cannabisnews.com: Common Gene Mutation Linked To Drug Addiction 





Common Gene Mutation Linked To Drug Addiction 
Posted by CN Staff on June 10, 2002 at 22:58:37 PT
By Gaia Vince
Source: New Scientist
A common mutation in a gene that controls the breakdown of the brain's natural cannabinoids contributes to drug abuse and addiction, new US work suggests. Scientists at the Scripps Research Institute, California, questioned more than 1000 people attending a medical clinic on their drug use, including use of nicotine and alcohol. They found that people who reported abusing illegal drugs were four times more likely to have two copies of the mutated gene than people without drug or alcohol problems. About 3.7 per cent of the people in the study had this double mutation, the team says. 
The gene encodes an enzyme called fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH). This enzyme is responsible for inactivating endogenous cannabinoids - which act on the same neuroreceptors as the psychoactive component of marijuana. Previous work has suggested that the enzyme is involved in reward and addiction pathways in the brain. The common mutation in the gene causes a build-up of natural cannabinoids.Roger Pertwee, professor of neuropharmacology at Aberdeen University, suggests that people with the mutated gene might need to take a greater amount of a particular drug to achieve the same "high", because the neural pathways the drugs act on are blocked by endogenous cannabinoids. But because these people take more, they are more likely to class themselves drug abusers.Genetic factors are estimated to account for 40-60 per cent of the risk of drug abuse and addiction.Reduced inhibitions   DNA analysis showed that two copies of the mutated gene showed up in 16 per cent of people who declared abusing street drugs or alcohol, but in a smaller percentage of people addicted to alcohol alone. Just four per cent of those with no drug or alcohol problems had two copies of the gene. "Although these findings are provocative in that they offer a potential link between functional alterations in the endogenous cannabinoid system and a predisposition to illegal drug use, alternative interpretations are also possible," the team write in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.Pertwee agrees: "The fact that the correlation has only been found for illegal drugs and the mutated gene suggests that a higher concentration of endogenous cannabinoid in the brain may have the effect of reducing a person's inhibitions about taking illegal drugs in the first place," Pertwee suggests.The Scripps team hopes the work might lead to a test to identify people at high risk of drug abuse. Jack Sipe, who led the research, told New Scientist: "We are currently working with human subjects to determine if the FAAH 385 mutation is linked to any specific drugs of abuse, such as marijuana, cocaine, and opoids, and, therefore, if the mutation could be a risk factor for individuals at higher risk for drug abuse or dependence." Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.802235799) Source: New Scientist (UK)Author: Gaia Vince, NewScientist.com News ServicePublished: June 10, 2002Copyright: New Scientist, RBI Limited 2002Contact: letters newscientist.comWebsite: http://www.newscientist.com/Related Articles & Web Site:National Academy of Sciences http://nationalacademies.org/nas/nashome.nsfMarijuana's Effects: More Than Munchieshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11875.shtmlLooking for Ways To Keep Pot Smokers Drug Free http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11212.shtml Enzyme Could Lead To Medical Marijuana Alternativehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10390.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #40 posted by Zero_G on June 12, 2002 at 00:47:49 PT
Off topic
Today Mr. Bush said:"I'm a person who believes in accountability," he said. "The reason I believe in accountability is because I understand who the American people are going to hold accountable if something happens. Me."Dear Mr. Bush,Something happened. You're accountable.Yours truly,
Zero_G
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #39 posted by Zero_G on June 12, 2002 at 00:35:29 PT
Correction
Well, at least I'm reassured that the National Academy of Sciences should read:Well, at least I'm reassured that the Scripps team, writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #38 posted by freedom fighter on June 12, 2002 at 00:27:25 PT
Aiiiieeee!
I got a mutated gene....   :  
  : : : : 
....    ......ff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #37 posted by Zero_G on June 12, 2002 at 00:26:13 PT
"Wasted Words...
already been heard, go on home and watch it on t.v....""Although these findings are provocative in that they offer a potential link between functional alterations in the endogenous cannabinoid system and a predisposition to illegal drug use, alternative interpretations are also possible," the team write in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.Well, at least I'm reassured that the National Academy of Sciences posits alternative interpretations. Otherwise, one is left with biological responses to legal definitions in the temporal frame..."Wasted Words, so absurd..."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #36 posted by dddd on June 12, 2002 at 00:08:51 PT
......Collateral Damage........
....wow...I got it right on the first guess....the only reason I thought of it,,is when I was trying to think of how to remember how write 'cltrldmg'......LoL...
..MDG......please feel free to look me up......I'm in Newport/Corona del mar.......dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #35 posted by goneposthole on June 11, 2002 at 19:51:59 PT
Fatty Acid Amide Hydrolase
EJ, you are absolutely correct. It is the middle finger gene.FAAH-K You, Roger Pertweewee.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #34 posted by Lehder on June 11, 2002 at 19:39:15 PT
It's a bird all right!
And that's why government fears marijuana. Weed helps people to think "out of the box." Try some, Gaia. Maybe you'll come up with something useful.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #33 posted by E_Johnson on June 11, 2002 at 18:37:47 PT
It's the middle finger gene, I swear!
Pertwee agrees: "The fact that the correlation has only been found for illegal drugs and the mutated gene suggests that a higher concentration of endogenous cannabinoid in the brain may have the effect of reducing a person's inhibitions about taking illegal drugs in the first place," Pertwee suggests.
How would a gene know which drugs are illegal? Look when they say illegal drugs, they mean 98% marijuana, right? And it's a person's mind that knows what is forbidden to them by authorities. Perhaps this is the gene that reduces one's inhibitions about disobeying authority for any reason.It has to be the same gene that is connected to that one special finger that is responsible for the most important of all communications between the masses and those who would rule over us.I think we should call it the Anslinger Gene, because of Harry Anslinger's famous statementReefer makes a darkie think he's equal to the hite man.He could be credited as the first discovered of this effect and its relation to marijuana and to marijuana prohibition.May we all think ourselves equal to those who would teach us to believe otherwise!Raise that finger high my friends! Raise that finger high!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #32 posted by cltrldmg on June 11, 2002 at 17:04:18 PT
the mystery is resolved
Lol, you guessed right D^4. It's supposed to be collateral damage but for some reason I couldn't fit it all in the box when I registered... and couldn't think of another name, so I just took out the vowels. Creative aren't I?!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #31 posted by Imprint on June 11, 2002 at 16:37:50 PT
Mutation
I’m having a little problem digesting the word “mutation” in this article. This article was written as though we know what the perfect gene should be.  It assumes that this “mutation” is a problem. Couldn’t be the other way around? Maybe the “mutation” is to not have the “mutation” (if that makes sense)?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by goneposthole on June 11, 2002 at 13:55:59 PT
And anyway, mutation is the norm
What the hell is the matter with these people?The brain craves illegal drugs, a 'predisposition to use illegal drugs'. A cowgirl's or cowboy's legs form a wishbone shape so they can ride a horse better. Hitler's nose mutated into a penis and predisposed his whole head to mutate into a gluteus maximus.The cistron present in his body did exactly what it was supposed to do. The dumb ass.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by MDG on June 11, 2002 at 11:30:04 PT
dddd...
Your comments always crack me up. If I ever drag myself North to L.A., I'll definitely have to track you down. I'll just sprinkle a trail of cat poop back to my car, hoping that the person who follows it winds up being a very thirsty dddd. Cheers!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by pppp on June 11, 2002 at 11:27:02 PT
.......
