RE: Schizophrenia, drugs link?

[T_Bone]

anakirob wrote:
Before I make my point I would like to say

DISCLAIMER
I do not advocate the use of recreational drugs in this forum
I am just stating an opinion

On the link between amphetamine/cannabis and schizophrenia, I believe it is the disease which causes the substance abuse, not the substance which causes the disease.

Just had to get that off my chest.  :-?

Cannabinoids bind to the same receptors as a natural chemical antipsychotic produced by the brain. (I can't remember the name of the chemical, but odds are good KennyR will ;-)), and the flooding of the brain with a chemical binding to these receptors causes the brain to "turn off" the production of this antipsychotic chemical. The problem is, this natural antipsychotic is there for a reason.

I don't agree with locking up hundreds of thousands of teenagers and young adults because they smoked a joint, but it's definately not something that's "good" for you, or even harmless.

[T_Bone]

Anandamide, that's the chemical I was trying to think of.

Anandamide is an antipsychotic drug naturally produced by the brain. it can even be produced in levels great enough to keep a schizophrenic's symptoms down.

Schizophrenics normally have elevated levels of anandamide, but it's been demonstrated that the schizophrenics with high levels of anandamide expierence reduced symptoms, while those with low levels of anandamide experience severe symptoms.

Cannibinoids bind to anandamide receptors, and the brain responds by shutting off production of anandamide temporarily, in a best case scenario. in a worst case scenario your brain thinks to itself, "Well, I shut off anandamide production, yet something is still triggering my anandamide receptors, maybe I should halt production permanently? It doesn't seem to be needed anymore."

On top of this, not only do cannibinoids trigger the anandamide receptors, but THC actually destroys them, lessening the brains own natural defences to psychosis permanently (even if it WAS producing full anandomide amounts). Couple this with reduced anandamide production, and things get a little crazy, literally.

Thank god for kids. Most of the above was brought to my attention by my daughter from medical school. The only thing I was ever able to tell my kids was "It's bad because it makes you lazy, so just don't do it.", now they're explaining it to me. ;-)

Did a websearch for anandamide, and came acrossed this.

http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19393.shtml

The pro-cannabis people are somehow seeing this as good news for marijuana users, because their drug of choice mimicks one naturally produced by the brain. Jesus. So does heroin. :roll: (or come to think about it, any drug taken for it's effect) I don't think they get it.

[T_Bone]

anakirob wrote:
@cecilia: you are the only person posted to this thread who seems to get the point I was trying to make. (and you probably didn't even read the original post :lol: )

Shizophrenia, we all seem to agree, is a chemical imbalance in the brain.

Who agrees with that? Actually the cause isn't that easy to pin down. As far as we know, a chemical imbalance is just a symptom of shizophrenia, the cause isn't really known.

When the substance is Alcohol, nobody minds too much because it's legal. When it's heroine / opium, nobody notices because this is an anti-psycotic. But when it's weed, everybody gets upset, because this is, although illegal in most countries, a popular recreational drug and (ignorant + bigoted) cops / teachers / parents tend to need as much ammunition as they can get in an anti-marijuana argument.

Nobody cares about alcohol or opiates? Opiates are antipsychotics? People get more upset about weed than heroin?? Where the heck do you live? :lol:

Unfortunatley, the link between mental illness and cannabis CANNOT be explored objectivley in any country where it is illegal / prohibited (even holland). This is a sad fact. Some doctors have tried, all have stumbled over the same hurdles.

What do you mean by "objectively?"

We know a few things about how the brain responds to schizophrenia. We also know that marijuana prevents the brain from responding to schizophrenia by flooding the anandamide receptors, lessening the brains ability to create anandamide, making it worse.

Just looking at the set of people who have schizophrenia, marijuana makes their condition worse. In the set of people who don't have schizophrenia, marijuana reduces the brains natural ability to produce and regulate antipsychotic chemicals. Objectively, whichever set you belong to, marijuana just isn't good for you, and has negative effects on your brain.

Even if weed does make you psycho, Marijuana is in my opinion far less harmful than alcohol. I have seen many a drunk get violent or sleazy and generally do things which they would not do normally. I have never yet seen someone do crazy stuff because they are stoned (they can rant a bit though).

I agree it's not as bad as alcohol, but alcohol is already a known evil. Marijuana is trying to be passed off as harmless and it's not. Neither is alcohol. The fact that marijuana doesn't make people violent isn't a good thing, it's just the absence of a bad thing. That's only a selling point if you're comparing it to something else. In that case, why alcohol and not opium?

Oh, and everybody who said something like "I DON'T TAKE DRUGS" in this thread...

...Everything you put into your body affects your neural chemistry. Every time you eat food, your body makes endorphins (babies can be given a little sugar as a mild analgesic), this is especially true for some foods such as chocholate, cheese, red meat. Maltrexone (i think it's called) the drug which blocks the endorphine receptors can cure a chocholate addict as much as it can cure a "smack-head". Processed sugar is a stimulant more powerful than amphetamine, but most of us are addicted to this at an early age, so we don't notice. So therefore. YOU DO TAKE MIND ALTERING DRUGS EVERY DAY! Just not the illegal ones.

Sure, everything effects you in some way, but don't we generally advocate damage controll over apathy, even for things that are legal?

I do believe it should be legal, not because I care, actually it's that I don't care :lol: I'm just tired of funding the "war on drugs."

As a devils advocate though, why should Marijuana be legal, when people like me, who have a legitamate need for certain drugs, have to go to a doctor to get them? Why should a stoner get to take a recreational drug he can buy off the street legally, when I have to get special permission (a prescription) for drugs I *have* to have? Why do medical marijuana advocates not care that I need a prescription for my drugs?

And why marijuana? Opium isn't destructive to any organs in the body, even if addicted to it for decades. Why shouldn't that be legal as well? It's better for you than marijuana.

[T_Bone]

KennyR wrote:

T_Bone wrote:
And why marijuana? Opium isn't destructive to any organs in the body, even if addicted to it for decades.

You forget the most major organ of all. Opium is inherently destructive to brain function. It has stunning psychological and physiological independence problems. And chronic use will eventually cause such large doses that they'll cause organ failure.

Of course it's addictive, but it's not likely that you'd ever suffer from any problems other than the addiction. opium overdoses are rare, it wasn't untill the black market that people started using heroin and injecting it right into their veins, causing all kinds of problems with debris getting into the bloodstream and rampant infections. Opiate overdoses are easily halted with Narcan. Used medically though, you'd see no overdoses unless your doctor was an idiot.

Why shouldn't that be legal as well? It's better for you than marijuana.

It's not. Once you're a marijuana addict (which IS possible, despite denials from pro-weed groups), you're a stoner. Once you're an opiate addict, your life is gone.[/quote]

In the east, when the price of opium doubled, millions who had used it every day simply used half as much.

Addiction is something to deal with, to be sure, but it's not a ruined life, it's just an unpleasant expierence, one that can be treated medically.

All in all, opium is probably the safest drug that can be used medically. medical opium makes much more sense than medical marijuana, but I believe the real push behind the "medical marijuana" movement isn't "medical" at all, it's recreational. "recreational" use of anything will always be dangerous, because the people looking for the high usually could care less about proper use and will just do whatever it takes to feel good. (That includes breaking the law, so forget about the law as a solution)

[T_Bone]

KennyR wrote:
Once you're a marijuana addict (which IS possible, despite denials from pro-weed groups)

I missed that part. Anandamide receptors don't seem to be bipolar, unlike the opiate receptors which have a baseline above "zero" and induced compensation when below baseline. Addiction seems to be possible only with drugs that cause a compensatory response from the brain to a swing acrossed baseline. The brain doesn't seem to respond to Anandamide deficits at all, but apparently only to unwanted surplus. This is probably due to the fact that Anandamide itself isn't normally "maintained" at any particular levels in the brain at all, but are only produced as a response to other triggers, unrelated to the anandomide levels themselves.

IOW's... Your brain doesn't really care if your Anandamide levels hit zero. Unless your brain specifically needs to maintain a higher level of anandamide, (like if said person has schizophrenia), it isn't a problem. Anandamide levels at zero are normal anyway. (Maybe those WITH schizophrenia are able to become addicted, as schizophrenics DO maintain an anandomide baseline, but most of us don't)

Opiate receptors, on the other hand, expect to be maintained at baseline. Above this baseline, and your brain compensates one way, below this baseline, your brain compensates the other way.

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

I got some friends who got addicted or was once addicted (and do not have the slightest tendency towards schizophrenia).

