There have been a couple blogs on marijuana so when I found this article I thought it might be relevant.
Scientists Find The Gene That Produces THC
Summary: The gene for THC in pot plants has been identified. This allows scientists to potentially control the amount of THC in cannabis plants. Controlling the potency in cannabis plants could allow legal cannabis free of THC in order to make hemp or very potent THC cannabis plants in order to have more effective medical marijuana.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
It should also be noted that it is essentially impossible to OD (overdose) from THC through the use of marijuana.
Marijuana is currently unregulated and, as such, illegal vendors may incorporate any number of dangerous chemicals in attempts to make their product addictive. THC levels also vary, so legalizing and regulating marijuana would also allow for a safer product and a far greater ability to vend the product based on potency (allowing lower concentrations of THC for conventional use and higher for those who use it for medicinal purposes).
medical marijuana, perfectly fine, though it is taken advantage of and leaves people 'habitually dependent' , thanks for posting this mark. ill post more on mine later
Yes, habitually dependent indeed.
But less so even than caffeine, so what's your point?
I agree with Jebsen on the fact that this will allow much more control over the level of THC in marijuana. Furthermore, it will also create a greater distinction or boundary between marijuana for conventional use and medical use.
From what I've heard marijuana is as addictive as cigarettes.... but anyways ,they should legalize it and tax it, well that is my opinion.
Tim, I don't think nicotine is found in marijuana. I could be wrong, but from what I have heard, cigarettes are more addictive than marijuana is. Marijuana also poses less harmful effects than cigarettes do.
If the government can control THC, that would be great. They can make a safer product based on potency like Jebsen mentioned. But the thing is, most illegal vendors are not supplied by the government. Therefore, the illegal vendors are not going to be following legal THC standards.
Nicotene is physically addicting. Cannabis is not.
Yoda, manipulating THC concentration in cannabis does not make it physically "safer" or more healthy. Cannabis will always be physically safe to use no matter what because as Jebsen said, it is impossible to overdose from THC via cannabis use.
Yes, just like Awake said, Cannabis is not addictive at all. the addictive component of cigarettes is nicotine but nothing in cannabis is addictive. And also about the health issue of THC, to overdose on THC from weed, you would have to smoke about 1/3 of your weight or 1500 pounds of weed in one sitting.
The LD50 of THC at this point is mostly approximation because up to this point in time, there is no history of a death from overdosing on cannabis. And even if one attempted to overdose from smoking cannabis, the user would most likely die from oxygen deprivation instead of THC overdose. This is because the amount of THC required to overdose would require continuous smoking without stopping to breathe.
Currently, achieving the lethal dosage of THC via smoking cannabis is nearly impossible.
Yes i do bealive that marijuana should be leglized in extream cases like for people going through terminal cancer or for people with cateracks. Not for people with a bad back or who cant sleep at night. If taken with extream percaution the miniplation of thc can really help some people.
Complete failure on my part, abit late to change but what I meant to say was, ciggerettes are more addictive then drugs like marijuana
Awake, I never specified that it will be physically safer. From my knowledge, marijuana can cause a euphoric feeling and distort your perceptions. So as a result, like alcohol, people may act on impulse rather than thinking things through. Distortions can also impair driving vision. For example, people may believe something is 1 mile away when it is just 100 feet away. In this case, marijuana would not be safe. Therefore, manipulating THC levels would help make a product "safer" for commercial use.
I think there is a compromising point here.
If the components that are truly useful can be isolated from the elements of "pleasure", then I would support the resulting medicine. Medicine, not the raw form of pot. That means it must be refined down to its useful part.
After all, if it's meant for medical use, then why does it have to be pleasurable?
Kevin:
THC is the medical component of marijuana.
The euphoria caused by THC is the sole reason why it is used to relieve pain and nausea.
"After all, if it's meant for medical use, then why does it have to be pleasurable?"
The pleasure derived from the use of marijuana is the reason why it's used as medicine, of course it needs to be pleasurable.
Even though marijuana is not as addictive as cigarettes, I have heard (meaning that this may not be totally accurate or accurate at all) that smoking 1 joint is equivalent to smoking an entire pack of cigarettes. I think this is because marijuana still produces a high amount of tar in your lungs, even if it doesn't contain nicotine.
Anyway, I agree with what Amanda said about legalizing marijuana. I think that it should only be legalized for people with terminal illness to relieve them of some of the pain, but not for people with minor health issues.
This issue of pot legalization has garnered responses from more different people than other topics concerning government. It's pathetic that people care and know more about their pot than actual government.
"The pleasure derived from the use of marijuana is the reason why it's used as medicine, of course it needs to be pleasurable."
Please don't tell me that's used for pain-killing.
From Wikipedia:
"Synthetic THC is known as dronabinol. It is available as a prescription drug (under the trade name Marinol[56]) in several countries including the United States and Germany. In the United States, Marinol is a Schedule III drug, available by prescription, considered to be non-narcotic and to have a low risk of physical or mental dependence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol
I know Wikipedia is not always 100% reliable, but it's a good starting point.
