What cannabis does to your body and brain

Despite humans having used cannabis for thousands of years, it is only recently that we have started to work out why it affects us the way that it does.

Chemicals in cannabis called cannabinoids activate receptors throughout our bodies that form the endocannabinoid system. This system is involved in regulating everything from mood to memory, and so could explain why the effects of marijuana can be so varied.

In “The anatomy of a high”, the second in our special podcast series on the science of cannabis, Christie Taylor investigates what we know about how cannabis hits our bodies and brains, how it affects our creativity and how it warps our perception of time. And it begins with an experiment in 1964 to find out which chemical in cannabis was responsible for the high…

Transcript

Christie Taylor: The year was 1964, and in a lab at the Weizmann Institute in Israel, Raphael Mechoulam had finally figured out how to get monkeys stoned. His mission for the past several years had been simple. He knew ingesting cannabis makes people euphoric, sedated, and induces a variety of interesting effects in the mind, but which of the hundreds of chemicals within the plant were responsible? So, he began a step-by-step process of isolating individual compounds called cannabinoids from hashish, which is a form of cannabis that uses very compressed, purified resins, and typically from cannabis flowers.

He then gave standard amounts to rhesus monkeys, and observed what happened. In 1963, he isolated cannabidiol, or CBD. No luck. Although, it would later turn out to be important in other ways. Meanwhile, the monkeys remained alert, unfazed, doing monkey things in their monkey cages. Then in 1964, he and his research partner Yechiel Gaoni, found the cannabinoid that actually did something. He’s surprisingly modest about it in his documentary by the Spanish non-profit Fundacion CANNA.

Raphael Mechoulam: We separate about ten, or twelve pounds, and these compounds included the only one active compound. Active, we tested at that time in monkeys. I had a colleague who worked in a nearby institute, and he had a colony of monkeys, and he and his group indeed tested these compounds in monkeys, and surprisingly found that only one compound did anything in these monkeys. It sedated them. They didn’t sleep, but they were sedated. On the basis of this particular observation, we decided there is just one active compound, and surprisingly this is true to this very day.

The science of cannabis

As the use of marijuana and its compounds rises around the world, New Scientist explores the latest research on the medical potential of cannabis, how it is grown and its environmental impact, the way cannabis affects our bodies and minds and what the marijuana of the future will look like.

Christie Taylor: This compound was a tetrahydrocannabinol. You know it as THC. The main ingredient of the cannabis high. While Mechoulam speaks only of sedation in this clip, one researcher I spoke with said the lab, to quote, ‘Was like monkey Woodstock.’ After he succeeded in getting the monkeys high, Mechoulam did what any good researcher would do, he took the THC he’d isolated, asked his wife to make some cake with it, and invited some friends over.

Raphael Mechoulam: Five took only the cake without the THC, and we compared the effects. None of us had ever used cannabis before. As a matter of fact, very few people had used cannabis at that time in Israel. Only those that took the THC were affected, but surprisingly, they were affected differently. Some said, ‘Well, we just feel, kind of, strange, in a different world. We want to sit back and enjoy it.’ Another said, ‘Nothing happens,’ but he didn’t stop talking all the time. A third one said, ‘Well, nothing happens,’ but every fifteen, twenty seconds he would burst out laughing.

Christie Taylor: That was it. We had the reason for the munchies, paranoia, slow driving, and all the various euphorias of the stoned mind. I’m Christie Taylor, podcast producer for New Scientist. Welcome back to the second episode of our three part series on cannabis. How we got here, what we know, and what the future may hold. This is part of a massive months long reporting effort for more than half a dozen journalists, and you can read their work in depth over at newscientist.com/cannabis.

We’ve looked back in time to the humble origins of marijuana, the human history of intoxication, and observed the recent seismic shift in people’s attitudes. Today, we’re going to talk about what’s actually happening in your brain to make the high, and what being high really means, and why there’s still so much more we need to understand, both in the realm of medical benefits, but also the risks. There’s a certain caricature of stoners. They’re scatter-brained, absent minded, and they forget how to end the sentence that they started mere seconds ago. Definitely, don’t ask them to remember a pot influenced conversation the next day.

How much of that is a true depiction of the drug, and its effects? To understand that we need to begin with how cannabis works on the brain and body. Let’s say, for example, that you are inhaling the smoke of burning cannabis. This is the fastest way to ferry cannabinoids to your brain, and first, these compounds will cross from the lungs into your bloodstream. Red blood cells then cart them off all over your body. Now the brain, it has a membrane meant to protect it from invading organisms, viruses, bacteria, and larger molecules, but cannabinoids can cross this barrier. That’s where it gets interesting.

David Robson: Cannabis, it turns out, is made of things that your brain and body already has a whole system for. It’s called the endocannabinoid system, which basically just means a system for processing chemicals that look like cannabis, but that your body makes itself.

Christie Taylor: That’s science writer David Robson, who’s been investigating the endocannabinoid system. The endocannabinoid system has two major components. First, the brain and nervous system.

David Robson: Your body makes these endocannabinoids, you have receptors in your brain and neurons that know exactly what to do with the cannabinoids from cannabis.

Christie Taylor: These are called the CB1 receptors. CB for cannabinoid, and when they bind to the THC and other cannabis compounds in your blood they change shape and effectively turn on. They’re activated. The cannabinoids activate your CB1 receptors based on their own individual shape and chemistry. A flood of calcium is released, which is essential for the movement of certain neurotransmitters, which are your brain’s chemical messengers. Everything you feel basically is thanks to a neurotransmitter.

David Robson: It’s like a stop light. The cannabinoids, and neurotransmitters are guiding the flow of traffic in the networks of neurons that your brain contains. Depending on which region of your brain you look at, your endocannabinoid system can guide your mental, and even your physical state.

Christie Taylor: Activating the CB1 receptor immediately tamps down your stress and anxiety responses, while increasing the release of dopamine. That’s the neurotransmitter that powers your brain’s reward system. Research over the last two decades has found these receptors connected to a vast array of your body’s processes, sleep, memory, learning, pain, appetite, and even inflammation.

Now remember this is a system for recognising similar messenger chemicals that your body already makes. The exercise induced euphoria known as the runner’s high, once thought to be the produce of endorphins, actually seems to involve your endocannabinoid system, and these home-made, home cooked cannabinoids. While we haven’t found all of these endo, or internal cannabinoids, scientists have started to identify them. We found the first in 1992, also with help from Raphael Mechoulam, and its name, anandamide, derived from the Sanskrit term for euphoria, or bliss.

David Robson: What we’re now learning about the endocannabinoid system can explain, for example, why so many people seem to find pot useful for chronic pain. THC binds to CB1 receptors in the part of the brain that modulates your perception of pain. Cannabis compounds may also damp down the pain signals travelling through your nervous system. They can activate a second set of receptors in your immune system called your CB2 receptors. These seem to soothe immune responses like the inflammation around nerve endings that come with certain health conditions, and can be another source of pain.

Christie Taylor: The endocannabinoid system is ancient. It dates all the way back to before the Cambrian explosion, around 600 million years ago. There’s one in every animal, except for insects, and by every animal I mean every animal no matter how simple their nervous system. So, why aren’t we high all the time if our bodies make our own cannabinoids without any help from pot? There are enzymes for that, which rapidly break down neurotransmitters after they are released, and endocannabinoids are produced at much, much lower levels than what you might consume while smoking a joint, or just eating an edible. So, they’re just not around long enough, or in great enough amounts to create the same effect as the stuff we smoke, eat, or vape.

Grace Wade: How cannabis affects memory is a lot more complicated than the usual stereotype of stoners.

Christie Taylor: Grace Wade has been investigating the extensive research into reefer and memory. For starters, she says, “Memory is far more complicated than you think.”

Grace Wade: So, first you have long-term memory, which is where you store a memory for years, your lifetime. Then you have short-term memory, which is where you story your memory just for a few minutes. Then you have working memory, which is where we plan and carry out our behaviours.

Christie Taylor: It’s like a cognitive tool belt, or workbench. We can pull information out of our long-term memory, and use it to do mental math, process arguments, and other complex cognition. This is what acute marijuana use impairs. That’s obvious if you talk to any intoxicated person. They’re just much more likely to lose their train of thought.

Grace Wade: Researchers think that THC is to blame here. The CB1 receptors it binds to are in regions of the brain involved in memory as well. So, the hippocampus, cerebellum, and neocortex. It appears that what THC does when it triggers these receptors is block of ability to store new information. So, if you ask a group of people to memorise a list of words, and then identify those same words later, the intoxicated people are about half as accurate on average.

Christie Taylor: Good luck trying to have any important conversations. Probably better to wait until you’re sober. On the other hand, THC does appear to interfere with your ability to access things that you knew before you got high. If you memorised the words and then got stoned, you’d be much more accurate. Then there’s the interesting thing that happens when you mix THC with CBD. That’s the less psychoactive chemical that is nonetheless interesting for its calming properties.

Grace Wade: CBD seems to reduce the memory impairing effects of THC. So, if we go back one more time to those people who memorise the list of words. If you give them THC with CBD their accuracy was about the same as if they were sober. So, it may literally depend on what you’re smoking in terms of which compounds are in the stream.

Christie Taylor: This combination effect, it has a name, it’s called the entourage effect. That is how you experience one cannabinoid separately will seem to be very different from how all of the chemicals in cannabis act together on your brain, and it happens a lot. THC on its own has one effect that’s maybe a little too much, but then THC with CBD is a more balanced beneficial version. Researchers studying cannabis are still trying to understand how THC, CBD, and the dozens of other cannabinoids are working in concert on your brain, but it’s very clear that it’s a group effort.

What’s less clear about cannabis and memory is how prolonged chronic exposure to THC can affect you. It may, for example, degrade your very important CB1 receptors, and therefore reduce the number in your brain. Some studies also show that people who frequently use cannabis have worse overall long-term, short-term, and working memory than those who don’t. Especially, if they started younger, like in adolescence.

Grace Wade: The picture here is pretty complicated. There was a study back in 2007 in a small number of teenagers who had stopped consuming the drug for a month. They performed as well on a working memory task as those who had never used the drug. However, their brains appeared to be working harder to do the same tasks. So, because of that there is still worry among the research community that using cannabis while your brain is developing may change your cognitive function in a way that can’t be completely reversed.

Christie Taylor: Another key part of the stoner caricature is creativity. We associate pot smoking with ingenuity, and unconventional thought. Time itself seems to warp for some people under the influence. Music gains new layers and texture. Visual art may pop in unexpected, and entrancing ways. Ideas just seem to pour forth from the stoned mind. Scientist and author Carl Sagan said this about his experiences back in 1969.

Carl Sagan (voice actor): When I closed my eyes I was stunned to find that there was a movie going on the inside of my eyelids. Flash, a simple country scene with a red farmhouse, a blue sky, white clouds, yellow path meandering over green hills to the horizon. Flash, same scene, orange house, brown sky, red clouds, yellow path, violet fields. Flash, flash, flash. The flashes came about once a heartbeat. Each flash brought the same simple scene into view, but each time with a different set of colours, exquisitely deep hues, and astonishingly harmonious in their juxtaposition. The cannabis experience has greatly improved my appreciation for art, a subject which I had never much appreciated before. The understanding of the intent of the artist which I can achieve when high, sometimes carries over to when I’m down. A very similar improvement in my appreciation of music has occurred with cannabis. For the first time I have been able to hear the separate parts of a three-part harmony, and the richness of the counterpoint.

Christie Taylor: So, given this conception, does cannabis actually make you more creative? It turns out research finds not so much. You just think you’re more creative. The mood busting euphoria may be useful if you’re the perfectionist type plagued by writer’s block. Researchers have tried to find a link between cannabis and creative thinking, but they found that volunteers tested on this question don’t offer particularly novel ideas. They do, however, seem to rate their ideas, and those of other people, as more creative. Almost as if being in a good mood just makes you like more things. Sagan, by the way, he, like many before and after him, stood by his dazzling THC influenced thoughts.

Carl Sagan (voice actor): There is a myth about such highs. The user has an illusion of great insight, but it does not survive scrutiny in the morning. I am convinced that this is an error, and that the devastating insights achieved when high are real insights.

Christie Taylor: The time thing though, that’s mostly still a mystery. We know it happens. There’s evidence, and anecdote to shore up this experience. People who are high will move slower, take longer to answer a question. They consistently report feeling that time is moving slower. Though, occasionally, someone will also report feeling it move faster. Why does this happen? There are several theories, but in mice, not human brains, we have a clue favouring one idea in particular. Maybe THC is flooding a small section of our brain known as the suprachiasmatic nucleus, the SCN. This is like the gear that regulates our body’s internal clock, and if this is what’s happening THC maybe binding to the CB1 receptors in this region, and sending the neurons into overdrive, either speeding up, or slowing down our internal understanding of the passage of time.

There is still so much that we don’t know about how cannabis affects us, like the individual variation, how people even respond to cannabis in the first place. It’s not just about memory, or pain, but even more dramatic, and important instances. Some people, for example, have psychosis-like responses to consumption, with symptoms similar to schizophrenia.

It’s likely that the things that are good are most good for some people, but also that the risks are most risky for some people. So, how do we identify who should get a cannabis recommendation in the first place, and who should be advised to steer clear? As weed gets more potent, and more popular, researchers invested in understanding cannabis better are universally lamenting the lack of understanding we have compared to substances like alcohol, and tobacco. The number of published studies lags by an order of magnitude. If you search for cannabis in PubMed, which is database of medical research, you’ll find about 33,000 papers. If you search for alcohol that number is over 1 million. Alexis Wnuk looked at this research gap.

Alexis Wnuk: Research into cannabis really only started in earnest two decades ago. It picked up steam in the late 1990s and early 2000s, beginning with studies showing that marijuana could reduce nausea in people with HIV, and in those undergoing chemotherapy. Since then the field has exploded, but it’s still very much behind.

Christie Taylor: In the United States this gap is partly because of government limitations on how, and under what conditions you can study cannabis.

Alexis Wnuk: Researchers have to get a special licence from the Drug Enforcement Administration, and they can only study cannabis growing at licenced facilities. Prior to 2021, there was only one of these in the whole country. Some researchers have noted that this government sanctioned pot can be a lot different from what consumers are buying from dispensaries, and dealers. Namely, that it’s a lot less potent.

Christie Taylor: It’s actually remarkable in some ways that Raphael Mechoulam was able to study hash that people were actually using, which he bought, by the way, from the local police. Similar restrictions have also encumbered research in Canada. Research in the United Kingdom was limited until 2018 legalisation of medical marijuana. Even if you personally want to limit marijuana’s use to medical purposes, there’s still a value in knowing things that we currently don’t, like what’s the appropriate dose for pain versus nausea.

Alexis Wnuk: What are the long-term effects? Are the contents, and potencies listed on the label even accurate? Often, the answer to that is no. Research into CBD only products has repeatedly found that labels often under, or over estimate the amount of CBD inside. Some also contain trace amounts of THC, which isn’t good if you aren’t expecting it. How are the products produced? Is there any kind of quality control? How do people really use them? What kinds of products do they use? How much do they take? There are a lot of potentially meaningful differences between the way people use marijuana in controlled research settings, and how they use it in their regular lives.

Christie Taylor: Maybe most importantly, how does the endocannabinoid system in our bodies influence our broader health, both mental and physical. Those CB1 receptors that I mentioned earlier while we were talking about the high, those receptors are also in your liver, your fat, your reproductive tissues, your vascular tissues, even your bone. So, beyond effects in the brain and the immune system, how could cannabis affect the rest of our tissues? Cannabis is showing genuine promise to help people with autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis, and Crohn’s disease manage their symptoms. CBD in particular is helping treat rare forms of epilepsy.

For all the promising medical uses with decent evidence, there are many more worth exploring. Can weed work for opioid addiction, or PTSD? What about ALS, glaucoma, or migraines? There is some evidence for each of these, but a glaring lack of human clinical trials. Peter Grinspoon is a cannabis specialist who treats people with opioid use disorder, and other conditions in Boston, Massachusetts. His father, Lester Grinspoon, was one of the early researchers of cannabis in the 1960s. He says the lens through which researchers have looked in the past has also limited what we can know.

Peter Grinspoon: Over the last 50 years most of the researchers looked into harms not benefits. To be funded as a researcher to study cannabis you had to show a drop in something. You had a dropped sperm count, or IQ, you know, none of those actually turned out to be true. So, unfortunately, we don’t know as much as we would know if we were neutrally investigating cannabis not with a presupposition of, and a desire to find harm, but with a general neutral, ‘Is this harmful, or is this beneficial?’

Christie Taylor: This is about the risks as well as the benefits. Teenagers’ brains appear more vulnerable to long-term changes after chronic use, but why? I also mentioned the seeming link to schizophrenia. Research would help us better understand who is at risk, and why. There may also be a genetic component to who is at risk of cannabis use disorder, or addition, with a variety of negative consequences for their wellbeing. To understand that better we need more research. The risks of inhaling smoke, or vape are on our radar already.

Many studies have looked especially at smoke inhalation, but what about vapes, edibles, and other methods of consumption? As more ways of partaking proliferate those will need study too. Finally, there’s the question of who has the necessary expertise in what is already known. Even as research picks up a 2017 study found medical practitioners remain undereducated about the state of that research. Only one in ten medical schools at that time were offering education related to medical marijuana, which begs the question, if doctors aren’t even studying the existing science, how can we put that science into action in ways that maximise benefits, and minimise harms? I’ll let Peter Grinspoon have the last word.

Peter Grinspoon: We’ve been using cannabis, you know, through a lot of our human journey really amazingly, but the endocannabinoid system far pre-dates. The sad part is that because of the war on drugs this just hasn’t been studied. We’re very late in the learning about this. We’ve known about the other neurotransmitter systems, or many of them, for 100 years. We just are, sort of, learning about the endocannabinoid system in the 1990s. Regardless of whether you’re pro, or anti-cannabis, or neutral, or don’t care about cannabis, you have to know about the endocannabinoid system, because it’s like the traffic control system for all of our other neurotransmitters.

Christie Taylor: Researchers are catching up as governments themselves open up new avenues for science. The United States has relaxed regulations on that research, and is paving the way to provide more sources of science approved cannabis. So, as popularity soars, what does our future with this plant hold? We’ll take a look at that next time. From the climbing potency of modern pot, to the breathtaking environmental footprint of industrial cultivation, and some ways to solve it. Thanks so much to David Robson, Grace Wade, Joanna Thompson, Alexander Thompson, and Alexis Wnuk, for helping me report and write this episode. Thank you also to Timothy Revell for editing, and Jeremy Sue for his voice acting. New York Studio production is by Hugo Fonseca Suarez, and our audio and sound design is by Ollie Guillou. I’m Christie Taylor. Bye for now.

Topics:

Source link

#cannabis #body #brain

The ancient origins of cannabis and our changing attitudes towards it

Cannabis related items on display at Housing Works, New York’s first legal cannabis dispensary

Erik Pendzich/Shutterstock

Cannabis is having a moment. Half of Americans live in a state with legal marijuana and 9 in 10 people nationwide support legalisation in some form. This is a stark difference from mere decades ago, when prohibition was the norm in the entire US. Meanwhile, if you live in Malta, Uruguay, Canada – and maybe soon, Germany – your entire country is one with legal recreational pot. And access to medical marijuana extends to even more countries, including the UK and Australia.

But as medical and recreational use become more popular and increasingly accessible, how exactly did we get to this moment of change? What has research been able to tell us – so far – about how the plant produces its euphoric effects, or what medical purposes it may be able to serve or how it might be harmful? And how could our relationship with this unassuming leaf change in coming decades?

In the first episode of a special 3-part podcast series, Christie Taylor and the rest of the New Scientist reporting team start at the beginning: 27.8 million years ago, when hops and hemp diverged in family Cannabaceae. A million years ago, when Cannabis indica and Cannabis sativa diverged into two differently psychoactive strains. And 12,000 years ago, when humans first domesticated cannabis for mundane household use, not yet dreaming of the euphoric experiences to come.

But of course, it all comes back to the high, and we go there too – the evidence, though still sparse, of drug-related use dating back at least to 500 BC. And, a thousand years later, perhaps the first recorded reference to a ritual not unlike hotboxing.

To listen, subscribe to New Scientist Weekly or visit our podcast page.

New Scientist Default Image

The science of cannabis

As the use of marijuana and its compounds rises around the world, New Scientist explores the latest research on the medical potential of cannabis, how it is grown and its environmental impact, the way cannabis affects our bodies and minds and what the marijuana of the future will look like.

Transcript

Christie Taylor: It’s a sunny November morning in Manhattan and I’m buying weed for my job.

Sasha Nugent: So right now, we have pre-rolls, tinctures, flower, edibles, and drinks, and that’s an array of things that we have. Vapes as well. We have flower and we offer it in eighth and one ounces, and we even have a three ounce bag, and three ounce is the max in New York that you’re able to purchase in a day.

Christie Taylor: That’s Sasha Nugent. She’s the so-called ‘Budmaster’ at Housing Works Cannabis Co. It’s the retail extension of a local AIDS non-profit and also the first recreational dispensary to be licensed in New York City, and if you’ve never been inside a licensed dispensary before, you may be shocked at how normal a retail experience it feels like. Two big display cases wrap around the retail area filled with colourful packages of merchandise, like gummies infused with THC, the main ingredient that gets people high, or CBD, a secondary ingredient that seems to have a more calming, chill effect. Pastel rainbow signs next to the row of cash registers have slogans like ‘make love, not drug war’, and ‘spark up your inner activist’, and ‘we’re smoking out stigma’. The product labels range from slightly goofy and psychedelic to what I can only describe as a colourful fruit salad, and for the Apple Store types, there’s sleek and minimalist black and white packaging.

Sasha Nugent: On a slow day, anywhere from, like, Sunday to Wednesday, we see about 550 to 700 people depending on the day. On our busier days, Thursday through Saturday, we can see upwards of 1,000 unique customers.

Christie Taylor: The normality of this experience has only become possible recently. New York State only legalised recreational cannabis in 2021. Other states went sooner and there has been a dramatic wave of various degrees of legalisation across the US, and even across the world. We are in a new normal when it comes to cannabis, but what do we really know about the science of it? Where did the plant come from? What does it do to our health, for good or for bad? I’m Christie Taylor. I’m a podcast producer for New Scientist, and this is the first episode in our three-part series about the science of cannabis, how we got here, what we know, and what the future may hold. This is part of a huge month-long reporting effort from more than half a dozen journalists and you can read their work over at newscientist.com/cannabis. We’ve investigated cannabis and creativity, mapped the still languishing landscape of medical research, and questioned the environmental cost of industrial scale hemp harvests, but today I’m starting at the beginning, how we got to this moment where I can walk into a store, buy a federally controlled substance, and just tell you about it, and why our relationship with cannabis is possibly one of the oldest relationships our species has had with a domesticated plant.

If you want to feel really old, it’s been 87 years since the movie Reefer Madness debuted. It’s a hyperbolic fictional warning about young people driven to psychosis with multiple murders and deaths all because they had some weed. ‘These high school boys and girls are having a hop at the local soda fountain, innocent of a new and deadly menace lurking behind closed doors.’ (Advert played 03.25-03.32). But now, walk through many neighbourhoods in New York City and you’ll see something you didn’t used to, storefront after storefront with names like ‘Magic Garden’, ‘Smacked Village’, ‘Weed World’, or just ‘Gotham’. The fonts run from cartoonish to classy, and storefront signs, as in other cities with legal recreational and medical weed, will advertise under no uncertain circumstances that they have THC, CBD, or just the unmistakeable green seven-pointed leaf shape that screams ‘marijuana’. In states with legal cannabis, medical or otherwise, you can speak frankly with salespeople about dosages and strains. Do you want help sleeping, or daytime relaxation, pain or appetite management, or a sense of calm while getting your work done? Or do you just want to get stoned off your ass, watch some dumb TV, and laugh uncontrollably while making up new words for hedgehog? No judgement. No, really. Please, no judgement.

Sasha Nugent: I am just like you. I have trouble sleeping and I also have anxiety, so after, like, a day at work, I love the Offline from Off Hours. Like, they don’t pay me. That’s one of my favourite ones.

Christie Taylor: Outside the dispensaries, at corner stores and bodegas, you can still buy THC-infused seltzers and mocktails, cannabis cocktails, and skin lotions featuring CBD. In states like Wisconsin that haven’t legalised cannabis, purveyors get around it with a less potent form of THC called Delta-8. It’s derived from non-psychoactive cannabis and so remains, for now, legal in the US through a loophole in a 2018 agriculture law. Some of the greater glow of legality is in the name of medical applications, which are very real but still under investigation in the case of some treatments. In states where weed is legal only in medical contexts, your doctor can still usually get you a dispensary card for ALS, Parkinson’s disease, chronic pain, cancer and chemo side effects, and mental health conditions like PTSD, and the number of people enrolled in medical marijuana programmes in the US? It more than quadrupled between 2016 and 2020 to a whopping 3 million. People use it for nausea, pain, and glaucoma symptoms. It’s showing legitimate promise as a treatment for multiple sclerosis and rare forms of epilepsy, but when we look at this moment in our relationship with cannabis, it’s also clear that the years of prohibition have cost us research. Because the US federal government still bans weed, scientists have struggled for funding, or simply a sufficient legal supply to study.

The late Dr. Raphael Mechoulam, the Israeli scientist who first isolated THC from cannabis in the 1950s, he even had to get his first samples from the police, and as its therapeutic potential gains greater excitement, the federal ban on weed is still undermining scientific research that might bring clarity on both the benefits and the risks of its consumption. This research is needed more than ever. At Housing Works, I’m presented with three seemingly equal products, gummy edibles, that might help me sleep better. They all advertise their properties in terms of milligrams of THC and other calming compounds, so I pick one called Snoozeberry solely by the promise that it would taste like blueberry, a flavour I liked, and I’m charmed maybe just a little bit by the twinkling stars on the soothing deep blue packaging.

Sasha Nugent: Perfect. So this is your receipt, and would you like a bag?

Christie Taylor: Yes, I’ll take a bag.

Sasha Nugent: No problem. I’ll grab one for you.

Christie Taylor: Okay.

Sasha Nugent: So we also offer delivery, so I put a delivery flyer in case you’re in one of our delivery zones, and I also put a little sticker with our QR code in case you want to order it in advance.

Christie Taylor: Alright. Thank you so much.

Sasha Nugent: Thank you so much. It was great meeting you.

Christie Taylor: Yes, great meeting you too. You’re not high. A revolution has been baking toward the popularity and acceptance of weed. Legalisation of cannabis for recreational use has swung hugely into favour in the last 10 years. Uruguay legalised recreational use of marijuana in 2013, Canada in 2018, Malta 2021. Lawmakers in Germany may soon vote on a bill to do the same, and medical marijuana is even more widely legalised, including in the UK and Australia. In the US, there’s no national approval of cannabis in any context. Instead, it’s a state by state patchwork, but one that is increasingly pro-pot, with 38 states and Washington, DC all moving to legalise marijuana. Nearly half of those are states that support both medical and recreational use, including, just weeks ago, the state of Ohio, and if you ask we, the people, there’s overwhelming support for national legalisation. Nearly 7 in 10 Americans say ‘yes’.

Alexis Wnuk: That’s actually triple what it was 30 years ago.

Christie Taylor: New Scientist’s Alexis Wnuk dug into the data explaining this shift and she found the swing in attitudes is even more dramatic than that.

Alexis Wnuk: So if you ask people specifically about recreational and medical uses, it’s more like 9 in 10 people in favour of legalising it in some capacity. Younger people and those on the political left continue to support legalisation in greater numbers than older people and people on the political right, but we’ve seen a surge in support across all age groups and the entire political spectrum.

Christie Taylor: Republican support, while still quite a bit lower than other groups, tripled between 1990 and 2016. This also seems to align with a shift in how people perceive the dangers of cannabis. For the 50 years that the US has tracked these perceptions, people have always seen cannabis as less dangerous than drugs like cocaine or heroin, but in the early 2000s, that gap got even bigger.

Alexis Wnuk: Around 20% of people surveyed in 1997 said that smoking marijuana once or twice a week posed minimal or no risk of harm, but by 2021, which is the most recent data we have, half of people surveyed thought this, and we know this wasn’t just because perceptions of all drugs were changing, because people still ranked other drugs at about the same level of danger as they did 30 years ago.

Christie Taylor: So why have people swung so comparatively hard for cannabis in recent decades? The biggest reason is medical marijuana. If you look back at the surveys, 98% of people who supported legalisation said that medical use was a very important or somewhat important reason why.

Alexis Wnuk: In the 1980s and ’90s, we started seeing studies that suggested cannabis could reduce nausea and improve appetite in people with HIV (TC 00:10:00) and in those undergoing chemotherapy for cancer, and this started creeping into the national conversation on marijuana. I came across a study from 2019 by researchers at John Jay College here in New York City where they tracked media coverage of marijuana over the years. They took the New York Times, one of the most read newspapers in the nation, as a case study, and what they found was that in the late ’90s, articles about medical use of cannabis started making up more and more of the coverage. At the same time, there’s less and less coverage dealing with marijuana trafficking or abuse.

Christie Taylor: Headlines about multimillion-dollar pot busts declined. You were more likely to see stories like the 1993 headline about a 79 year old woman who was growing weed to help her son, who had multiple sclerosis, eat better, or a pot-smoking club in San Francisco reserved for the sick and dying. 1996 is also when you saw California become the first state to allow cannabis for medicinal purposes with a doctor’s supervision.

Alexis Wnuk: Obviously, we can’t know for sure whether the media coverage actually changed people’s attitudes or whether it was just following the shift in attitudes but what we do know is that, in this time period, we saw a big uptick in coverage of medical marijuana and the people who could benefit from it, so instead of fearmongering and crime, you were much more likely to see a focus on compassionate use for people who were critically ill.

Christie Taylor: There are a lot of other reasons ranking highly as well. Nearly as important for some people was freeing up law enforcement to do other work, followed by the argument that it’s someone’s personal choice to consume it. Deeper in the survey data, there’s support for the argument that tax revenue from legal weed could support local governments, or that it just might be safer to have legal oversight for weed, and if you go back to the perceptions of risk, there were people that said that using weed is already safe and so there’s no reason to outlaw it. Half of Americans now live in a state with legal recreational cannabis and there’s no sign that the wave is slowing down. The thing is, the weed zeitgeist, this wave of stigma oscillating into mania, isn’t the first time that our species has used this plant, whether for highs or healing. It’s one of the first crops human beings ever cultivated, starting 12,000 years ago. Think the oldest profession but make it agriculture, and until 100 years ago, it was one of our species most important sources of fibre, shelved only thanks to the rise of synthetic fibres such as nylon, but what was cannabis doing before humans met hemp?

First, we should also talk about humulus, marijuana’s cousin in family Cannabaceae. You know it as hops, which flavours our beer, but fossils of the two plants have been confused for each other numerous times over the years, which is why genetics may be the better arbiter of when hops and herb diverted in the evolutionary tree. The evolution of plants like cannabis is hard to study. You need fossils, and soft matter doesn’t make the same impressions in stone that bones or teeth might, but the traces do exist and modern genomic science is also increasingly helping us use living plants to scry backward in time. It’s a kind of timekeeping that relies on mutations. A molecular clock. Scientists can count how many mutations the two plants have gathered over time and use that to determine that hops and cannabis diverted into separate species around 27.8 million years ago. Hops went on to become a funky-smelling climbing plant integral to beer but not particularly psychoactive on its own, but cannabis? It’s a funky-smelling, wind-pollinated, herbaceous ground plant that’s rich in oils and protein. It gets you high and it slows you down, and as fossil pollen indicates, it may have originally evolved on the Tibetan plateau at dizzying elevations with an arid climate and harsh, inhospitable levels of UV radiation from the Sun. Chelsea Whyte tracked down this high-elevation history.

Chelsea Whyte: This also may be why the plant possesses its calming properties. THC and CBD, as well as other cannabinoids, seem to protect plants from UV rays, and cannabis may have developed these compounds as an adaptation to its early habitat.

Christie Taylor: And then there’s the question of cannabis sativa and cannabis indica. Seasoned pot consumers know these two psychoactive species of cannabis can feel very different in the body and brain but the fact that you can be discerning down to the level of Latin names might not have anything to do with human husbandry. The same molecular clock method of genetic analysis shows that indica and sativa diverged more than 1 million years ago, back when our distant ancestor, homo habilis, was hunting on the plains of Africa.

Chelsea Whyte: We’d had tools for about 1.5 million years at that point. That’s what homo habilis was known for, but we haven’t found any evidence for those long ago ancestors consuming cannabis in any way, nor is there evidence that cannabis had particularly high levels of THC at the time, so while it’s fun to wonder if there were Stone Age stoners, there’s no actual sign of it.

Christie Taylor: What we do find is evidence of human cultivation 12,000 years ago in East Asia, by people who seemed to use the plant for ordinary household needs. Oil, rope, bow strings. We know this because while the original wild strain we started with may be extinct, it’s closest living relative seems to be in Northwest China and the genomic record matches the archaeological. There’s pottery that’s been marked by hemp cords dating from the same millennium, for example, and once we began to cultivate cannabis, it spread, and spread, and spread.

Chelsea Whyte: It’s almost cliché at this point to say there’s a reason it’s called weed because it flourishes in a wide variety of conditions and doesn’t need too much tending. Whenever groups of people exchanged goods with others, cannabis went too. Farmers, trade, conquest, you name it.

Christie Taylor: It started about 5,000 years ago when the Yamnaya people migrated from the Eurasian Steppe and brought cannabis to parts of Europe and the Middle East. A thousand years later, pot entered Korea through trade with China, and South Asia via Indo-Aryan peoples migrating from central Asia.

Chelsea Whyte: Around 2000 BC, the western Eurasian Steppe was home to a nomadic people called the Scythians, and they carried it on horseback from the Middle East to what is now Russia and Ukraine.

Christie Taylor: Germanic tribes took it west to Britain as the Anglo-Saxons conquered. It was in Northern Africa by 1400 AD and spread from there to the southern tip, and then, as European colonialism so well facilitated, cannabis crossed the Atlantic and spread across North and South America. We’ll talk more in a future episode about the current state of medical uses of cannabis and what we know about them. At the moment, the earliest evidence of therapeutic use dates back to a Chinese shaman who was buried with a stash of cannabis sativa in 700 BC, but medical records suggest people have been trying to heal with cannabis for thousands of years, starting 5,000 years ago in the reign of Chinese emperor Shennong. He claimed cannabis could cure a wide range of ailments such as malaria, menstrual problems, and gout, and maybe paradoxically, he prescribed it for absent-mindedness as well. Western doctors weren’t using cannabis until much more recently, the late 19th and early 20th century, when one of Queen Victoria’s doctors used the plant to treat a wide variety of pain-related illnesses, including some of her premenstrual symptoms.

The drug was even listed in the US Pharmacopeia, the country’s official compendium of medical drug information, but then it was outlawed in 1942, decades into a rising crackdown and prohibition of the plant. We wouldn’t come full circle again until 1996, when California residents passed Proposition 215 and made medical marijuana legal again. So when, you ask, did we start getting stoned? Was it the Stone Age or was it much later? Was there a single moment when early humans inhaled some skunky sativa smoke and realised they felt pretty dope about it?

Chelsea Whyte: The evidence here is pretty spotty but we know that wild cannabis plants have only trace amounts of the psychoactive compounds that get us giddy, including THC and CBD, so researchers have looked for evidence of plants with higher concentrations which we would have had to cultivate specifically.

Christie Taylor: We have a long, long history with this plant but only 4,000 years ago do we start to see the evidence of humans nurturing specific strains for specific purposes, whether for fibre or drugs.

Chelsea Whyte: You can actually see in the way different strains diverge what uses they were bred for. Those bred for fibre have more gene mutations that inhibit the stems from branching out, so they have taller stems and more fibre in the main stem, but the plants that were bred for drug use have mutations supporting more branching, which also means more flowers. Those plants are shorter but they also tend to have more THC.

Christie Taylor: Beyond Emperor Shennong’s medicinal mention 4,500 years ago, the first trace of toking only emerged in 2019 in the mountains of Western China. Researchers exploring ancient tombs found wooden fire pits called braziers with traces of THC at much, much higher concentrations than in wild cannabis. These date back to 500 BC, 2,500 years ago, and they suggest that people at that time were inhaling the potent smoke of a strain of cannabis that they had cultivated specifically for the high, but instead of the joints, pipes or bongs you may be familiar with, these braziers would likely have been filled with red hot pebbles that the cannabis was then put on top of. The smoke from the smouldering plant could then be inhaled. And remember those Scythians marauding through Russia and Ukraine on horseback? The Greek geographer and historian Herodotus, writing in the 5th century AD, describes a ritual that may be the first recorded instance of hotboxing.

Herodotus: ‘They set up three poles leaning together to a point, and cover these over with woollen mats. Then, in the place so enclosed, to the best of their power, they make a pit in the centre beneath the poles and the mats, (TC 00:20:00) and throw red hot stones into it. The Scythians then take the seed of this hemp and, creeping under the mats, they throw it on the red hot stones, and being so thrown, it smoulders and sends forth so much steam that no Greek vapour bath could surpass it. The Scythians howl in their joy at the vapour bath.’

Christie Taylor: So weed has been with us for 12,000 years and we’ve found it at least some level of therapeutic for 4,500 of those years. People have used, and continue to use, it for physical ailments, emotional balm, and a certain mental letting loose, but as the wave of cannabis legalisation in the US and worldwide gathers momentum, what do we actually know about how it affects us, body and brain? Stay tuned for the next episode where we’ll look at what happens to your brain on drugs, and what the past prohibitions on pot have done to limit our knowledge of how it behaves, even as the need for that knowledge is greater than ever.

 As I mentioned earlier, this podcast is part of a massive reporting effort, spanning many months of work from the New Scientist team. You can go to newscientist.com/cannabis to read much, much more about the history of our relationship with weed and what research is starting to reveal. Thanks to Chelsea Whyte, Alexis Wnuk, and Grace Wade for helping me research and write this episode, and to Timothy Revell and Chelsea Whyte for edits. Thanks also to Timothy Revell for his expert voice acting. New York studio production is by Hugo Fonseca, and our audio and sound design is by Ollie Guillou. I’m Christie Taylor. Bye for now.

Source link

#ancient #origins #cannabis #changing #attitudes

Oregon Secretary Of State’s Political Career Goes Up In Smoke

Williamette Week recently revealed that Oregon Secretary of State Shemia Fagan had a lucrative side gig as a paid consultant for Veriede Holdings, an affiliate of cannabis chain La Mota. Fagan’s annual salary as secretary of state is $77,000. La Mota paid her $10,000 a month or $120,000 a year, which means that technically she’s a cannabis consultant who moonlights as Oregon’s secretary of state.

La Mota is the second-largest cannabis dispensary in Oregon, and Willamette Week’s Sophie Peel has some excellent reporting on how its sketchy AF co-founders Rosa Cazares, 34, and her partner Aaron Mitchell, 45, have bankrolled top Democrats while carrying outstanding tax and business debts. “The story of La Mota isn’t simply one of a company’s struggles,” Peel wrote. “It points to serious lapses of oversight by the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission.”

Peel reported Friday:

The La Mota chain and its owners have been issued more than $7 million in state and federal tax liens in recent years and have been sued in Oregon circuit courts 30 times. Many of the complaints allege nonpayment of bills. As Cazares and Mitchell’s troubles accumulated, they and their companies contributed more than $200,000 to top Democratic politicians, including Gov. Tina Kotek, Fagan and Senate President Rob Wagner (D-Lake Oswego).

Peel had followed up with Fagan and Gov. Tina Kotek about donations Cazares and Mitchell made to their political campaigns. That’s when it was revealed that Fagan was on La Mota’s payroll. This seemed like an obvious conflict of interest, as her office doesn’t just oversee the state’s elections but audits the state’s marijuana program.


Fagan had claimed the time she spent on her La Mota contract was “minimal,” but that only raised more questions when, under pressure, she released her big-money contract. The contract didn’t provide many details about Fagan’s actual consulting work, but the contract was indefinite with no explicit ending date. That’s peculiar. It’s unclear what services Fagan would provide for the company. She’d previously worked as an employment lawyer but her bar license is inactive so she can’t provide any legal advice. She has no prior (professional) experience in the cannabis industry.

Court records show that Fagan needed the money. When she ran for secretary of state in 2020, the recently divorced mother of two disclosed income of $5,500 a month, but she was spending $5,889 a month ($1,974 of that was in rent). Her total credit card debt was $67,000, and her student loan debt was almost $37,000. She also had a personal loan of $16,000 and owed her divorce lawyer $4,500 for apparently getting her the “poverty special” settlement.

These disclosures are public record and easily available to anyone, particularly those who might see it as potential leverage.

According to Willamette Week, Fagan didn’t discuss her side gig with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, which is standard protocol when a state employee has a possible conflict. Fagan started working for La Mota in February, and the company was her first and only consulting client. The $10,000 a month she received was just her base salary. Fagan could also pull in $30,000 bonuses for each license she helped Veriede Holdings obtain outside the states of Oregon and New Mexico.

Fagan valiantly recused herself in February from an audit of the OLCC’s cannabis regulations, but Willamette Week reports she did so only after the audit was completed. (Damn reporters and their access to calendars!) Willamette Week obtained documents showing “that more than a year ago, Fagan told staff in the Audits Division to interview Cazares, the La Mota co-founder. Emails show Cazares advised Fagan in January 2021 what to examine — mostly regulations Cazares considered unfair.” Yikes.

State Republicans had called for her resignation, and the situation quickly started to unravel for Fagan on Friday, when the Oregon Government Ethics Commission announced it was launching an investigation into Fagan’s contract with Gov. Kotek’s support. The governor also asked the Oregon Department of Justice to conduct a full review of the cannabis audit. Further distancing herself from the shit show, Kotek said she would give $75,000 in campaign contributions she’d received from Cazares, Mitchell, and La Mota to the Oregon Food Bank.

Monday, Fagan was suitably contrite but seemed to believe she could weather the escalating scandal.

“I owe the people of Oregon an apology. I exercised poor judgment by contracting with a company that is owned by my significant political donors and is regulated by an agency that was under audit by my Audits Division,” Fagan said. “I am sorry for harming the trust that I’ve worked so hard to build with you over the last few years, and I will spend the next two years working hard to rebuild it.”

By Tuesday, Fagan appeared to have come down from her denial high. She released a statement announcing her resignation, effective next Monday:

While I am confident that the ethics investigation will show that I followed the state’s legal and ethical guidelines in trying to make ends meet for my family, it is clear that my actions have become a distraction from the important and critical work of the Secretary of State’s office.

Protecting our state’s democracy and ensuring faith in our elected leaders — these are the reasons I ran for this office. They are also the reasons I will be submitting my resignation today.

Yeah, no, politicians rarely resign when they are truly “confident” that an ethics investigation will exonerate them. Fagan’s chief of staff, Emily McLain, also submitted her resignation. Under state law, Kotek will name a replacement, who’ll have to settle for weekend shifts at Burgerville if they need extra cash.

That’s how fast an ethics scandal is resolved when you’re not a Supreme Court justice.

[Willamette Week/ Politico]

Follow Stephen Robinson on Twitter if it still exists.

Catch SER on his new podcast, The Play Typer Guy.

Did you know SER has his own YouTube Channel? Well, now you do, so go subscribe right now!

Click the widget to keep your Wonkette ad-free and feisty.



Source link

#Oregon #Secretary #States #Political #Career #Smoke