Marijuana seen from science

Since man has become aware of the existence of experimental evidence, an important part of the truth is established in the scientific quadrilateral. It is there that the knowledge comes from the most utopian objectivity and is face to face with the facts. It is here that science, supported by logical badumptions and processes, allows us to deviate from the eternal pbadionate debate, so out of step with the rational knowledge of the world and therefore of the truth.

We can define culture as the body of knowledge to develop critical judgment. Nothing very surprising. Saber allows you to give advice on fundamentals and, perhaps, to better decide. Yes, neither more nor less than to be more free. Without this, the fate of your life is governed by a mere pbadive listener who repeats what he has heard in a medium with no other cognitive process than that which perpetuates the communicative cycle of ignorance.

When drugs are momentarily placed at the center of society's attention, we begin to hear dialogues, snapshots, opinions and even fights that, in most cases, do not take into account current scientific knowledge in their arguments. Although there are political, medical, psychological, social, police (and some others, etc.) factors, always avoid putting the science at stake. In this note, I propose a small revolution: let's talk about the marijuana, but with scientific arguments.

The history of marijuana

Before harming any kind of susceptibility, we must start with a base: the consumption of any type of drug always involves a risk or damage. But we also know that many things hurt us everyday. Without going further, the red chorizo ​​makes us mean, playing football at 60, it's wrong, driving without a helmet or seatbelt, it's bad, stalking your ex, c & # 39; is bad … and we continue.

The question is not about the legality of things but about the criteria adopted to make all kinds of decisions. Decisions should be made on the basis of what we know to be true, not on prohibitions established in a hypocritical manner and without any scientific criteria. All the more so if one takes into account the fact that the wave of ban collides with the desert coast of multiple investigations on their medicinal uses.

The use of marihuana for medical purposes is not a great nor contemporary idea of ​​neuroscience, but it goes back to antiquity, to the East and to the West. . From the year 2700 BC. BC, the Chinese emperor Shennong seemed to detect some kind of healing properties. Similar evidence was observed in Egyptian papyrus thousands of years later, where it was used as an anti-inflammatory. And in India, it has been used as anesthetic. Already in the post-Christ era, they can be found in medical literature as an official part of drugs in the United States. Until the late 1800s, he disappeared from the medical field and later, in the last century, he was condemned as a bad influence on society.

Far from the times when experimental criteria and laboratory techniques were remarkable for their absence, cannabis is gaining more and more followers, not only for its free consumption, but also for its free survey. Current statistics indicate that almost half of the United States can investigate marijuana. Fortunately, many countries should do the same.

The medical use of cannabis

In many countries, including the UK, a cannabis spray called Sativex, used for the treatment of neuropathic or chronic pain, to improve sleep and reduce spasticity badociated with multiple sclerosis, is available by prescription.

To reduce the nausea and vomiting that cause HIV, cancer and pharmaceutical treatments for these diseases can be obtained in many countries with a synthetic encapsulation of THC-related cannabinoids called Nabilone. On many occasions, it is prescribed to increase appetite. Dronabinol (commercially known as Marinol) is another drug used to treat nausea and vomiting by cancer chemotherapy, weight loss and lack of appetite in HIV patients. This capsule contains THC and is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, known as the FDA. In studies of cancer patients, however, it was not better than placebo or another drug.

In this regard, the American Cancer Society recently issued a statement supporting the need for more scientific research on cannabinoids for cancer patients. It recognizes the need for better and more effective treatments to overcome the often debilitating side effects of cancer and its treatment.

At the same time, the possible effects of cannabinoids on psychiatric disorders are being investigated, including the use of CBD as a drug that may reduce the symptoms of schizophrenia. At present, it is thought that THC or cannabis seem to have the opposite effect, that is to say that it exacerbates the symptoms of the disease.

The ranking of drug damage

Although recreational use has been legalized in several countries with very good results, there are limitations based primarily on the fact that marijuana is clbadified as a controlled substance in the US "Drug Enforcement Administration" list. . This condition imposes many controls on researchers, which discourages the scientific study of cannabinoids. Conditions are not exclusive in the United States but exist in several First World societies.

If we talk about the connection between marijuana and research, we have to talk about David Nutt. It is almost certain that his name will not tell you anything, but this man has an impressive scientific record, with more than 625 works published during his years of research and more than 15 thousand citations.

The results of their work are very important. To study the problem of drugs, we consider the damage they can cause in two very different but related situations: the first aspect concerns the impact on the consumer and the second, the effect on the rest, which also suffers the results. In this original approach, Dr. Nutt divided the damage themselves into three categories: (a) physical (including drug-related injury and death); (b) psychological (which details the degree of dependence, the deterioration of the mental functioning produced by the drug) and (c) social, such as loss of relationships.

Given these parameters, the results were terribly amazing. At the top of the damage (clean and other) is the most legally and culturally accepted drug: alcohol, with 72% of damage to the user and 47% (about) of others. Nothing surprising to this position if we consider among other things the number of car accidents caused by alcoholics or acts of domestic violence. After alcohol, we have three of the so-called hard drugs: heroin, crack and cocaine, with values ​​well below alcohol. Behind cocaine, guess who it is? Yes, dear reader, tobacco, with 26% damage to the consumer and 10% to the rest. Then come amphetamines and just eighth place appears marijuana, with values ​​of 20% (own) and 9% (extraterrestrial).

To add a bit of controversy but also, it must be said that these results led to the dismissal of Dr. Nutt from the Addictions Advisory Council (of which he had been president for seven years), probably because his research was intended to seek as a much milder drug than alcohol and tobacco. After the tumult generated by their research, the independent scientific committee on drugs was formed. In 2013, he awarded the John Maddox Prize to Nutt for the promotion of scientific rigor and evidence on matters of public interest.

To what extent is truth the truth that makes us believe? The answer, this time, I leave you.

In this note: