STUDY: Poulsen and Sutherland New Zealand (1976–96) = 1,066 seizures measured; 57.5% leaf, 42.5% bud; THC Average Leaf 1.6% (1978–82)–1.0% (1994–96), Buds 3.8% (1976–82)–3.4 (1994–96); Leaf Minimum 0.2%, Maximum 4.2%, Bud Minimum 0.7%, Maximum 9.7%Oh fuck, how is it that we get essentially no increase in average potency between 1976 and 1996, or 1997 to 2003? Where's my 30% THC pot? Or have the anti-drug zealots been lying through their teeth all this time without giving a shit about all the harm they're causing to peaceful tokers everywhere?
STUDY: EMCDDA Austria (1997–2003) = 2,268 seizures measured; 100% Marijuana; THC Average ~2% (1997)–~2% (2003);
At least 66 other cannabinoids are also present in cannabis, including cannabidiol (CBD), cannabinol (CBN) and tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV) among many others, which are believed to result in different effects than those of THC alone.Smoking pot is the sum of all those cannabinoids, and no-one knows which mixture is most 'medicinal'.
What is significant about these studies is that suppressing dopamine activity in the so-called reward centre of the brain may reduce the subjective effects of cocaine -- the stimulation and the euphoria -- without halting the drug's use (at least in humans). If the reward theory of addiction is correct, how is this possible? And how can a drug like modafinil, peculiar in being a stimulant that is not linked primarily to dopamine and euphoria, cause human addicts to ramp down their cocaine use voluntarily?TL;DR: We know much, much less about addiction than we think we do, and we should try to stop telling ourselves fairy tales, because that doesn't help anyone.
[snip]
After covering a bit of history -- including a 50s advertisement in the Journal of the American Medical Association promoting amphetamine use among bored housewives -- Hart summarises the conventional wisdom about meth: according to animal studies, it beats even cocaine in its ability to boost dopamine activity in the brain's reward centre. Meth's reward stimulus is so strong, the thinking goes, that its users will compulsively seek out the drug no matter the financial cost, damage to health or stated desire to quit. All this is backed by leading researchers and the US government itself. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) describes meth addiction as "a chronic, relapsing disease, characterised by compulsive drug-seeking and use, which is accompanied by functional and molecular changes in the brain".
But Hart is sceptical of a model that defines addiction as a neurochemically ordained mental disorder of impulsivity and faulty decision-making. Such a model assumes that drug use is always driven by the irrational desire for pleasure, even in the face of grave life consequences. The possibility that drug use may be fuelled by rational choices is never even considered. Could such a theory be as faulty as an earlier era's belief that opiate addiction is mainly a result of conflicted feelings about one's sexuality?
In quick succession, Hart shows the Union Hall audience a series of slides containing data from ResLab and MethLab studies. The sequence demonstrates that humans subjected to simulated shift-work show significant cognitive impairment when rotated between normal working hours and overnight schedules. In the next sequence, he discusses a study in which these participants were given small doses of methamphetamine, and their shift related cognitive impairment was significantly reduced -- they made fewer mistakes and completed cognitive tasks more quickly than when they were given placebo doses. Of course, says Hart, the military has known about this for years, which is why some pilots are offered dextroamphetamine for long-haul bombing missions.
Hart next tried offering these participants the choice between a low dose of meth and a small monetary voucher, at different times of day. The prediction was that, meth being a potent reinforcer, users would take it compulsively; what he found was that people would take it in the morning but not in the evening, when it would stop them sleeping -- using it to get through the day in the same way office workers self-administer caffeine; and if the monetary reward was large enough, they would pass up the dose. These findings call into question the notion that addiction is driven by the reward of a chemically induced euphoria and that meth -- legally prescribed to treat ADHD, narcolepsy and obesity -- is the destructive drug so maligned by the NIDA and the popular press. Hart's conclusion was that his subjects were indeed making rational choices about their drug use.
"Logistic regression analyses showed that people who used cannabis by age 15 were four times as likely to have a diagnosis of schizophreniform disorder at age 26 than controls. After psychotic symptoms at age 11 were controlled for, the risk for adult schizophreniform disorder remained higher among those who used cannabis at age 15; however, this risk was reduced by 31% and was no longer significant. "posted by Mental Wimp at 3:57 PM on January 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
« Older Trailhead, the life of an ant colony, as dramatiz... | In the wake of the Civil War, ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Supporting text link #2 notes that MJ containes - or used to - cannabinidol, an anti-psychotic possibly useful in treating schizophrenia.
My schizophrenic roommate back in college was a desperate weed hound, absolutely driven to find even the twiggiest of stale shake. I would describe his behavior as possibly supporting the contention.
posted by mwhybark at 9:59 PM on January 27, 2010