It's lack of balance that makes skunk cannabis do harm

[grace]

THE effects of cannabis on mental health have attracted much attention over the years. As far back as the 19th century it was recognised that cannabis could induce a transient psychosis which mimics the symptoms of schizophrenia. Despite this, until the last decade or so, most psychiatrists regarded cannabis as essentially benign.

 

This, however, is at odds with recent research which concludes that in a susceptible minority, cannabis use can push the brain towards long-term psychosis requiring mental health treatment. Susceptible young people who use cannabis increase their risk of developing a chronic psychotic disorder such as schizophrenia, and the more cannabis they consume, the higher the risk.

 

Additionally, people with schizophrenia who have a history of cannabis use tend to go through their first breakdown up to five years earlier in life than those who do not use the drug. Psychotic patients who fail to give up cannabis experience more symptoms, more relapses and end up in hospital more often.

 

These discoveries about the link between cannabis and psychosis have been widely reported in the media, often accompanied by warnings that street cannabis has risen in strength in recent years and therefore poses a major health risk to the susceptible minority.

 

This, however, is too simplistic: the type of cannabis taken is an important factor. Street cannabis has indeed changed over the years. So-called "skunk" does contain higher than normal concentrations of the main psychoactive compound, a molecule called delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). What is less well known is that another constituent, cannabidiol (CBD), has been eliminated from skunk through selective breeding to increase the THC content.

 

The elimination of CBD may play a key role in the development of psychosis. Laboratory studies have shown that pure, synthetic THC causes transient psychosis in 40 to 50 per cent of healthy people. In stark contrast to THC, CBD appears to have an anti-psychotic effect, at least in animals. Studies in humans, though few in number, have produced similar findings.

 

The elimination of cannabidiol from skunk may play a key role in the development of psychosis

In one human study, published in Neuropsychopharmacology (DOI: 10.1038/npp.2009.184), Sagnik Bhattacharya and colleagues at the Institute of Psychiatry in London used functional MRI brain scanning to study the effects of THC and CBD on the brains of healthy volunteers. They found that THC and CBD acted in opposition; in brain regions where THC increased neural activity from a baseline, CBD decreased it, and vice-versa.

 

In a further experiment, a group including one of us (Morrison), in collaboration with the Beckley Foundation, compared the effects of a mixture of synthetic THC and CBD, (to mimic traditional cannabis) with THC on its own (to mimic skunk). The aim was to find out if CBD offered protection against the psychotic effects of THC.

 

Healthy volunteers were given the molecules intravenously for two sessions. They received the same amount of THC during each session; the only difference was whether they received CBD as well. Thirty minutes after injection a consultant psychiatrist interviewed the volunteers and rated their experiences. Overall, volunteers were rated as being significantly less psychotic after being given THC and CBD compared to THC on its own. The implication is that the presence of CBD in cannabis counteracts THC's tendency to trigger transient psychosis.

 

Another study from the Institute of Psychiatry by Marta DiForti and colleagues reached similar conclusions for chronic psychosis. They compared the cannabis habits of 280 newly diagnosed psychotic patients with those of 174 healthy volunteers who were matched for age, sex, educational attainment and socio-economic status. Both groups were equally likely to have tried cannabis, but, strikingly, psychotic patients were seven times more likely to have been skunk users. So in real life, as well as in the lab, THC unopposed by CBD appears to be particularly hazardous for mental health (British Journal of Psychiatry, vol 195, p 488).

 

This research has important implications for both street and medical marijuana. On the medical side, the question is whether CBD will be a useful antipsychotic in its own right.

 

To help find out, the Beckley Foundation is setting up a research project in collaboration with University College London and a leading medical marijuana dispensary in California which supplies over 30,000 patients. The study will analyse different strains of cannabis for their THC and CBD content. Patients will be asked which strains they find most effective, how they compare with conventional drugs, and to rate other effects, both beneficial and negative.

 

As for street cannabis, the Beckley Foundation hopes that this research will be used to make it safer. Skunk, with a typical THC content of 15 to 19 per cent and a CBD content of zero, has come to dominate the street market. Ironically, many consider skunk's market dominance to be a consequence of prohibition, as illegal drug markets have always tended towards higher potencies.

 

The Beckley Foundation sees this as yet another argument for regulating the recreational cannabis market. Only in a regulated market can the knowledge from this research be used to create strains which are less hazardous for users.

 

The evidence supports the idea that nature knows best, and that the reintroduction of CBD would be beneficial. Two molecules are better than one.

 

Amanda Feilding is director of the www.beckleyfoundation.org Beckley Foundation, a charitable trust based in Oxford, UK, that promotes the investigation of consciousness and its modulation.

 

Paul Morrison is at the Institute of Psychiatry in London

 

Authors: Amanda Feilding and Paul Morrison

Date: 26 January 2010

Source: New Scientist

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2052...is-do-harm.html

[grace]

New Analysis Says Cannabis Breeders Should Grow for Safety As Well As Potency

 

Cannabis Sativa You're folks were right: it's really not the same as it was in the '60s. themadpothead (CC licensed)

There's a lot of misinformation blowing around out there concerning the medical benefits, and detriments, of smoking marijuana, but two UK researchers are making an argument for why you should perhaps pass on the puff-puff -- as well as why recreational use should not be outlawed in the future.

 

Cannabis has been shown through research to spur the brains of a susceptible minority toward long-term psychosis, particularly in young people who can significantly increase their risk of developing a disorder like schizophrenia. Findings like these often get a good deal of play in the media, not always accompanied by the key phrase "susceptible minority," fueling the Reefer Madness-like obsession with banning pot outright.

 

Amanda Feilding at Oxford's Beckley Foundation and Paul Morrison at London's Institute of Psychiatry argue that what's often overlooked is the kind of pot consumed, and that requires a more Mendelian approach to the problem. Your parents may have told you that the grass in their day wasn't as strong, while the old guy that hangs outside the grocery may hold the opinion that you just can't get the good stuff anymore. They could both be right. The problem is one of balance.

 

Street cannabis -- aka "skunk" -- has been selectively bred to increase the level of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). That's not news. But Feilding and Morrison point out that, in upping the potency through selective breeding, another important molecule, cannabidiol (CBD), has been selectively eliminated from skunk over time.

 

Science, Clay Dillow, drugs, health, marijuana, mental health, pharmaceuticals, pot, potsci, psychosis, schizophreniaResearch on CBD shows it to have an antipsychotic effect, the yang to THC's yin. So the selective breeding to make pot more potent has also made it more dangerous, throwing the psychotic/anti-psychotic balance strongly in favor of the psychotic. To boot, Feilding, Morrison, et al. have run some experiments administering THC and CBD to volunteers that bolster these claims, and they're setting up further research projects at dispensaries in California to further test their hypothesis, that pot bred to be high in THC but also in CBD would not have the harmful psychosis-aggravating effect of modern skunk.

 

The implications here, of course, are vast. First, Feilding and Morrison's work makes a strong case for the regulation of recreational pot market; as long as marijuana remains a black market good, growers will strive for a more potent product over a safe one, and if the psychosis issue is removed from the argument there's really little reason to keep pot illegal. But it also raises questions about the future of drugs, both legal and illegal. Can a Peruvian coca farmer selectively breed coca that is easier on the brain? Could opium farmers intelligently develop a pharmaceutical class of less-addictive opiates through unnatural selection? Can we employ Darwinian principles to bring illegal drugs safely back into the legal mainstream? It's enough to blow your mind.

 

[New Scientist]

 

Date: 27.01.2010

Author: Clay Dillow

Souce: http://www.popsci.com.au/science/article/2...pot-health-risk

[Frazz]

both these reports are just 'papers' written by recently graduated uni students

to announce their arrival into the "research" community it certainly doesnt hurt to tackle controversial issues and make unrealistic claims

after reading their story i dont think there is anything in what they are suggesting ...

 

the foundation of their argument is that the strain 'skunk' has had the CBD bred out of it , but not the THC

 

you tell me whats the odds of them old hippy dudes 30-40 years ago accidentally breeding that out

and then to expect all the 'skunk' plants to not get that trait bred back into it with all the pollen-chuckers in the game

its just not on, nup

 

plus these sort of stories, cause thats all they are is stories, they are on the way to genetic engineering

you can see it a mile off, multi-national corporations registering their own genetic version of 'Cannabis'

 

 

To Amanda Feilding, who it turns out is director of the Beckley Foundation, "a charity that promotes the investigation of consciousness and its modulation from a multidisciplinary perspective." ... yea right!

and Paul Morrison who wrote this story,

Its a load of fucking bullshit!

 

[grace]

both these reports are just 'papers' written by recently graduated uni students

to announce their arrival into the "research" community it certainly doesnt hurt to tackle controversial issues and make unrealistic claims

after reading their story i dont think there is anything in what they are suggesting ...

 

the foundation of their argument is that the strain 'skunk' has had the CBD bred out of it , but not the THC

 

you tell me whats the odds of them old hippy dudes 30-40 years ago accidentally breeding that out

and then to expect all the 'skunk' plants to not get that trait bred back into it with all the pollen-chuckers in the game

its just not on, nup

 

plus these sort of stories, cause thats all they are is stories, they are on the way to genetic engineering

you can see it a mile off, multi-national corporations registering their own genetic version of 'Cannabis'

 

 

To Amanda Feilding, who it turns out is director of the Beckley Foundation, "a charity that promotes the investigation of consciousness and its modulation from a multidisciplinary perspective." ... yea right!

and Paul Morrison who wrote this story,

Its a load of fucking bullshit!