What's a "tendancy towards schizophrenia" anyway? The brain has no anandomide baseline, and normally does not maintain levels of anandomide in the brain. If you crave marijuana, your brain is maintaining an anandomide baseline, in which case it could be said that schizophrenia and marijuana addiction are one in the same. Why else would the brain crave a maintenance of it's anandomide levels?

If marijuana is addictive, then it does cause schizophrenia. That's the only possible explanation I can think of for the brain deciding to maintain an anandomide baseline. Anandomide baselines have never been found to be maintained in those without schizophrenia.

And very maybe there's a link between marihuana and schizophrenia, but I never heard about a case of schizophrenia caused by marihuana.

Neither have I, but how do you prove what caused it? To definatively prove that it causes schizophrenia, we'd have to show that artificial anandomide maintenance leads to natural anandomide maintenance by the brain. Unfortunately, that would also suggest that marijuana is addictive.

[T_Bone]

anakirob wrote:

Nobody cares about alcohol or opiates? Opiates are antipsychotics? People get more upset about weed than heroin?? Where the heck do you live?

If you would take another look at my post I DID NOT SAY "Nobody cares about opiates." I said nobody notices [the link between the disease and the substance abuse] because it's anti-psychotic.

You said nobody cares. You framed the context with the previous sentence that said nobody cares about alcohol because it's legal. You said that opiates are anti-psychotic  therefore nobody cares about it. What I was laughing at wasn't that you said that Opium was antipsychotic, but that that would be a reason that people don't care about heroin. People *DO* care obviously, even in regions where marijuana is legal heroin is still regarded as evil, so I was wondering where you were that tolerated heroin?

And yes. Opium (morphine, heroine, etc.) ARE TOO anti-psych! Look it up if you do not believe me.
BTW...
I live in Australia (Tasmania), where most people speak english as their native language. If only you knew how to read it properly we would not have such poor communications :-P .
[Yankees don't speak proper English (but they like to believe they do), they speak American-English]

You don't understand my accent?  :lol:  Maybe I've been down south too long. ;-)

[T_Bone]

Dandy wrote:

Hmmmm - as far as I understood what was written here, the psychotic people need these chemicals to suppress the symptoms of their illness.

That's one reason for the presence of Anandamide, yes, but I doubt that's the only role it plays.

And if they use cannabis products, you are afraid their receptors for these antipsychotic chemicals are blocked by THC.

THC doesn't block the receptors, it triggers them, causing the brain to think it's overproducing Anandomide, conditioning the brain to produce less in all instances where it feels the need to produce any at all. THC also destroys these receptors, so that even if the brain still is able to produce enough Anandamide in a situation it feels it needs to, the receptors won't be responsive to it.

May be - I don't know.
But as long as one is not psychotic that does not matter at all - or did I get something wrong?

Depends... We know that schizophrenics who fare well are able to produce and respond to Anandomide quite well, while those that fare worse generally have rather low levels of Anandomide. What's still being studied is what role Anandomide deficiencies (or at least the lack of the ability to produce Anandomide) have on the developement on mental illness.

The problem is, there are no people that "are not psychotic." Everyone's brain is psychotic at times, that's the reason for the Anandomide system in the first place.

But if one is psychotic and uses sedative Cannabis products instead of his own antipsychotic chemicals - I can't see what's wrong with that, as long as the effect remains the same...

The effect isn't the same. Schizophrenics symptoms are WORSE in the presence of THC, not better. THC only makes your brain THINK it's being flooded with Anandomide. Similar to the way Carbon Monoxide makes your brain THINK it's getting oxygen, but it isn't, yet you don't feel like you're suffocating, even though you're not getting enough oxygen.

But what do they need to suppress with antipsychotic chemicals, if they are not psychotic at all?

The brain is always suseptible to psychosis, that's why the system is in place to deal with it. I guess the brain is like an OS, and Anandomide could be the Memory Protection. The lack of memory protection isn't necessarily bad if nothing happens, but without memory protection, if something misbehaves, the system gets corrupted.
[/quote]

[/quote]
So you agree with him that Opium is better for you (and me) than cannabis?
O.K. - I'll give it a try!
 ;-) [/quote]

Recreational use is harmfull obviously, but opiates are quite safe. the biggest threat from prescribed opiates is overdose... not of the opiates, but of the Tylenol added to it. (The APAP is Tylenol)

It's quite a shame really that opiates have been abused by those predisposed to chemical masterbation, causing the world to shun opiates as a painreliever, as it is quite safe and effective. I see people who take way more over the counter Tylenol or Advil than is healthy, when they could be taking an opiate under a doctors supervision and not kill their liver and kidneys the way the Tylenol and Advil do. Hell, someone on these boards posted a picture of empty tylenol wrappers he's used due to pain from a previous surgery, and I couldn't help but get angry at their doctor for not prescribing an effective painkiller, instead letting him take this over the counter garbage that is probably not even working too well, and who knows what it's doing to their liver?

No, I'm not really supportive of over the counter Opiates, but it makes MUCH more sense than over the counter Marijuana. Marijuana should be legal for other reasons... namely, it's a losing battle to treat it as a controlled substance.

[T_Bone]

Dandy wrote:

As it is not very reasonable to talk about things without having the faitest idea of what you are talking about, you should perhaps start using maryjane for a period of - lets say 30+ years - and then come back to me to discuss our experiences.

And if my experiences include schizophrenia, who wins? :lol:

The fact that marijuana doesn't make people violent isn't a good thing, it's just the absence of a bad thing.

But the fact that it calms down violent people and makes them peaceful and friendly is a good thing - isn't it?

If someone's violent, they should probably be separated from the population, anyway these are the LAST people you'd want to have Anandomide deficiancies! :-)

...though, why should Marijuana be legal, when people like me, who have a legitamate need for certain drugs, have to go to a doctor to get them?

Why should it be legal in the US to sell maschine guns in the super market - possibly even to Teenies - while they are psychotic about possible terror assaults???

That doesn't really address the question, why should marijuana be legal when I can't get the medicine I have a medical need for, legally, over the counter?

 Why should a stoner get to take a recreational drug he can buy off the street legally, when I have to get special permission (a prescription) for drugs I *have* to have?

Why should a T_Bone get drugs at all (needed or not), while he is so valiantly against any form of drugs?
 :-?

I'm not against drugs. I take them every day :lol: [edit-  <- prescribed] I'm even for the legalization of marijuana, as I think the war on drugs costs too much and is doing more harm than good. That doesn't mean that I support drug use though. The drug war, however, has created a medical backlash in the prescribing of scheduled drugs, where people who need certain medications have a difficult time getting them. Try going to your doctor and getting an Opiate painkiller without added Tylenol. They probably won't do it, telling you that the tylenol must be there to prevent you from using the drug recreationally. basically the medical community doesn't mind if you kill your liver, so long as they can be sure you won't take the opiates in exessive ammounts.

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Can I say to this that an addiction of Marihuana is different than other addictions?
For instance, alcohol addicts need more and more alcohol to get drunk
but a marihuana addict need less marihuana to get high than someone who isn't addicted.

Probably due to the fact that there's less anandomide production capability to supress after years of fooling the brain into thinking levels were too high.

And there are no physical consequences when quitting the addiction.

Other than the fact anandomide production capability is supressed. :-)

But again, there's no reason marijuana should be addictive. Your brain doesn't maintain anandomide levels unless it feels you are psychitoc. There's a good chance that those who are "addicted" to marijuana, are maintaining anandomide levels because they are psychotic. That's the only time a healthy brain maintains it's anandomide levels.

*IF* Marijuana is truely addictive, that means that it does indeed cause anandomide to be maintained, in which case Marijuana does indeed cause mental illness, such as schizophrenia. There is no other medical explanation for the maintenance of an anandomide baseline.

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

KennyR wrote:

Speel wrote:
And there are no physical consequences when quitting the addiction.

That's not what the medical profession says. Side effects of removing a marijuana addiction include depression and anxiety, probably because of the lack of the calm feeling the drug gives.

Yeah, that's what I've seen too, but I said physical consequences. Now you can discuss about how physical these kinda consequences are, but I call these mental consequences because after these depressions and so, ppl become completely normal again (at least, from what I've seen), while it's really not the case with other drugs (like alcohol).

If the expression of anxiety and depression in a patient due to termination of a chemical supplement isn't a physical consequence, what is a physical consequence?

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
damage to intestines, or parts of the brain wich are damaged, you name it.

The whole reason anxiety and depression are expressed by the patient is that the anandomide receptors and the production of, have been damaged, physically. The physical damage happened chemically, sure, as opposed to a sledge hammer, but the damage is physical.

In the case of the receptors, permanently. In the case of the ability to produce anandomide, so far nobody has seen a case where someone who has previously been deficient has regained that ability, but that doesn't mean it's not possible, we just haven't seen it happen.