cannabis as an Alternative medicine

[Cecily]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Known since the 1850s. There are plenty of modern studies that back it up, and I just cited the Colorado statistics from 2013. But hey, if you don't want to give your pot up that's up to you.

Like everything else you can consume:

Alle Dinge sind Gift, und nichts ist ohne Gift, allein die Dosis macht dass ein Ding kein Gift ist.
All things are poison, and nothing is without poison, the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison.
—Paracelsus

That’s the basic principle of toxicology which is true of any drug, including pot. You are technically right, marijuana can be neurotoxic in chronic high amounts. With lesser amounts it’s thought to be neuroprotective. Kinda like how acetaminophen can stop a headache and fever or destroy your liver. If you swallow a bottle of Tylenol, you may die, slowly, from liver damage, therefore Tylenol is poison is not the right conclusion to make.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/91a...1ded5ae571.pdf

I don’t smoke pot btw.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by Cecily [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/91a...1ded5ae571.pdf

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.