...I think someone told me that they add MDG to oriental and Chinese food?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by qqqq on June 11, 2002 at 11:23:10 PT
MDG
...I consider it an honor that you read my offbeat, ribald comments..........I guess you're right,,. ....I probably do need help ........I like to think that my comments make for fun,,trashy reading....This is the only place I post comments on the internet...at least my two schizoid alter egos are obviously connected....I think someone told me that goneposthole is actually GCW....and that Observer is Kaptinemos' cousin.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by MDG on June 11, 2002 at 11:05:14 PT
The most disturbing thing is...
dddd/qqqq (qpdb?)'s strange fixation with eating feline feces. For example, I recall a couple of times he's said, "I'll eat a piece of cat shit" and here, "...sucking the fucking shit out of an already bankrupt national kitty". I mean, I've heard of the cat-litter box referred to as "The Candy Dish" with respect to dogs' inability to keep from eating from it, but this is ridiculous! Get help, man!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by qqqq on June 11, 2002 at 11:01:46 PT
..That's good FoM...
....I guess we will have to be patient,,and wait to see if cltrldmg will ever reveal the mystery of that nom de plume.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by FoM on June 11, 2002 at 10:20:58 PT
qqqq
The only thing I think of when I read the name cltrldmg is!My keyboard! You know those terms like ctrl alt delete! LOL!Oh lordy I have a weird mind! Been at this keyboard way too long!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by FoM on June 11, 2002 at 10:17:39 PT
cltrldmg 
Thanks I got it posted!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by qqqq on June 11, 2002 at 10:04:54 PT
we should have a contest..
..to see who can correctly guess what cltrldmg stands for...
...my guess is 'colateral damage'....?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by FoM on June 11, 2002 at 09:54:17 PT
cltrldmg 
Thank you very much. What I need to know is this a complete article? I can get the copyright info I need but I really want to make sure this is complete. I'll wait a little while for you to respond before I tackle it and thanks again. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by cltrldmg on June 11, 2002 at 09:39:20 PT
FoM
I'm not actually subscribed but I managed to get one of them. The 'Little Amsterdam: Lambeth experiment' one requires premium membership so I can't get hold of it.---It's all in the priceJun 6th 2002 
From The Economist print editionThe street price of illegal drugs in Britain has never been lower. The message should be clear—prohibition has failed 
 
 
Get article backgroundIF THE government is looking for evidence about how it is faring in the battle to stop illegal drugs flooding Britain's streets, it need look no further than what is happening to prices. When Home Office officials and police chiefs meet next month for crisis talks about the exploding use of crack cocaine, they will have to confront the fact that the drugs they most fear have never been cheaper or more plentiful. The threat of crack, the most dangerous and unpredictable of illegal drugs, has been fuelled by the easy availability of cocaine. During the past ten years, the street prices of both hard and soft drugs have fallen sharply. Cocaine and heroin have declined by nearly a third, while ecstasy has dropped by more than half (see chart). 
 
 
In real terms, the figures, compiled by the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS), represent an even sharper fall. While whisky and beer prices have doubled and cigarettes almost tripled in price over the decade, illegal drugs are now often cheaper than a night out in a pub. The cost of LSD, a hallucinogenic drug, is less than a packet of cigarettes. These figures confirm that the increasing resources employed to disrupt the illegal drugs trade are having little impact. Over the past five years, heroin seizures have more than doubled and cocaine seizures have increased five-fold. But Customs and Excise officials accept that they are intercepting only a fraction, probably less than 10%, of the drugs coming into the country. Terry Byrne, director of law enforcement at Customs and Excise, acknowledges that the street prices of drugs have never been lower. He also admits there is no evidence that the efforts of his and other agencies are “reducing availability or increasing the price of illegal drugs”.Neither Customs and Excise nor NCIS are willing to discuss the forces driving the market. But Home Office officials say that events in Afghanistan have had a key role in boosting heroin supply. The increasing use of cocaine appears linked to the West Indies. Large amounts are being brought in by West Indian “drug mules”, often women who agree to swallow packets of cocaine and smuggle them in at high risk for a couple of thousand dollars.Given that the streets are awash and that buying of both hard and soft drugs has never been easier, the government's national anti-drugs strategy set out four years ago looks increasingly like a work of