Mental Health

[Talus]

Ritalin, Adderal, Dexatrin, etc are methamphetamine drugs. They are not, in any way, related to crystal meth. Bitch is dumb.

Not to nitpick, but they are all pretty similar, not to mention crystal meth IS methamphetamine.

Structurally, methamphetamine is a secondary amine along the side chain from a 6-membered aromatic ring.

Ritalin is a racemic mixture (R+S enantiomers) of a heterocyclic secondary amine (piperidine) attached to a 6-membered aromatic ring, with an ester (RCOR') attached to the carbon between the cyclic parts of the structure.

Adderall is the racemic mixture (R+S enantiomers) of amphetamine, both with primary amines at the end of the side chain from an aromatic ring and the difference being the orientation of the methyl group attached to the side chain.

Dexatrin is the (S) enantiomer of amphetamine, with a primary amine at the end of the side chain from an aromatic ring.

Apparently bitch isn't that dumb.

[chazzyphizzle]

Unrelated really, but seeing all of these zelduh threads with this thread title right in the middle made me lol.

[Kohan]

Medical marijuana can be such a thorn. It evidently aggravates far more people than one would expect, especially considering all of the studies which confirm its viability. Apparently, it also inspires them to cite supposed facts which are, truthfully, opinions.

One of them is whether cannabis can be legally prescribed for disorders like OCD, ADHD, and so on, and if it's even beneficial in those cases. In the majority of places where it is available, it can indeed be prescribed, and existing information shows that it can be useful (either on its own or when taken in conjunction with a reduced amount of other medicines).

(3) "Qualifying patient" means a person who:

(a) Is a patient of a physician licensed under chapter 18.71 or 18.57 RCW;

(b) Has been diagnosed by that physician as having a terminal or debilitating medical condition;

As the diagnosis is up to the doctor, if they determine that one's disorder severely impairs their ability to function, they may receive a statement which permits purchase/possession.

Source: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=69.51A.010

As far as its effectiveness is concerned:

It has been reported that 40%–60% of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) do not respond to first-line treatment. Treatment options for these patients include switching to another agent or augmentation (1). We report on two patients with treatment-resistant OCD and comorbid axis I disorders who responded to an augmentation with the cannabinoid dronabinol.

Full Article: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/...full/165/4/536

In the past decade, the endocannabinoid system has been implicated in a growing number of physiological functions, both in the central and peripheral nervous systems and in peripheral organs. More importantly, modulating the activity of the endocannabinoid system turned out to hold therapeutic promise in a wide range of disparate diseases and pathological conditions, ranging from mood and anxiety disorders...

[...]

Animal studies yielded further support to the biphasic and bidirectional effects of cannabinoids on anxiety, with low doses being anxiolytic and high doses being anxiogenic. Indeed, low doses of CP55,940 (Genn et al., 2003; Marco et al., 2004), nabilone (Onaivi et al., 1990), and THC (Berrendero and Maldonado, 2002) exerted anxiolytic-like effects in the light-dark crossing test and in the elevated plus-maze in adult rodents. Low-dose CP55,940 was also anxiolytic in other models of anxiety in adult, juvenile, or infant rodents (Romero et al., 2002a; Borcel et al., 2004; Genn et al., 2004).

Source: http://pharmrev.aspetjournals.org/content/58/3/389.full

The following information not only touches on the psychological affects of THC, but its effects on our overall physiology:

Much has been learned since the publication of the 1982 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report Marijuana and Health.* Although it was clear then that most of the effects of marijuana were due to its actions on the brain, there was little information about how THC acted on brain cells (neurons), which cells were affected by THC, or even what general areas of the brain were most affected by THC. Too little was known about cannabinoid physiology to offer any scientific insights into the harmful or therapeutic effects of marijuana. That is no longer true. During the past 16 years, there have been major advances in what basic science discloses about the potential medical benefits of cannabinoids, the group of compounds related to THC. Many variants are found in the marijuana plant, and other cannabinoids not found in the plant have been chemically synthesized. Sixteen years ago it was still a matter of debate as to whether THC acted nonspecifically by affecting the fluidity of cell membranes or whether a specific pathway of action was mediated by a receptor that responded selectively to THC (Table 2.1).

