Can Marijuana's Active Ingredient Prevent or Reverse Alzheimer's Disease?

  • Context: Medical 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Alfi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Memory Paradox
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the potential effects of marijuana's active ingredient, THC, in preventing or reversing Alzheimer's disease. Participants explore the implications of recent research findings, the controversy surrounding cannabis use, and the broader societal attitudes towards marijuana.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight research suggesting that THC and similar compounds may reduce brain inflammation and improve memory in older rats, potentially offering insights into Alzheimer's treatment.
  • Others discuss the conflicting evidence regarding marijuana's effects on memory, noting that while it may impair recall in the short term, it could have protective effects in older individuals.
  • One participant mentions the challenges in obtaining funding for further research on THC's effects on Alzheimer's, citing political and emotional factors surrounding cannabis use.
  • Another viewpoint emphasizes the need for rational discussions about marijuana's medical benefits, particularly in the context of neurodegenerative disorders.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the stigma surrounding marijuana, arguing that it is less harmful than legal substances like alcohol and tobacco.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with some supporting the potential benefits of THC for Alzheimer's treatment, while others remain skeptical or highlight the need for more research. There is no consensus on the implications of the research or the societal attitudes towards marijuana.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the limitations of current research, including the dependence on animal studies and the challenges in translating findings to human applications. The discussion also reflects the ongoing debate over the legal and social implications of marijuana use.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring the intersection of cannabis research and neurodegenerative diseases, as well as those concerned with the societal implications of marijuana legalization.

  • #31
Are new drugs tested for Psychological effects as well as Physiological effects?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #32
Evo said:
Yes, and I believe that this is being done, as you mentioned.

It's the people smoking it for pleasure and saying recreational use of it should be legal because it could have benefits if the active ingredients could be made into a medcine that I find blowing smoke, so to speak. :wink:

I know alcoholics who rationalize the same way. However, they're legally justified to drink and probably only because they're more violent protesters (for instance, Prohibition was a mess. Do not take the bottle away from Joe the Plumber.)

I agree with most libertarians on this issue. If alcohol is legal, than there's no reason why any other mind altering substances shouldn't be legal simply for their recreational use (as long as they're relatively safe, which marijuana is often considered by society; it's often considered safer than alcohol). If it's legal, then at least it is controlled. This way it can also be separated from organized crime where more dangerous drugs are.

In addition, legalization would result in much less harassment of medical marijuana patients. They'd also be able to find it or grow it themselves. That's not the main argument, but it's a supporting argument for legalization.
 
  • #33
Alfi said:
Are new drugs tested for Psychological effects as well as Physiological effects?

If the drug is meant to be a psychopharmaceutical or if it has a strong binding affinity for brain receptors and is able to cross the blood-brain barrier then yes of course this is done.

If there is no a priori reason to think that a drug is psychoactive then testing is almost certainly more haphazard. I've heard (possibly apocryphal) stories about a certain drug with hallucinogenic properties (supposedly stronger than LSD) making it to stage 3 clinical trials and being described as causing a "behavioral syndrome" without further explanation. This drug was never approved.

The fact is, we know very little about how psychoactive substances produce their effects. This goes for everything from Prozac to LSD. We've made a lot of progress- especially with cocaine (and the DA system in general) but there's a long way to go. The starting place for the field is usually:

"we know this or that drug produces this or that effect and we know that it targets this receptor which is located on these neurons" What we are missing is what happens in between...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
10K
Replies
2
Views
3K