People, please stop repeating that cannabis is addictive. It is not addictive. There is no chemical constituent in the plant that makes it addictive. As Jebsen said, people can become habitually dependent (psychologically), "But less so even than caffeine".
Yoda, you keep making me repeat myself. Manipulation of THC levels does not make the plant "safer for commercial use". Cannabis is always safe regardless of THC concentration. If you read above, it is nearly impossible to overdose on THC via smoking cannabis. The level of intensity of perceptual distortion does not matter. Most of those looking to smoke cannabis want to experience such distortions. All cannabis smokers want cannabis with extremely high THC concentrations. This means less needs to be smoked to produce the effects desired.
"Wise One", what's your point in mentioning dronabinol? So what if scientists have been synth'ing THC? That does not make it any better than the naturally occurring THC found in cannabis. Dronabinol is also more expensive and difficult to synth than growing pot. That's why pharmaceutical companies developed dronabinol in the first place. They cannot control the sale cannabis because anyone can grow it in their backyard.
How does your quotation in any way refute the fact that THC is used for pain and nausea relief? All you've done is quote a stub from wikipedia about a synthetic form of THC.
Do you know what the purpose of a synthetic form of THC would be? To MIMIC THE EFFECTS OF THC.
What is THC used for?
To relieve pain and nausea.
Hell, if you still don't understand, maybe you should just read this article.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/544/whole_plant_marijuana_extract_pain_relief
If you can't bring yourself to read the entire thing (which seems to be a trend), at least read the title.
And I also suggest you simply google "THC pain relief".
Might I also mention that if you're ever going to use Wikipedia as a source again, read the entire article. There are sections on both the medicinal value of THC and its potential negative effects. Wikipedia is designed to be neutral, attempting to derive your argument from its articles makes it just as easy for another person to find a counter argument.
"Most of those looking to smoke cannabis want to experience such distortions. All cannabis smokers want cannabis with extremely high THC concentrations. This means less needs to be smoked to produce the effects desired."
Is this the real reason you want pot to be legalized? Just so you can be high? Not really medical, is it?
"Dronabinol is also more expensive and difficult to synth than growing pot. That's why pharmaceutical companies developed dronabinol in the first place. They cannot control the sale cannabis because anyone can grow it in their backyard."
If pot is ever legalized, the amount of tax leveraged into it will make it as expensive, if not more, as dronabinol.
"That does not make it any better than the naturally occurring THC found in cannabis."
The point is that it lessens the effect to the level that is needed to cure something. You don't need that "extra high".
"To MIMIC THE EFFECTS OF THC."
To a lesser effect.
"Hell, if you still don't understand, maybe you should just read this article.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/544/whole_plant_n"
Another biased website, just what we needed. Those interest groups slant facts. Notice that the links I posted didn't come from interest groups like "Parents against drug abuse" or "Pot is dangerous". I posted links from WHO, the World Health Organization - an international authority on a broad range of health issues.
"What is THC used for?
To relieve pain and nausea."
Precisely what I was hoping you would say.
Why use pot as a pain reliever when there are more effective and less addictive - or as you call it, "habitually dependent" - solutions such as this one?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0614_050614_snaildrugs.html
http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2005/03_01_2005/story03.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5165124.stm
http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Painkiller-Based-on-Sea-Snail-Venom-Made-Available-in-Britain-12147-1/
Kevin:
"Is this the real reason you want pot to be legalized? Just so you can be high? Not really medical, is it?"
I believe Awake's point was simply that less marijuana would be needed for the same effects (which would in fact benefit medical marijuana users). Needing less for the same effect would also make the drug cheaper for those who need it for medicinal purposes (and you can't possibly want the sick to pay more, can you?). How is that in any way related to wanting to be high?
"If pot is ever legalized, the amount of tax leveraged into it will make it as expensive, if not more, as dronabinol."
Legalized marijuana would be cheaper than any synthetic form. You forget that illegal vendors are able to jack up the price as much as they want, it's not regulated (and with no commercial competition, these prices don't go down).
"The point is that it lessens the effect to the level that is needed to cure something. You don't need that "extra high"."
There is no "extra high". Marijuana / THC is not a "cure", it is used as a reliever of pain and nausea. The required effects of the drug increases with direct correlation to the pain that a patient might be feeling.
"Another biased website, just what we needed. Those interest groups slant facts. Notice that the links I posted didn't come from interest groups like "Parents against drug abuse" or "Pot is dangerous". I posted links from WHO, the World Health Organization - an international authority on a broad range of health issues."
I see you've proven my previous point very well! Thank you! You once again did not fully read and comprehend the article to which I linked.
Was the site I linked to biased? Yes, probably.
However, the article itself cites NONBIASED, SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, done at a university.