 

 

 

Thanks for your post Frazz

 

I know many of the breeders that have been growing and researching the plant for decades would agree with you.

 

They are being prevented from contributing their wealth of knowledge about the plant because the government is stigmatising them as criminals and restricting their right to conduct their own analysis and reseach because they don't have degrees or the backing of the multi national pharma corporations $$$$ that are now emerging into the cannabis market.

 

Hopefully all that will change soon.

[jabez]

It really gets to me when people use the logic that cannabis should remain illegal because there might be strains out there that are like the moonshine of cannabis (really potent and not incredibly good for ya). But to say we couldn't, over years of breeding, change the chemical make up of cannabis is probably kind of short sighted. I mean cannabis indica probably started of as a wild sativa that was taken and breed for many years in a different enviroment. Then look at what we've done with dogs, you can get any size, colour or personality you want, all breed from one species, the wolf.

 

The problem is no one (as far as I know) actually has the facts as to what strains there talking about. Like when they say "skunk" are they talking about skunk 1 from sensi, cause I thought that only had like around 8% THC which isn't all that high if the UN say 5% is the average. Also back in the sixties wasn't everyone smoking sativas? Which is meant to be the one which is high in THC and low in CBD and these days most commercial strains are indica dominated yeah? But indica is meant to be the one that has the high rate of CBD and lower rate of THC. Guess there probably refering to certain hybrids, but if there going to go to all the effort of studying it, it probably wouldn't hurt them to be a bit more technical about there theory, give them a bit more crediblity maybe. Instead of carrying on about "skunk"!

 

Anyway, I'm just glad that someone wants to study the theory that's using it as a reason to legalize and regulate, rather than the usual old reason this theory gets brought up, to keep it unregulated and prohibited.

[brick]

I am reading this and I am thinking "What are they afraid of?" Any drug taken from an early age will cause some sort of bad effect. Alcohol, cannabis, speed, lsd, opium, etc. You start off young on any of these, chances are some people will have problems. Potency is not an issue, less potent then more will be ingested. You can get pissed on a few stubbies then the tolerence builds up so you drink more.

 

If they made it legal then science could openly do more study and ask the "illegal" growers for their help, more people would come out of the woodwork with experienced opinions and ideas. The older I get the more I find that society is turning in on itself on a path to destruction. Governments, corporations and religions are holding the world back from living in peace and harmony with our fellow man no matter what race. If western governments/corporations/religions were fair dinkum then there would be no starving populations any where in the world, there would be no poverty. Got off topic a bit but it all gets back to what they can get out of you not what they can give you.

[mull-ray]

Hmmm more United Nations style fear mongering. Research has clearly demonstrated in the UK that their has been no increase in schizophrenia in the same time there has been a four fold increase in cannabis use. In fact it looks like schizophrenia levels have fallen in the UK in the same time frame. However, media in the UK has been vitriolic and claims massive increases in mental illness amongst cannabis users because of "skunk" (which btw is Columbian Gold (sativa), Acupolco Gold (Sativa) and Afghani (Indica) so should have a reasonably high CBN level) Recently British drug advisors quit or were sacked because they didn't tow the party line on mj policy - they contended the Brit government was full of shit and was politicking their drug war bs over science. I'm an older guy who grew up on Thai Buddha and bush from New Guinea and Aus. I also traveled extensively during the 70's (India, Nepal, Afghanistan, South East Asia) and some of the weed in those days matched anything you will get today. The point is that everyone can source these genetics now through seedbanks so the overall increase in "quality" is probable because a hell of a lot of the old weed on the streets of Aus was low rate and seedy so on average the thc% was lower across the board then then it is now. It's funny because the drug war can be thanked for much of this and I tend to question any research that comes out of Australia and the UK. While the US is going medical (13 States to date) Australia and the UK are going just left of Nazi.

 

On the other hand if there is some good information amongst the research it is getting lost because governments have been feeding people bullshit for so long that no one knows what or who to believe.

 

End the drug war - that's all I have to say. The clowns are running the circus. BTW: I am in the process of applying for a work permit in Canada. I intend to leave Australia this year. After all these years in the country I once loved I can no longer tolerate the red center and what this country has become.

 

MR

[returngrower]

excellent research , I agree.. high THC breeds is a product of the black market.. more natural balance would not cause as much IMBALANCE & problems.. it happens that way for me.. I have a sensitive nervous system..

 

what's also interesting is that THC breaks down in time to CBD... so I have found ,, fresh cannabis , or cannabis that is picked early still clear or milky , before the trichomes turn gold or brownish .. is likely to be high ( ha ha pun ),, in THC & have more of the trippy psychoactive effect ( also read paranoia ) .. but as it ages & loses potency .. it may well become more of a couch lock dumb down stone.. depending very much on the strain.. I have bought old pot that was very brown & had the expected dumb down effect.

 

just like anything , it has a shelf life & will go stale in time.

Edited December 17, 2011 by returngrower