and oxidative damage. In contrast, cannabinoids induce apoptosis of glioma cells in culture and regression of malignant gliomas in vivo." Gliomas are brain cancer cells, so killing them is good.
The review: "Other synthetic cannabinoid WIN55 and 2122 administered daily (twice, 2 mg/kg) to rats increased hippocampal granule cell density and dendritic length in the CA3 pyramidal cell layer" (Chan et al. 1996). Chan's abstract does not mention this, and instead points out that
- Convulsions and hyperactivity were observed in dosed rats and mice; the onset and frequency were dose related
- delta 9-THC administration for 13 weeks induced testicular atrophy and uterine and ovarian hypoplasia; the lesions persisted in a 9-week recovery period
- There was no evidence that delta 9-THC was carcinogenic in rats or mice (some cancer rates actually went down; it looks like they didn't have enough statistical power to be confident)
But I would consider convulsions and testicular atrophy to be pretty negative.
I did not check any of the anti-cannabis papers. In the end it was an interesting read, but not enough to really change my mind, although I'm leaving the window open just a bit. Also, I'm not sure how well Paracelsus' famous quote really applies to an addictive substance.