Are you saying that a direct quotation of scientific researchers is somehow a "slanted fact"?
Also, in regards to your undying support for WHO, please read Kasper Kuo's last comment on this page:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1054910627465846465&postID=1301475718583588462
"Why use pot as a pain reliever when there are more effective and less addictive - or as you call it, "habitually dependent" - solutions such as this one?"
Why? Because there aren't more effective solutions.
Taken from http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/medical/challenges/litigators/medical/conditions/hivaids.cfm
"While other antiemetics are available, not all patients respond to these therapies." Patients respond to marijuana infinitely more easily than other solutions. Read the entire article for further information (which I, for some reason, doubt you will do).
I'd also like to mention that your proposed solutions are not "less addictive". Habitual dependency is in no way related to addiction. Your solutions cannot be "less addictive" than something that is not addictive to begin with. As I've mentioned many, many times before, the habitual dependency from marijuana is less so even than caffeine.
Awake, I don't really know how to put this to you. I'm not saying or otherwise noting if cannabis is safe or not safe. I'm saying that the distortions that marijuana suggests are quite unsafe. We don't want people who have distorted vision to drive on the road do we? I know i wouldn't. Now with that being said, if the Government can manipulate THC levels and sell it with lower concentration, then people would not experience high as often. Yes, all people have to do is smoke more, but that requires more money to buy more marijuana. This will ultimately help the Government revenue.
But the problem with this is, as i stated before, most illegal vendors are not supplied by the government. Therefore, the illegal vendors are not going to be following legal THC standards.
Now to move onto Kevin's argument...
"Is this the real reason you want pot to be legalized? Just so you can be high? Not really medical, is it?"
No. It would be used to ease pain. The endorphins released when smoking marijuana would do just that.
"If pot is ever legalized, the amount of tax leveraged into it will make it as expensive, if not more, as dronabinol."
Now you're arguing FOR legalization. One argument already brought up was that it would help Government revenue.
"The point is that it lessens the effect to the level that is needed to cure something. You don't need that 'extra high'."
"To a lesser effect."
I don't think you're understanding the point. We aren't focusing on dronabinol. We're focusing on legal marijuana use.
Also regarding the website, it is very true that the facts may be slanted, but if those facts came from a study then it's highly unlikely. I didn't read every post on that website. In fact, I only read the first post about the information published by the University of Milan. It is all over the web that the researchers found this new information. Because this information was published through a magazine, and not through an organization. I'm pretty sure no organization financed this research. Therefore, it is completely unbiased.
Okay, finally my last point. Kevin, you posted many links about using sea snail venom as a way to relieve pain. This is a great idea, but don't you think that this falls under animal cruelty? We'll end up devastating the sea snail population because of our selfishness. We shouldn't be unfair to allow animal cruelty on snails but not on chickens. Just because some people think snails aren't important enough doesn't mean that they aren't.
Basically this GMO for Cannabis has both good and bad potential as denoted in the post. For me, I'd say that this information needs to be very controlled because otherwise anyone with a cannabis plant and a few chemicals can isolate the gene and put it into the seedlings. We did something to this exact affect in AP Bio last year with a gene that made bacteria glow. cannabis, like Yoda mentions impairs your motor skills so we need to be very wary how the regulations for this GMO turn out. I personally would want the U.S to either regulate cannabis production or really crack down to remove it. I don't like the shady illegal stuff that everyone always hears about.
"This is a great idea, but don't you think that this falls under animal cruelty? We'll end up devastating the sea snail population because of our selfishness."
Who said we have to kill the snails?
We could milk them the same way tarantula's venom is milked.
Ironically, we're on the same side fighting against each other. Go to the animal cruelty post for more info.
I would answer more of your comments, but I have other work that I must focus on.
"Hahahahaha. How naive. Like Jebsen and I said above repeatedly, CANNABIS IS NOT ADDICTIVE! And these "alternatives" are way worse! Ever heard of opiates and how terrible they are?"
I wasn't talking about opiates.
Opiates are the most readily available and most frequently prescribed pain relieving agents. They are the main source of alternatives to cannabis.
Who said we have to kill the snails?
We could milk them the same way tarantula's venom is milked.
mmmm. You should really do your research on that. The fact that snails are under its shells should be enough evidence for you. But if you want a detailed procedure, you can find it on google.
Ironically, we're on the same side fighting against each other. Go to the animal cruelty post for more info.
You contradict yourself in your other post. Refer to my post on that topic.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSSYD3312320061212
"The toxin is currently very expensive to produce as scientists must extract it from the sea snail which measures just 6 cm (2 inches)."
I see your proposed method is very practical...
http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2005/03_01_2005/story03.htm
"The new medicine, called Prialt, or ziconotide, has its roots in a boy's curiosity about the deadly poisons inside the beautiful shells he collected in his native Philippines."
In the shells.
Would that not hurt the snails?
(previous post removed due to typo)
Post a Comment