*The field of neuroscience has grown substantially since the publication of the 1982 IOM report. The number of members in the Society for Neuroscience provides a rough measure of the growth in research and knowledge about the brain: as of the middle of 1998, there were over 27,000 members, more than triple the number in 1982.

[...]

TABLE 2.1 Landmark Discoveries Since the 1982 IOM Report

Year
- Discovery

Primary Investigators

1986
- Potent cannabinoid agonists are developed; they are the key to discovering the receptor.
M. R. Johnson and L. S. Melvin75

1988
- First conclusive evidence of specific cannabinoid receptors.
A. Howlett and W. Devaneh36

1990
- The cannabinoid brain receptor (CB,) is cloned, its DNA sequence is identified, and its location in the brain is determined.
L. Matsuda107 and M. Herkenham et al60

1992
- Anandamide is discovered—a naturally occurring substance in the brain that acts on cannabinoid receptors.

[...]

Basic science is the wellspring for developing new medications and is particularly important for understanding a drug that has as many effects as marijuana. Even committed advocates of the medical use of marijuana do not claim that all the effects of marijuana are desirable for every medical use. But they do claim that the combination of specific effects of marijuana enhances its medical value. An understanding of those specific effects is what basic science can provide. The multiple effects of marijuana can be singled out and studied with the goals of evaluating the medical value of marijuana and cannabinoids in specific medical conditions, as well as minimizing unwanted side effects. An understanding of the basic mechanisms through which cannabinoids affect physiology permits more strategic development of new drugs and designs for clinical trials that are most likely to yield conclusive results.

[...]

Basic science has made it clear that cannabinoids can affect pain transmission and, specifically, that cannabinoids interact with the brain's endogenous opioid system, an important system for the medical treatment of pain (see chapter 4).

The cellular machinery that underlies the response of the body and brain to cannabinoids involves an intricate interplay of different systems. This chapter reviews the components of that machinery with enough detail to permit the reader to compare what is known about basic biology with the medical uses proposed for marijuana. For some readers that will be too much detail. Those readers who do not wish to read the entire chapter should, nonetheless, be mindful of the following key points in this chapter:

· The most far reaching of the recent advances in cannabinoid biology are the identification of two types of cannabinoid receptors (CB1 and CB2) and of anandamide, a substance naturally produced by the body that acts at the cannabinoid receptor and has effects similar to those of THC. The CB1 receptor is found primarily in the brain and mediates the psychological effects of THC. The CB2 receptor is associated with the immune system; its role remains unclear.

· The physiological roles of the brain cannabinoid system in humans are the subject of much active research and are not fully known; however, cannabinoids likely have a natural role in pain modulation, control of movement, and memory.

· Basic research in cannabinoid biology has revealed a variety of cellular pathways through which potentially therapeutic drugs could act on the cannabinoid system. In addition to the known cannabinoids, such drugs might include chemical derivatives of plantderived cannabinoids or of endogenous cannabinoids such as anandamide but would also include noncannabinoid drugs that act on the cannabinoid system.

[...]

Many speakers at the public workshops associated with this study argued that animal studies of marijuana are not relevant to humans. Animal studies are not a substitute for clinical trials, but they are a necessary complement. Ultimately, every biologically active substance exerts its effects at the cellular and molecular levels, and the evidence has shown that this is remarkably consistent among mammals, even those as different in body and mind as rats and humans.

[...]

The importance of knowing specific brain circuits that involve anandamide (and other endogenous cannabinoid ligands) is that such circuits are the pivotal elements for regulating specific brain functions, such as mood, memory, and cognition. Anandamide has been found in numerous regions of the human brain.

[...]

Brain Region
- Functions Associated with Region

Brain regions in which cannabinoid receptors are abundant:

Basal ganglia
- Movement control

Substantia nigra pars reticulata
Entopeduncular nucleus
Globus pallidus
Putamen
Cerebellum
- Body movement coordination

Hippocampus
- Learning and memory, stress

Cerebral cortex, especially cingulate, frontal, and parietal regions
- Higher cognitive functions

Nucleus accumbens
- Reward center

Brain regions in which cannabinoid brain receptors are moderately concentrated:

Hypothalamus
- Body housekeeping functions (body temperature regulation, salt and water balance, reproductive function)

Amygdala
- Emotional response, fear

Spinal cord
- Peripheral sensation, including pain

Brain stem
- Sleep and arousal, temperature regulation, motor control

Central gray
Analgesia
Nucleus of the solitary tract
- Visceral sensation, nausea and vomiting

SOURCES: Based on reviews by Pertwee (1997b)124 and Herkenham (1995).57

Source: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376&page=R1

Now, we'll get into simpler vouches (which aren't so entrenched in jargon):

Cindy 99’s employees included a receptionist, a full-time counter girl, a part-time counter girl, and a bonded security guard—a former Green Beret—who is licensed to carry a weapon. Dr. Dean, a local physician, saw aspiring patients at the dispensary once a week. As long as they had a California state I.D., those who received recommendations for marijuana could buy some immediately from the dispensary’s stock. Cindy told me that when she opened her shop, in 2007, she needed the same licenses that she would have needed to open a newsstand on the Santa Monica Pier: a commercial lease, a seller’s permit, a federal tax I.D. number, and a tobacco license (for selling rolling papers and pipes). She estimated that forty per cent of her clients suffer from serious illnesses such as cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, epilepsy, and M.S. The rest have ailments like anxiety, sleeplessness, A.D.D., and assorted pains.

Source: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...?currentPage=1

A verification that one can legally receive medical marijuana for such disorders:

Amazingly both had been using cannabis with god results to control their symptoms. They described a significant reduction in their anxiety associated with their OCD triggers. “I am not so hyper-focused” the 46 year old explained. They both typically consumed one or two small doses in the evening. One was using an indica strain and the 18 year did well with a sativa hybrid.

They were excited that they lived in California where medical marijuana is legal and thankful they could come in and see a doctor like me who is willing to listen to their issues and be compassionate in my care.

Although the doctor quoted above has awful spelling and grammar, he is genuine; you'll just have to nevermind his complete failure to represent himself competently in text.

Source: http://mcsocal.com/blog/obsessive-co...ive-treatment/

Beyond all that, here's a fun video about children being treated with THC: http://www.hulu.com/watch/166381/abc...juana-for-kids

If you've actually looked at everything within this post, you may be wondering why I've bothered. The topic was simply "Mental Health," and rather early on, it was adorned with something that absolutely infuriates me: a statement claiming that mental problems are "all in your head" (although this was later retracted). Then, it was made worse by terribly uninformed posts regarding the legality of marijuana usage (the allowed form of which isn't all that uncommon nowadays), something I'll always jump to talk about.

It's one thing to, as someone else put it, all "Legalize It!"; it's another to inform people as to why it should be (and therefore help the cause), and why they shouldn't be so outright dismissive of medical marijuana usage.

[thetruepandagod]

Interesting thing about marijuana: people that have gilbert's syndrome are far more prone to mentally unhinging and a general increase of schizophrenic tendencies and extreme paranoia that continues after use. Currently in the process of being studied. So i look forward to at least some percentage of california to go insane when it gets legalized.

[BerenTebogo]

Some good info

In all honesty, not going to dismiss your post because it is very good, but you've quoted as a main source a man who appears from all the info I can find, to be an absolute quack on a crusade.

I can't find his credentials anywhere, I can't find what med school he graduated from, and I cannot find any literature or journal articles on him that are not from his own extremely biased site.

The fact that in your own quotation of him he couldn't use proper grammar or spelling is just further impeachment of his qualifications.

I can find over 1,000 "legitimate" doctors who treat breast cancer with Vitamin B injections or homeopathy. They're quacks, period. I don't have the ability to impeach the character of your sources since I'm not on a network that allows me to get full access to journals at the moment but you should really, really, really be more careful about your sources.

Until there is independent verification or you can post some journal studies in reputable publications about the usage of marijuana for ADHD (and two patients "treated" with OCD is not a good sample but it's progress) then, no, it is not a viable treatment. I'll leave it open because I know you're smart and I may be overlooking something so feel free to prove me wrong, but on the basis of your main source for ADHD - sorry - you quoted a fucking quack.

A medical doctorate is not an automatic "I'm right and I have science behind me!" license. Alternative therapy MDs are ample proof of this.

Re: new york times article
http://www.tomscott.com/warnings/
http://www.tomscott.com/warnings/warning-3.jpg

Think that about covers that.

I look forward to being proved wrong, but I doubt it will happen.

Edit: And honestly, the biggest thing is that the people in the REAL clinical studies (the studies published in your APS journals) were diagnosed with treatment-resistant OCD after an EXTENDED amount of time undergoing different treatment options from licensed medical doctors. They were not self-medicating with marijuana and self-medicating with marijuana is a) illegal b) stupid especially when the person admits that they make little to no effort to be treated by a licensed psychiatrist.

I get that you want to defend the premise, but it's not good to defend idiots since it weakens your entire argument.

Edit 2: Since I love you, Kohan, if you want to hash out the legitimate vs. quackery via PM and just respond to this topic when/if we can find some sources that we can both agree on as reputable I'm fine with that. It'll save some pages.

[BerenTebogo]

Not to nitpick, but they are all pretty similar, not to mention crystal meth IS methamphetamine.

Structurally, methamphetamine is a secondary amine along the side chain from a 6-membered aromatic ring.

Ritalin is a racemic mixture (R+S enantiomers) of a heterocyclic secondary amine (piperidine) attached to a 6-membered aromatic ring, with an ester (RCOR') attached to the carbon between the cyclic parts of the structure.

Adderall is the racemic mixture (R+S enantiomers) of amphetamine, both with primary amines at the end of the side chain from an aromatic ring and the difference being the orientation of the methyl group attached to the side chain.

Dexatrin is the (S) enantiomer of amphetamine, with a primary amine at the end of the side chain from an aromatic ring.

Apparently bitch isn't that dumb.

You're right, I was more referring to the part where crystal meth is cooked with as many fucked up things for a base as melted Styrofoam and other shit and that no doctor would be giving her kid that, but I didn't specify and laid a broad comment that was incorrect.

I'm aware they both are amphetamine drugs, I didn't know the specifics though so themoreyouknow.jpg

[Weeks]

It's one thing to, as someone else put it, all "Legalize It!"; it's another to inform people as to why it should be (and therefore help the cause), and why they shouldn't be so outright dismissive of medical marijuana usage.

Honestly, until the argument for using marijuana for mental health conditions is far more persuasive than a handful of case studies and the fact that cannabinoid receptors are found throughout the CNS, we absolutely should be dismissive of this use.

[Kuya]

Is the marijuana cannabinoid an antagonist, reverse agonist or an agonist?

[Kohan]

In all honesty, not going to dismiss your post because it is very good, but you've quoted as a main source a man who appears from all the info I can find, to be an absolute quack on a crusade.

I can't find his credentials anywhere, I can't find what med school he graduated from, and I cannot find any literature or journal articles on him that are not from his own extremely biased site.

The fact that in your own quotation of him he couldn't use proper grammar or spelling is just further impeachment of his qualifications. [...] I get that you want to defend the premise, but it's not good to defend idiots since it weakens your entire argument.

I completely agree with you. I wish I had a better source. I mainly included him because, by "genuine," I meant to imply that he can and has legally prescribed marijuana for those with mental disorders.

I'll probably find a better source eventually, when I search for it; at least the New Yorker article explaining the average patients at a dispensary is a bit helpful.

EDIT: Oh, and I don't mean to defend self-medicating, only the fact that one can receive medical pot to treat mental disorders. In fact, I wanted to cite Washington law specifically because, according to their BG info, that's where the person who admitted to using weed lives; they should try to get a legal prescription.

Edit 2: Since I love you, Kohan, if you want to hash out the legitimate vs. quackery via PM and just respond to this topic when/if we can find some sources that we can both agree on as reputable I'm fine with that. It'll save some pages.

I might do that. This thread will probably die off in the interim. Lately, I've been on a desperate search for apartments; I'll check in on it every now and then, but I don't know if I'll be able to contribute anything more informative in a respectable timeframe.

Honestly, until the argument for using marijuana for mental health conditions is far more persuasive than a handful of case studies and the fact that cannabinoid receptors are found throughout the CNS, we absolutely should be dismissive of this use.

No, we shouldn't.

If you read some of the articles listed, particularly the most comprehensive one (which is dozens of pages long), you'll understand that more in-depth studies cannot be conducted due to the social stigma and the legality of using the substance. Considering what has already been discovered, it's worthy of further, deeper study and deserves to be thoroughly understood, but that can't happen until the aforementioned roadblocks are cleared.

[Weeks]

No, we shouldn't.

If you read some of the articles listed, particularly the most comprehensive one (which is dozens of pages long), you'll understand that more in-depth studies cannot be conducted due to the social stigma and the legality of using the substance. Considering what has already been discovered, it's worthy of further, deeper study and deserves to be thoroughly understood, but that can't happen until the aforementioned roadblocks are cleared.

That is an absolute load of shit. Research on medicinal benefits of marijuana, and especially of cannabinoid derivatives, is perfectly legal and is ongoing. Regardless, what I was getting at is that nobody should be prescribing marijuana or its derivatives for mental health conditions outside of clinical trials. On the strength of the evidence you presented, any physician who is recommending marijuana for OCD or ADD/ADHD is practicing lousy medicine.

[Kohan]

That is an absolute load of shit.

Incorrect.

NIDA has a government granted monopoly on the production of medical marijuana for research purposes. In the past, the institute has refused to supply marijuana to researchers who had obtained all other necessary federal permits. Medical marijuana researchers and activists claim that NIDA, which is not supposed to be a regulatory organization, does not have the authority to effectively regulate who does and doesn't get to do research with medical marijuana.

[...]

In May 2006, the Boston Globe reported that:[31]

Then again, it's not in NIDA's job description-or even, perhaps, in NIDA's interests-to grow a world-class marijuana crop. The institute's director, Nora Volkow, has stressed that it's "not NIDA's mission to study the medicinal use of marijuana or to advocate for the establishment of facilities to support this research." Since NIDA's stated mission "is to lead the Nation in bringing the power of science to bear on drug abuse and addiction," federally supported marijuana research will logically tilt toward the potential harms, not benefits, of cannabis.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa..._on_Drug_Abuse

Further Info on NIDA: http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/v...p?sourceID=260

Despite the Obama administration’s tacit support of more liberal state medical marijuana laws, the federal government still discourages research into the medicinal uses of smoked marijuana.

[...]

But the Drug Enforcement Administration — more concerned about abuse than potential benefits — has refused, even after the agency’s own administrative law judge ruled in 2007 that Dr. Craker’s application should be approved, and even after Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in March ended the Bush administration’s policy of raiding dispensers of medical marijuana that comply with state laws.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/he...marijuana.html

You're welcome to your opinion, but it is only that.

[Byrthnoth]

Is the marijuana cannabinoid an antagonist, reverse agonist or an agonist?

Iirc, THC is a partial agonist for the endocannabinoid receptors. That said, pot is not just THC. It is a mixture of a variety of cannabinoids all with their own chemistry.

If there is a reason to be suspicious of pot, it is because said receptors almost certainly directly affect gene expression. I think there was even some talk of them being found on the nuclear membrane, but I don't remember where that went.

The fact that we do not understand the pharmacology should not be a surprise given the rest of this thread. I couldn't give a shit whether it is legalized or not, but I'd like to point out that it is likely heathier to smoke pot than cigarettes, as long as you don't try to do things while intoxicated.

Nicotine is an addicting, poisonous compound. The risks of lung seem about the same between the two, you're inhaling smoke either way. Pot is not addicting, or at least not on the level of cigs, but it is intoxicating. Pick your poison, literally.

[wipers]

I don't believe in Psychology. It takes away a person's free will. Yes some people are born messed up and that is a shame. But I don't think drugging people up just so they can get to normal is a good solution. Drugs will ultimately make them worse cause they will think they are getting better. And they will stop taking the drugs. So that is when shit gets ugly. Sure you could argue that some people can't function without drugs. It creates a cycle of people on and off drugs for the rest of their lives. One one drug stops working they switch to another.

[Weiing]

I think you're more referring to psychiatry, rather than psychology, as psychology is far more broad than psychopharmocology. I guess it's a misconception most people have.

So if you don't think putting people on medication to stabilize them is a good solution then...what is? Sure, some people may be taking drugs against their will while others are willingly taking medication (hopefully in conjunction with therapy).

There is a risk, especially for people with bipolar or schizophrenia, to want to get off the meds because they don't like feeling dulled out... However, at that point it's more a question of whether they would be more at risk to harm themselves or others without meds.

Maybe I just got majorly trolled and whooooooshed though.

[wipers]

You make a good point. I'm just saying in the cases of people with minor problems not people that need drugs to function. My point is that we give people drugs far too easily instead of actually trying other solutions. Behavioral therapy etc.

[Zeh]

I would never take anything that messes with my brain. Even though I've had depression for 2 years, and it -might- help, I don't want shit messing with my wiring. Not kosher. Plus, I've found hard liquor as a decent cure.

[Kerberoz]

Nicotine is an addicting, poisonous compound. The risks of lung seem about the same between the two, you're inhaling smoke either way. Pot is not addicting, or at least not on the level of cigs, but it is intoxicating. Pick your poison, literally.

Keep in mind that THC is fat-soluble and can be made into delicious pastries. Or vaporized for minimal health effects. Inhaling burnt plant matter isn't good for you no matter what plant it is.

[Byrthnoth]

Keep in mind that THC is fat-soluble and can be made into delicious pastries. Or vaporized for minimal health effects. Inhaling burnt plant matter isn't good for you no matter what plant it is.

I agree, but it's equally possible to make Tobacco into brownies (Nicotine is also fat-soluble). There have been cases where toddlers eat whole packs of cigs and die from nicotine poisoning. The benefit of smoking is that the drug is absorbed into the blood in your lungs, which then returns to your heart and is pumped directly to the brain, which makes it very rapid infusion. It's the fastest reasonable route (potentially barring sublingual injection depending how reasonable you feel that is).

Addiction is a complicated subject, but people generally agree that how well-paired the stimulus is with the response determines how addicting something is. Like, how correlated taking a cigarette puff is with feeling the high determines how addicting it is. Eating Tobacco may raise your blood levels to the same amount, but it probably won't do much for your cravings because the timecourse is too long.

Pot isn't addicting, so it doesn't have that constraint.

Anyway, another interesting tidbit about Nicotine. It used to be used as an insecticide, but it's absorbed through the skin and potentially harmful. There's a pretty famous cases were a florist sat in a pool of nicotine insecticide, went into shock within 15 minutes, and was sent to the hospital. They couldn't figure out what was wrong with him, but SOP was to take off his clothes and wash him off so they did it. A few hours later he recovered. They didn't know what was wrong, but returned his clothes to him and sent him on his way. ...except they hadn't washed anything, so he went back into shock when he put his pants back on.

[Narol]

I don't believe in Psychology. It takes away a person's free will. Yes some people are born messed up and that is a shame. But I don't think drugging people up just so they can get to normal is a good solution.

Maybe things are just plain different in Canada, but no psychologist or psychiatrist I've ever been to (and I've been to a fair number of both) has told me, "Well, you've got X, Y, and Z problems, so let's get you on these drugs so you can be normal." Meds always seemed to me to be among the last options they ever considered.

[Byrthnoth]

Maybe things are just plain different in Canada, but no psychologist or psychiatrist I've ever been to (and I've been to a fair number of both) has told me, "Well, you've got X, Y, and Z problems, so let's get you on these drugs so you can be normal." Meds always seemed to me to be among the last options they ever considered.

Not to be overly cynical, but Psychologists and Psychiatrists make much less money when they give you a prescription instead of having you regularly come in for some kind of therapy. Of course it's going to be a last resort.

If anything, my original post suggests that the act of taking meds and believing you'll get better is (in essence) just therapy, as the effects of SSRIs potentially don't deviate from placebo (unblinding may explain the noted minor change). If they don't actually do anything useful, then you've introduced a mental crutch into your life. Now your happiness depends on a pill. Furthermore, it may be true and you may actually be dependent on SSRIs to maintain normal brain chemistry. I don't know, the more I think about it the more I dislike this and the less I like big pharma.