fantasy. One of the government's main targets, to reduce the availability of Class A drugs by 25% by 2005 and by 50% by 2008, is so far adrift that an increase in availability is more likely to be recorded than a fall. The Association of Chief Police Officers says bleakly that if existing drugs policy is to be judged “by measurable reductions of people who use drugs and the amount of crime committed to get money to buy drugs”, then it is failing.The Home Affairs select committee said in a report, published last month, that the government should concentrate its efforts in treating the estimated 250,000 hard-core addicts rather than pursuing criminal penalties. It called for “safe injecting houses” for addicts to be set up together with a large-scale trial of heroin prescribing. It also wants ecstasy to be downgraded to a Class B drug.Predictably, this is all too radical for the government. But the home secretary, David Blunkett, has moved a long way from the policy of his predecessor who, two years ago, dismissed a demand by a distinguished committee of medical, legal, police and drug specialists for reform of Britain's archaic drug laws. A revised national drugs strategy is to be published next month which is likely to back many of the committee's recommendations. Mr Blunkett has already announced that he plans to downgrade cannabis to a Class C drug, which means the penalties for possession becoming nominal. He is also sympathetic to strictly monitored trials of heroin prescribing. The new strategy is likely to focus on treatment rather than enforcement.A new approach is badly needed but whether this shift towards treatment will work is uncertain. One problem is cost. Prescribing heroin to hard-core addicts could cost more than £250m ($363m) a year. But Transform, a pressure group in favour of legalisation, claims that the current regime costs at least £10 billion a year, if the burden of dealing with drug-related crime and prisons are included in the calculation. Almost two-thirds of those who are arrested test positive for drugs. Doing nothing may be politically safe but it is not a cheap option. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by FoM on June 11, 2002 at 08:42:32 PT
cltrldmg 
Do you have a subscription to The Economist? I can't read the article because it's a pay only. I'd really like to post it. If you can just post the article in a comment here I can set it up to post on the front page. Thanks!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by cltrldmg on June 11, 2002 at 08:40:15 PT
DankHank
No, the conservatives are the same. I think more radical libertarian movements are what's needed... these so-called moderates (left and right, both the same - capitalist and authoritarian) think they know everything, so there's no need to look for other solutions (that might upset their 'interests').Maybe I'm being too harsh but it seems that these magazines pretend to summarise the whole political and social life of a country on half a page. That's dangerous, too many people take publications like the Economist as fact, and never question or look at things themselves. Trust the government, capitalists care about society and the environment, the status-quo is OK.Anyway maybe it was only in the UK edition, since it's mostly concerns Britain. I'll see if I can get a link but I think you have to have a subscription to get it online and I'm not typing it all out.Basically the 'Illegal Drugs' one says that economics has shown that the war on drugs doesn't work, and it costs too much money. Nothing about fundamental civil rights, the misery it causes or the immoral tactics they use, only the money matters... Might change some people's minds but nothing special.The one on Lambeth doesn't really say much.. says some man hours and money (of course) have been saved, but that the only reason crime went on was because of another project at the same time targetting muggers. Goes on to say that there are a lot more drug dealers everywhere, and quotes all the prohibitionists saying weed is more 'debilitating' than in the 70's and a risk to kids. Conclusion is that the project didn't prove anything, that it harms the reform movement and that they need to legalise drug trade as well as possession.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by VitaminT on June 11, 2002 at 08:39:46 PT
Damn those liberals: pay-per-view magazines
The article you requested—Little Amsterdam—is premium content. A dubious experiment 
Cannabis isn't legal in Lambeth. Perhaps that's the problem
Jun 6th 2002 -and-It's all in the price
The street price of illegal drugs in Britain has never been lower. The message should be clear—prohibition has failed
Jun 6th 2002 
The Economist
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by Rambler on June 11, 2002 at 08:06:46 PT
alternate headline
Uncommon Freaky Theory Linked To Mutation of Science.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Dankhank on June 11, 2002 at 08:05:52 PT:
don like it?
cltrldmg:can't find "failed exp in Lambeth.Hows 'bout a link ...sorry you don't like the "neo-liberal" EconWhy do you look at it?Think that the neo-Conservatives are our answers?we got bush ... 
Hemp N Stuff ...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by goneposthole on June 11, 2002 at 06:44:16 PT
This is the ultimate Bunkum and Bosh
"Those who claim to be expert in food or sex are to be considered crackpot."- from the book entitled "Gluttons and Libertines"I would include drug 'experts', too.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by The GCW on June 11, 2002 at 06:09:26 PT
Wher' we goin'
To help put this story into perspective, think where Hitler left off.Perhaps they will learn to extract the cannabinoids from our brains, to help with their goal to eradicate earth of cannabis.They will come to realize that they must also remove and extract any gamma linolenic acid (GLA) from mothers milk, (right from the tit) so when they eradicate hemp seed oil, that connection and evidence has been destroyed.This is great for profits.If a cannabis user is a terrorist, then perhaps they are treated by an implant that will make them corporate, willing to struggle for the leagal tender, or HAVE THEIR CANNABINOIDS REMOVED.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by cltrldmg on June 11, 2002 at 06:09:19 PT
Reading...
People, check out this week's Economist. Usually I don't like it (because it's a bunch of neo-liberal crap), but the front page has: "Failiure against illegal drugs" and "...and a failed Lambeth experiment". It's been a while since they did anything on drugs and it's a pretty influential magazine, has some impact on the upper classes.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by E_Johnson on June 11, 2002 at 04:43:31 PT
I think it's the FU gene
It's also believed to be correlated with the stiffness of the middle finger.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by dddd on June 11, 2002 at 04:34:53 PT
...Yes Dr. DanB...
....I hear ya........and pardon my expletives,,but things are getting more fucked every day!..The empire continues to steamroll along,and the Sheeple seem to mostly be grazing about,,swallowing hook,line and sinker the absurdly bogus reports that dominate the media every day....Scuba attacks in the Puget Sound,,,,Locking up a bomber who was probably planning to dirty bomb a major city,,suddenly creating some new homeland security department,,, near total silence on the Enron grandest of larcenies,,, Billions in new spending on "anti-terror" bullshit,,sucking the fucking shit out of an already bankrupt national kitty,,a teetering stock market that exudes ghastly misinformation,and fakeouts to a blindly trusting group of fools who still believe their investments are secure... yup,,,it's time to start becoming concerned,,,in fact,,it's time to fucking shit your pants America!...indeedddd 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Dan B on June 11, 2002 at 03:58:50 PT:
One More Thing . . .
I wanted to point out that yesterday's "Question of the Day" on MSNBC was, "How do you feel about armed civilian patrols in America?" Does that send a chill up anyone else's spine?And, how about this AP story?Poll: Most Americans Want Security06/11/2002 5:59 AM EDTBy JENNIFER L. BROWN OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - Four in five Americans would give up some freedoms to gain security and four in 10 worry terrorists will harm them or their family, a new Gallup poll shows.About one-third of those polled favor making it easier for authorities to access private e-mail and telephone conversations. More than 70 percent are in favor of requiring U.S. citizens to carry identification cards with fingerprints, and 77 percent believe all Americans should have smallpox vaccinations."It was amazing the percentage of people who are willing to give up freedom to get back some sense of personal security," said Elaine Christiansen, senior research director for The Gallup Organization. "These aren't people who were necessarily near the twin towers, near the Pentagon, near the Murrah building. These are average people."The telephone survey, conducted in March, included 934 people across the country. Researchers also polled about 500 people in each of three cities where terrorist attacks occurred - New York City, Washington, D.C., and Oklahoma City - to compare results with the general population survey.The poll showed 8 percent of Americans are very worried and 31 percent are somewhat worried that they or someone in their family will become victims of a terrorist attack in the United States. In New York City, the level of worry is higher - 19 percent said they are very worried and 34 percent said they are somewhat worried.Washington, D.C, and Oklahoma City reported levels of fear close to the national average.(snipped)There is no such thing as America. The Constitution is dead. The people are frightened (boo-freaking-hoo), and the terrorists are in the White House. The rule of the day is cowardice.Is there, then, any wonder why the war on some drugs continues?Dan B
 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Dan B on June 11, 2002 at 03:16:13 PT:
Drunken Narcs
Thought you all might appreciate this story from Reuters. The hypocrisy is overwhelming, but this really is no story at all. It happens all the time.
Police Chief Suspended After Charity Ball 
 
June 10, 2002 9:40 am EST LONDON (Reuters) - A senior British police chief was suspended Monday after allegations of drunken "lewd behavior" at a charity ball, police said in a statement.
Avon and Somerset Police in southwest England said chief superintendent Graham Cawley would be off duty while the force investigates the claims."We have received a number of complaints alleging that police staff who attended the event behaved in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner," Martin Richards, the region's deputy chief constable, said in a statement."As a result I have removed a number of officers, including the district commander, from their positions with immediate effect and a full internal investigation has begun."More than 150 guests, including magistrates and church leaders, attended the party in Bristol to celebrate the work of Knowle West Against Drugs (KWAD), a drug abuse support group.Two retired police officers were due to receive awards for their role in supporting the fight against drugs in the community.But guests complained that officers were so drunk they could not stand up and that others were groping each other on the dance floor.Witnesses were quoted in British newspapers as saying one woman police officer took to the dance floor with her skirt over her head and two officers went into a lavatory cubicle together."Some people tried to have a word with the chief superintendent about the disgusting behavior," Denise Britt, chairwoman of KWAD, told the Independent newspaper. "But they seemed to have no care about what people said."The allegations come amid public concern in Britain over soaring levels of street crime and reports the government may mount an international campaign to recruit thousands of extra officers. 
Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by BGreen on June 11, 2002 at 03:04:41 PT
E_Johnson
I believe you're talking about the "Heineken" gene.I did a little gene replacement therapy when I was over there.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by qqqq on June 11, 2002 at 03:00:26 PT
...........................:P
..you're right,,,I think dddd is in denial,and all the online therapists are way too expensive to fit into the budget of his meager....he can barely afford to pay attention......it's rather sad
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by E_Johnson on June 11, 2002 at 02:43:37 PT
Talk about social construction
Yes how do your genes know which drugs are legal?Is there a genetic explanation for the Dutch?This assertion is bordering on the absurd.Or worse.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Industrial Strength on June 11, 2002 at 01:53:28 PT
online schizophrenia
Maybe you should seek out an online therapist :P
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by dddd on June 11, 2002 at 01:35:27 PT
...Hey!...
..I want to make it clear that I deny having anything to do with that qqqq freak!.....put that in your pipe and smoke it.....dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Industrial Strength on June 11, 2002 at 01:07:48 PT
Human Intrest
Perhaps they feel as if adding the "illegal" prefix gives what they are saying more gravity...Perhaps they don't want to so bluntly point out to all the casual drinkers reading the story that they are no different than street drug users. So is qqqq just the alter ego of dddd or just a shameless impersonator? Stupid question, but every smirnoff ice has its stolichnaya citrona :P
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by qqqq on June 11, 2002 at 00:34:51 PT
...I aint no scientist.......but..
....there are some things about this article that seem fishy.
..for one thing,,...I am curious as to why they use the term "illegal drugs",as opposed to just "drugs"?
""Although these findings are provocative in that they offer a potential link between functional alterations in the
      endogenous cannabinoid system and a predisposition to illegal drug use, alternative interpretations are also  possible," the team write in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.      Pertwee agrees: "The fact that the correlation has only been found for illegal drugs and the mutated gene
      suggests that a higher concentration of endogenous cannabinoid in the brain may have the effect of reducing a person's inhibitions about taking illegal drugs in the first place," Pertwee suggests."
..Are we to assume that "illegal drugs",are the specific focus of this theory???in other words,,are they suggesting that the fact that a drug is "illegal",is relevant to this particular "study"?..Are they saying that legal drugs are somehow exempt from the addictive tendencies they suggest??????to put it in yet another way,,if all "drugs"were legal,,would this study still apply?
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment