cannabisnews.com: Genes May Play Role in Pot Addiction





Genes May Play Role in Pot Addiction
Posted by CN Staff on March 15, 2005 at 00:04:06 PT
By Adam Dylewski 
Source: Daily Cardinal
The number of people enrolled in marijuana treatment and rehabilitation programs has surged, approximately tripling from 1992 to 2002. The government uses this statistic to argue marijuana is addictive and that current strains of the drug have become more potent. Proponents of marijuana legalization disagree, arguing that the rise in enrollment in these programs reflects people being forced into them by court rulings.
This controversy has rekindled debates as to whether marijuana is indeed addictive, and what effects it has on the body.Marijuana, derived from the plant Cannabis sativa, gets most of its psychoactive potency from a compound called THC, which mimics a naturally occurring molecule called anandamide, a name derived from the Sanskrit word for 'bliss' because of its euphoric effects. THC acts on existing receptors in the brain, unlike cocaine, alcohol and other related drugs, which act by disrupting brain processes.Minutes after the drug is ingested, THC molecules fit into these receptors and stimulate a genetic response in the body to make more receptors. This genetic component of marijuana use explains why different people experience different effects from marijuana, and why many users don't get "high" the first time they try it, but feel the effect becoming more pronounced with subsequent use.But is marijuana addictive in the way, say, alcohol or cigarettes can be?It would depend on your definition of addiction, said Charles Landry, UW-Madison assistant professor of psychiatry. Quoting the American Psychiatric Association, Landry said a person is defined as an addict when he feels compelled to take the drug, when he has trouble limiting his intake and when he suffers withdrawal symptoms without the drug. Mark Marnocha, a UW-Madison clinician and consultant for alcohol and drug abuse treatment facilities, added, "The degree of addictiveness of marijuana or any other drug depends in part on the user's genetics and emotional state, and also upon how quickly and pleasurably the drug alters brain functions." The link between addiction and one's genes, specifically, has been demonstrated via twin studies where both siblings showed an affinity for marijuana and its specific effects on their bodies.So, as with alcoholism, a person may be genetically predisposed to abuse marijuana. However, a marijuana user experiences less severe withdrawal symptoms than an alcoholic does during detoxification. The withdrawal effects of alcohol are potentially fatal. Defined by Marnocha as the "temporary and unpleasant destabilizing of the nervous system" that arises after ceasing use, marijuana withdrawal has some unpleasant effects, but is not life-threatening. Once the withdrawal symptoms cease, Marnocha said, the marijuana craving "is generally more of a long-term problem. ... Craving is a result of memory and learning, and represents the strong anticipatory reactions set off by memories or reminders or rituals and situations which are associated with use." While casual users can quit without much discomfort, heavy users that had highly euphoric and anxiety-reducing experiences with marijuana may be overwhelmed by this craving and relapse. According to Marnocha, it does seem that most marijuana nowadays is stronger than was marijuana available in the 1960s. This could be, another potential cause for the increase in the number of people currently receiving treatment since those users "who find intense euphoria or pain reduction in marijuana use could progress more quickly to very high levels of marijuana ... more rapidly than earlier generations of users."According to statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 57 percent of patients in treatment facilities were sent there by court orders in 1999, versus 48 percent in 1993. Source: Daily Cardinal (WI Edu)Author: Adam Dylewski Published: March 15, 2005Copyright: 2005 The Daily Cardinal Contact: letters dailycardinal.comWebsite: http://www.cardinal.wisc.edu/Related Article:More Seek Help for Marijuana Addictionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20320.shtmlCannabisNews -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #19 posted by warhater on March 17, 2005 at 14:41:20 PT:
Druid
"Minutes after the drug is ingested, THC molecules fit into these receptors and stimulate a genetic response in the body to make more receptors. This genetic component of marijuana use explains why different people experience different effects from marijuana, and why many users don't get "high" the first time they try it, but feel the effect becoming more pronounced with subsequent use."This is indeed the worst part of the article, but the part about the change in receptor number does not sound bogus to me. While all mammals have these receptors the number of receptors can change over time with exposure to THC or its analogs. The part I don't like about it is the author calls this a GENETIC response. This is absolutely misleading. While THC may change the expression of the receptor genes, it does not change the gene itself. A genetic response is a change in an organism's genetics over generations in response to some kind of stress. For instance, exposing bacteria to low doses of an antibiotic selects for resistant bacteria. The use of this term implies that THC is a mutagen, that it causes some kind of inheritable change in the user's genes. It plays into the "Pot will give your children birth defects" myth.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by Hope on March 15, 2005 at 22:37:51 PT
Far out
I wonder if these guys actually saw the little molecules fitting into the little receptors. Do different qualities or different kinds of cannabis have all the same size little molecules? And if there aren't enough receptors, the little "boogas" make the body make it some more receptors to fit into? Then the new little receptors are screaming for the molecules?Sounds a little far out.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Hope on March 15, 2005 at 22:22:18 PT
Booga! Booga!
You made me laugh, too. That looks so funny. "Sounds" funny, too.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by FoM on March 15, 2005 at 18:35:48 PT
Booga,Booga!
mayan you made me laugh! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by mayan on March 15, 2005 at 18:24:59 PT
Booga,Booga!
Tests Negative in Mailroom Anthrax Scare:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=584211Probably just another staged scare to distract from the fact that Italy is pulling it's troops from Iraq in the wake of the failed U.S. assassination attempt on the Italian Journalist. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by The GCW on March 15, 2005 at 12:17:48 PT
 Cannabis is a safer.
 
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.pdfThis chart indicates coffee is more addictive than cannabis.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Sam Adams on March 15, 2005 at 10:11:20 PT
Comment
I'd like to post a thoughtful comment here, but my hands are shaking too bad from not smoking my daily, lung-destroying 50 joints! I'll come back later, when the hallucinations and seizures die down....(a misplaced post from www.alcoholnews.com)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Druid on March 15, 2005 at 08:41:18 PT
What a load of crock!
Minutes after the drug is ingested, THC molecules fit into these receptors and stimulate a genetic response in the body to make more receptors. This genetic component of marijuana use explains why different people experience different effects from marijuana, and why many users don't get "high" the first time they try it, but feel the effect becoming more pronounced with subsequent use.
This is the most messed up part of this story. All mammals are born with CB!/CB2 receptors. If you follow the studies it was just found out not too long ago that the CB1 receptors in the uterus have a lot to do with how successful a pregnancy is. We have receptors all over our bodies whether we have ever smoked/used cannabis or not.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by FoM on March 15, 2005 at 08:27:43 PT
Arthropod 
It's good to see you!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by FoM on March 15, 2005 at 08:26:43 PT
goneposthole
Thanks for the info on Anthrax. I had to go to Google News to find anything on it. They are just very busy keeping us informed about Michael Jackson on the TV News!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by goneposthole on March 15, 2005 at 07:15:19 PT
a genetic response
wowza!The news is as of now that the Pentagon has 275 people exposed to anthrax. That will cause some more cognitive dissonance. Holy smoke.Not that it is of any surprise to anyone, the way things are. The interesting aspect is this: I was listening to Art Bell the other night and the interviewee said that the deaths of the four RCMP might be an event that sort of presages another larger event. So now, right now the Pentagon is under attack by somebody wafting anthrax into the Pentagon. Just like the Rainbow Farm incident and then 911.Could there ever be a time in history more interesting than now?There are smoke signals rising from the tops of the mesas. Looks like Warshington is under attack today. I don't think the folks down there at the Pentagon are worried about cannabis. Time to get real.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by potpal on March 15, 2005 at 06:58:01 PT
fda complaints on the rise
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/14/news/economy/drugcomplaints/index.htm?cnn=yes
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by kaptinemo on March 15, 2005 at 06:41:08 PT:
Welcome back, Arthro!
Good to see you online, again!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by potpal on March 15, 2005 at 06:33:40 PT
OT - fun read
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/opinion/12brooks.html?ex=1111467600&en=6b1b029377cb274d&ei=5070 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by fearfull on March 15, 2005 at 06:20:47 PT
freddybigbee
Does THC activate a gene or genes that produce a protein that acts as a THC receptor?When you put it that way, it sounds a little bit like a computer virus, or a real virus for that matter. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by freddybigbee on March 15, 2005 at 05:36:44 PT:
Genetic response?
"Minutes after the drug is ingested, THC molecules fit into these receptors and stimulate a genetic response in the body to make more receptors."This is very interesting. I hadn't heard this before. Does anyone know, is this for real? Does THC activate a gene or genes that produce a protein that acts as a THC receptor? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Hope on March 15, 2005 at 05:00:31 PT
Tonight on Coast to Coast Am with G. Norry
Cannabis expert Chris Conrad will be discussing medical marijuana and the legalization of hemp. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by mayan on March 15, 2005 at 04:06:57 PT
related
Marijuana treatment swells:
http://badgerherald.com/news/2005/03/15/marijuana_treatment_.phpFrom the above linked article...According to National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) senior policy analyst Paul Armentano, the federal government and NORML both agree the increased number of teens sent to drug treatment in the past years influenced the increase in marijuana admissions as concluded in the SAMHSA survey.“Up until this last report [the federal government] made all this very clear,” Armentano said. “For the first time in [SAMHSA’s] history there was not a breakdown of how people got there [into treatment].”SAMHSA wouldn't be hiding the number of people ORDERED into treatment, would they? The treatment industry has to justify its existence somehow.THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN...TRANSCRIPT: Rep. McKinney Questioning of General Myers, Sec. Rumsfeld and DoD Comptroller, Tina Jones:
http://911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=500&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0Real 9/11 Science For PM - The ST Airliner Photo:
http://rense.com/general63/st.htm9/11 Was an Inside Job - A Call to All True Patriots:
http://www.911sharethetruth.com/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Arthropod on March 15, 2005 at 02:10:01 PT:
Been too long since my last post here!
Quote "According to Marnocha, it does seem that most marijuana nowadays is stronger than was marijuana available in the 1960s. This could be, another potential cause for the increase in the number of people currently receiving treatment since those users "who find intense euphoria or pain reduction in marijuana use could progress more quickly to very high levels of marijuana ... more rapidly than earlier generations of users."He mentions that those users "who find intense euphoria or pain reduction in marijuana use could progress more quickly to very high levels of marijuana ... more rapidly than earlier generations of users." Now, why would those users progress to larger amounts of cannabis when the amount of cannabis needed to reach an intense euphoric state is reduced relative to increased potency in said cannabis? In LEO terminology, if the pot is more potent, less is needed to get stoned; thereby reducing the potential for abuse and also greatly decreasing the associated risks of smoking. (Nevermind that a vaporizer eliminates these risks entirely,  
this point has been made many times, and is still ignored by politicians and LEO's alike.) I hope that more and more people visit this site, and that we get many new posters to argue our case. The main weapon we have on our side is the truth; that is all we have ever offered, and I truly believe that truth will eventually win out in the end. Because in that same end, all that prohibition has going for it is based on a lie, a dirty money-and-power grubbing lie, and all lies crumble in the face of truth. Now if we can just get the prohibs to understand that... =D
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment