Chapter 4. The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, or subscribe to our mailing list, to receive news updates. Learn more.
Aaron E. Carroll People get hooked on cigarettes, and enjoy them for that matter, because of the nicotine buzz. The nicotine doesn’t give them cancer and lung disease, though. It’s the tar and other chemicals that do the real harm. A robust debate is going on among public health officials over whether electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, can alleviate the harms of smoking tobacco, or whether they should be treated as negatively as conventional cigarettes. In other countries, such as Britain, officials are more in favor of e-cigarettes, encouraging smokers to switch from conventional to electronic. Last week, the Food and Drug Administration issued new rules on e-cigarettes, banning their sale to anyone under 18 and requiring that adults under the age of 26 show a photo identification to buy them. Electronic cigarettes carry the promise of delivering the nicotine without the dangerous additives. The use of e-cigarettes by youth has increased sharply in recent years. In 2011, about 1.5 percent of high school students reported using them in the last month. In 2014, more than 12 percent of students did. That means that nearly 2.5 million American middle and high school students used them in the past month. The problem is that nicotine is generally considered less safe for children and adolescents than for adults. Poisoning is possible. It’s thought that nicotine may interfere with brain development. Most worrisome, it’s believed that becoming addicted to nicotine in any form makes smoking more likely later in life. E-cigarettes are perceived to be less harmful than conventional cigarettes, and they are thought to be useful aids to quitting. These perceptions, however, are not always fully grounded in evidence. © 2016 The New York Times Company
Keyword: Drug Abuse
Link ID: 22201 - Posted: 05.11.2016
By JAN HOFFMAN The pop superstar Prince may have lived an outsize life, but emerging details about his long struggle with pain and reliance on opioids will resonate with thousands of patients who have stumbled down that well-trod path. It is a remarkably common narrative in the unfolding story of the nation’s opioid epidemic. Many details have yet to be confirmed about Prince’s case, but a typical trajectory can go something like this. A patient undergoes a procedure to address a medical issue — extracted wisdom teeth for example, or, as Prince did, orthopedic surgery. To help the patient get through recovery, a dentist or surgeon writes a prescription for opioid painkillers, like Percocet or Vicodin. Procedure over, problem addressed. But that prescription may not be written judiciously. “Opioids may be required after a procedure for a few days, but sometimes, physicians practice sloppy prescribing habits and they give patients much more than they need,” said Dr. Patrick G. O’Connor, a professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine and a past president of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. “And the more patients take, the more likely they are to become dependent.” After a follow-up visit or two, the specialist who did the procedure has no reason to continue seeing the patient. (That doctor could also be an emergency room physician who treated kidney stones, sciatica or any number of other conditions involving stabbing pain.) Yet the patient’s pain may persist, demanding to be tamed. The patient, who now knows just how effective these drugs are, wants to refill the prescription. “The default approach is you go to your primary care provider, and they’ll take care of it,” said Dr. Jonathan H. Chen, an instructor at the Stanford University School of Medicine, who has researched the distribution of opioid prescriptions. As he spoke during a break in his shift in a same-day urgent care clinic, he had just attended to a patient who had recently had shoulder surgery but said she was still in pain. © 2016 The New York Times Company
Laura Sanders Ketamine, a drug that has shown promise in quickly easing depression, doesn’t actually do the job itself. Instead, depression relief comes from one of the drug’s breakdown products, a new study in mice suggests. The results, published May 4 in Nature, identify a potential depression-fighting drug that works quickly but without ketamine’s serious side effects or potential for abuse. The discovery “could be a major turning point,” says neuroscientist Roberto Malinow of the University of California, San Diego. “I’m sure that drug companies will look at this very closely.” Depression is a pernicious problem with few good treatments. Traditional antidepressants don’t work for everyone, and when the drugs do work, they can take weeks to kick in. Ketamine, developed in the 1960s as a sedative for people and now used commonly by veterinarians to knock out animals, can ease depression in minutes, not weeks, small studies show. But the new study suggests that a metabolite of ketamine — not the drug itself — fights depression. Inside the body, ketamine gets converted into a slew of related molecules. One of these breakdown molecules, a chemical called (2R,6R)-hydroxynorketamine, is behind the benefits, neuropharmacologist Todd Gould of the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore and colleagues found. On its own, a single dose of (2R,6R)-HNK reduced signs of depression in mice, restoring their drive to search for a hidden platform in water, to try to escape a shock and to choose sweet water over plain. A type of ketamine that couldn’t be broken down easily into HNKs didn’t ease signs of depression in mice. Finding that a breakdown product, and not ketamine itself, was behind the results was a big surprise, Gould says. © Society for Science & the Public 2000 - 2016
By John Horgan I had to ask Anthony Bossis about bad trips. Bossis, a psychologist at New York University, belongs to an intrepid cadre of scientists reviving research into psychedelics’ therapeutic potential. I say “reviving” because research on psychedelics thrived in the 1950s and 1960s before being crushed by a wave of anti-psychedelic hostility and legislation. Psychedelics such as LSD, psilocybin and mescaline are still illegal in the U.S. But over the past two decades, researchers have gradually gained permission from federal and other authorities to carry out experiments with the drugs. Together with physicians Stephen Ross and Jeffrey Guss, Bossis has tested the potential of psilocybin—the primary active ingredient of “magic mushrooms”--to alleviate anxiety and depression in cancer patients. Journalist Michael Pollan described the work of Bossis and others in The New Yorker last year. Pollan said researchers at NYU and Johns Hopkins had overseen 500 psilocybin sessions and observed “no serious adverse effects.” Many subjects underwent mystical experiences, which consist of "feelings of unity, sacredness, ineffability, peace and joy," as well as the conviction that you have discovered "an objective truth about reality." Pollan’s report was so upbeat that I felt obliged to push back a bit, pointing out that not all psychedelic experiences—or mystical ones--are consoling. In The Varieties of Religious Experience, William James emphasized that some mystics have “melancholic” or “diabolical” visions, in which ultimate reality appears terrifyingly alien and uncaring. Taking psychedelics in a supervised research setting doesn’t entirely eliminate the risk of a bad trip. That lesson emerged from a study in the early 1990s by psychiatrist Rick Strassman, who injected dimethyltryptamine, DMT, into human volunteers. © 2016 Scientific American
By SABRINA TAVERNISE Taking a stance sharply at odds with most American public health officials, a major British medical organization urged smokers to switch to electronic cigarettes, saying they are the best hope in generations for people addicted to tobacco cigarettes to quit. The recommendation, laid out in a report published Thursday by the Royal College of Physicians, summarizes the growing body of science on e-cigarettes and finds that their benefits far outweigh the potential harms. It concludes resoundingly that, at least so far, the devices are helping people more than harming them, and that the worries about them — including that using them will lead young people to eventually start smoking traditional cigarettes — have not come to pass. “This is the first genuinely new way of helping people stop smoking that has come along in decades,” said John Britton, director of the U.K. Center for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies at the University of Nottingham, who led the committee that produced the report. E-cigarettes, he said, “have the potential to help half or more of all smokers get off cigarettes. That’s a huge health benefit, bigger than just about any medical intervention.” That conclusion is likely to be controversial in the United States, where arguments about e-cigarettes have jolted the traditionally low-key public health community. E-cigarettes deliver nicotine without the harmful tar and chemicals that cause cancer. Some public health experts see e-cigarettes as the first real chance in years for 40 million addicted Americans to quit. But others, including the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have focused on the potential dangers of e-cigarettes, for example that they could extend smoking habits, that they could be a gateway to traditional cigarettes for children, or that their vapor could to turn out to have long-term health effects. © 2016 The New York Times Company
Keyword: Drug Abuse
Link ID: 22153 - Posted: 04.28.2016
By Matthew A. Scult My heart pounds as I sprint to the finish line. Thousands of spectators cheer as a sense of elation washes over me. I savor the feeling. But then, the image slowly fades away and my true surroundings come into focus. I am lying in a dark room with my head held firmly in place, inside an MRI scanner. While this might typically be unpleasant, I am a willing research study participant and am eagerly anticipating what comes next. I hold my breath as I stare at the bar on the computer screen representing my brain activity. Then the bar jumps. My fantasy of winning a race had caused the “motivation center” of my brain to surge with activity. I am participating in a study about neurofeedback, a diverse and fascinating area of research that combines neuroscience and technology to monitor and modulate brain activity in real time. My colleagues, Katie Dickerson and Jeff MacInnes, in the Adcock Lab at Duke University, are studying whether people can train themselves to increase brain activity in a tiny region of the brain called the VTA. Notably, the VTA is thought to be involved in motivation—the desire to get something that you want. For example, if I told you that by buying a lottery ticket you would be guaranteed to win $1,000,000, you would probably be very motivated to buy the ticket and would have a spike in brain activity in this region of your brain. But while studies have shown that motivation for external rewards (like money) activate the VTA, until now, we didn’t know whether people could internally generate a motivational state that would activate this brain region. To see if people can self-activate the VTA, my colleagues are using neurofeedback, which falls under the broader umbrella of biofeedback. © 2016 Scientific American
Richard A. Friedman DRUG companies are eager to tell you about their newest medicines. Turn on your TV or go online and there’s a new drug — with a hefty price tag — for whatever ails you, from antidepressants to painkillers to remedies for erectile dysfunction. The pharmaceutical industry spends lavishly to get your attention: In 2014, drug makers poured $4.5 billion into so-called direct-to-consumer advertising, a 30 percent increase over two years. Drug makers claim they are educating the public with their ads, providing information that will help you make better choices about your medical care. So in the spirit of education, let’s consider a recent online ad for Latuda, a new antipsychotic medication. A young woman rides a bike off into the sun as we are told that Latuda has been shown to be effective for many people with bipolar depression, followed by that staccato recitation of potential side effects that most viewers tune out. Here’s what a helpful prescription drug label could look like, with facts that are now out of reach. These are question marks because, although many clinical trial results are published, they are difficult to find and compare. Rules should mandate that all studies are accessible. Note the same high cost for a four-fold range of Latuda doses. Often the lowest dose is just as effective; some low-dose consumers realize they can save money by ordering the higher-dose units and splitting them into pieces. The ideal label would have statistics on how many people have serious side effects. Data are not included for these drugs because they may take years to emerge, if ever. Other drugs have well-known side effects. Fair enough. But the ad omits something that most consumers would like to know: There are many older and cheaper treatments that are just as effective. In fact, Latuda is one of 10 “second generation” antipsychotic medications, many available in generic forms, that essentially work the same way. Of course, the goal of drug companies is not to educate, but to sell products. We could ban the ads, as almost every other country does, and which I’d strongly support. But such a campaign in the United States would face fierce legislative and legal challenges. Instead, let’s help the drug companies make their ads truly educational. © 2016 The New York Times Company
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD At the urging of Mexico, Guatemala and Colombia, world leaders met at the United Nations in a special session last week to discuss saner ways to fight the drug trade. They did not get very far toward a shift in approach. Nonetheless, there was a consensus that investing in health care, addiction treatment and alternatives to incarceration would do more to end the drug trade than relying primarily on prohibition and criminalization. “A war that has been fought for more than 40 years has not been won,” President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia said in an interview. “When you do something for 40 years and it doesn’t work, you need to change it.” Mr. Santos and the presidents of Mexico and Guatemala argue that the war on drugs, which has been largely directed under terms set by the United States, has had devastating effects on their countries, which are hubs of the cocaine, marijuana and heroin trade. “When two elephants fight, the grass always suffers the most,” President Jimmy Morales of Guatemala said, referring to the drug cartels and American law enforcement agencies. Since 2014, the three governments and like-minded allies have sought to lay the groundwork for changes to the current approach, which is grounded in three international drug accords adopted between the early 1960s and 1988. Those treaties, which required that signatories outlaw the trade and possession of controlled substances — including marijuana — were conceived at a time when international leaders saw law enforcement as the most effective way to curb drug production and consumption. Unfortunately, several countries with considerable diplomatic clout, including China and Russia, maintain that criminalization should remain the cornerstone of the fight against drugs. © 2016 The New York Times Company
Keyword: Drug Abuse
Link ID: 22138 - Posted: 04.25.2016
By DAN LEVIN VANCOUVER, British Columbia — Dave Napio started doing heroin over four decades ago, at 11 years old. Like many addicts these days, he heads to Vancouver’s gritty Downtown Eastside neighborhood when he needs a fix. But instead of seeking out a dealer in a dark alley, Mr. Napio, 55, gets his three daily doses from a nurse at the Crosstown Clinic, the only medical facility in North America permitted to prescribe the narcotic at the center of an epidemic raging across the continent. And instead of robbing banks and jewelry stores to support his habit, Mr. Napio is spending time making gold and silver jewelry, hoping to soon turn his hobby into a profession. “My whole life is straightening out,” Mr. Napio, who spent 22 of his 55 years in prison, said during a recent interview in the clinic’s mirror-lined injection room. “I’m becoming the guy next door.” Mr. Napio is one of 110 chronic addicts with prescriptions for diacetylmorphine hydrochloride, the active ingredient in heroin, which he injects three times a day at Crosstown as part of a treatment known as heroin maintenance. The program has been so successful at keeping addicts out of jail and away from emergency rooms that its supporters are seeking to expand it across Canada. But they have been hindered by a tangle of red tape and a yearslong court battle reflecting a conflict between medicine and politics on how to address drug addiction. The clinic’s prescription program began as a clinical trial more than a decade ago. But it has garnered more interest recently as a plague of illicit heroin use and fatal overdoses of legal painkillers has swept across the United States, fueling frustration over ideological and legal obstacles to forms of treatment that studies show halt the spread of disease through needles and prevent deaths. © 2016 The New York Times Company
Keyword: Drug Abuse
Link ID: 22123 - Posted: 04.21.2016
For the first time, scientists have scanned the brains of subjects taking LSD, and found that the LSD state mimics that of infants. NPR's Rachel Martin speaks with researcher Robin Carhart-Harris. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Picture yourself in a boat on a river with tangerine trees and marmalade skies. Now picture yourself as a baby. You gaze up at your mother. She's got those kaleidoscope eyes. Pretty trippy, right? Turns out in a new study of brain scans, that the minds of people on LSD function in a similar way to babies' brains. Dr. Robin Carhart-Harris from Imperial College London's Center for Neuropsychopharmacology joins us from the studios of the BBC to talk about this study. So I understand this was the first time that brain scans like this have ever been done, looking specifically at the brains of people who have used LSD. How much LSD had your subjects taken? I mean, what were the prerequisites for a brain that you were going to scan? CARHART-HARRIS: Yeah, so they had to have had at least one experience with a psychedelic drug. So that includes LSD. It also includes magic mushrooms, other concoctions like ayahuasca, which is an Amazonian brew that has psychedelic properties. We gave them a moderate dose of LSD, roughly equivalent to what you might call a hit of LSD or one blotter of LSD if it was to be taken recreationally. MARTIN: So what kind of vetting did you have to do of the participants in your study because we should say different people respond to LSD in different ways? There are risks associated with this drug. CARHART-HARRIS: That's quite right. All drugs have risks, and LSD's no exception. One of the risks is that you might recruit someone who has a psychological vulnerability. So we're very, very careful when we recruit our volunteers to ensure that they have a solid mental health background. They don't have any personal or family history of any psychotic disorders - so those are things like schizophrenia. We have a psychiatrist assess them. We also evaluate their health. So they are very thoroughly screened. © 2016 npr
By Jillian Bell, CBC News New medical marijuana products produced by yeast could soon be on the market, the co-founder of a biotech company says. That could potentially lead to a wider range of cannabinoid-based drugs that proponents say could be more effective for treating certain medical conditions than medical marijuana itself. The appropriate use of medical marijuana has been a controversial topic, with many arguing that further research is needed to evaluate its efficacy as a treatment for a variety of ailments. In Canada, where the Liberal government has said it will legalize marijuana, medical marijuana is already used to treat a variety of conditions and symptoms, including lack of appetite in people with HIV/AIDS and nausea in those undergoing cancer treatment. The most well-known cannabinoid is tetrahydrolcannabinol, or THC, which is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat nausea and improve appetite. It's found in large amounts in marijuana plants, which is the reason why medical marijuana is often prescribed to treat nausea and increase appetite. But other cannabinoids, like cannabidiol (CBD) and cannabigerol (CBG) may have the potential to be potent treatments for other conditions as well. CBG also has its own medical properties. But it can also be easily chemically converted into other cannabinoids, including THC. ©2016 CBC/Radio-Canada.
Keyword: Drug Abuse
Link ID: 22111 - Posted: 04.18.2016
Ian Sample Science editor The risks of heavy cannabis for mental health are serious enough to warrant global public health campaigns, according to international drugs experts who said young people were particularly vulnerable. The warning from scientists in the UK, US, Europe and Australia reflects a growing consensus that frequent use of the drug can increase the risk of psychosis in vulnerable people, and comes as the UN prepares to convene a special session on the global drugs problem for the first time since 1998. The meeting in New York next week aims to unify countries in their efforts to tackle issues around illicit drug use. While the vast majority of people who smoke cannabis will not develop psychotic disorders, those who do can have their lives ruined. Psychosis is defined by hallucinations, delusions and irrational behaviour, and while most patients recover from the episodes, some go on to develop schizophrenia. The risk is higher among patients who continue with heavy cannabis use. Public health warnings over cannabis have been extremely limited because the drug is illegal in most countries, and there are uncertainties over whether it really contributes to mental illness. But many researchers now believe the evidence for harm is strong enough to issue clear warnings. “It’s not sensible to wait for absolute proof that cannabis is a component cause of psychosis,” said Sir Robin Murray, professor of psychiatric research at King’s College London. © 2016 Guardian News and Media Limited
Zoe Cormier Researchers have published the first images showing the effects of LSD on the human brain, as part of a series of studies to examine how the drug causes its characteristic hallucinogenic effects1. David Nutt, a neuropsychopharmacologist at Imperial College London who has previously examined the neural effects of mind-altering drugs such as the hallucinogen psilocybin, found in magic mushrooms, was one of the study's leaders. He tells Nature what the research revealed, and how he hopes LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide) might ultimately be useful in therapies. Why study the effects of LSD on the brain? For brain researchers, studying how psychedelic drugs such as LSD alter the ‘normal’ brain state is a way to study the biological phenomenon that is consciousness. We ultimately would also like to see LSD deployed as a therapeutic tool. The idea has old roots. In the 1950s and 60s thousands of people took LSD for alcoholism; in 2012, a retrospective analysis of some of these studies suggested that it helped cut down on drinking. Since the 1970s there have been lots of studies with LSD on animals, but not on the human brain. We need that data to validate the trial of this drug as a potential therapy for addiction or depression. Why hasn’t anyone done brain scans before? Before the 1960s, LSD was studied for its potential therapeutic uses, as were other hallucinogens. But the drug was heavily restricted in the UK, the United States and around the world after 1967 — in my view, due to unfounded hysteria over its potential dangers. The restrictions vary worldwide, but in general, countries have insisted that LSD has ‘no medical value’, making it tremendously difficult to work with. © 2016 Nature Publishing Group
Ian Dunt There is a remarkable lack of research into a drug that some scientists initially considered to be a key tool in understanding consciousness, and that has since been shown to help people deal with anxiety and depression. The new study on the impact of LSD on the brain is the first in the UK since the drug was banned in 1966. Incredibly, it’s also the first anywhere to use brain scans taken while a person is under the influence of the drug. Nowadays, we associate LSD with hippies murmuring about the nature of reality, but it wasn’t always this way. Between the invention of the drug in 1952 and its banning in the UK, around a thousand papers on it were published. Then LSD was made illegal. The UK Home Office promised to allow scientists to continue experiments with the drug, and it’s true that they remain legal. But they are also effectively impossible. The obstacles against research – regulatory, financial, professional and political – are just too high for any sensible person to cope with. Research using outlawed drugs with no accepted medical value requires a “schedule 1” licence from the Home Office. It takes about a year to get and involves a barrage of criminal record checks. All told, its price tag comes in at about £5000, with a costly annual top-up assessment to follow. © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.
By Melinda Wenner Moyer What if you could pop a pill that made you smarter? It sounds like a Hollywood movie plot, but a new systematic review suggests that the decades-long search for a safe and effective “smart drug” (see below) might have notched its first success. Researchers have found that modafinil boosts higher-order cognitive function without causing serious side effects. Modafinil, which has been prescribed in the U.S. since 1998 to treat sleep-related conditions such as narcolepsy and sleep apnea, heightens alertness much as caffeine does. A number of studies have suggested that it could provide other cognitive benefits, but results were uneven. To clear up the confusion, researchers then at the University of Oxford analyzed 24 studies published between 1990 and 2014 that specifically looked at how modafinil affects cognition. In their review, which was published last year in European Neuropsychopharmacology, they found that the methods used to evaluate modafinil strongly affected the outcomes. Research that looked at the drug's effects on the performance of simple tasks—such as pressing a particular button after seeing a certain color—did not detect many benefits. Yet studies that asked participants to do complex and difficult tasks after taking modafinil or a placebo found that those who took the drug were more accurate, which suggests that it may affect “higher cognitive functions—mainly executive functions but also attention and learning,” explains study co-author Ruairidh Battleday, now a medical doctor and Ph.D. student at the University of California, Berkeley. But don't run to the pharmacy just yet. Although many doctors very likely prescribe the drug off-label to help people concentrate—indeed, a 2008 survey by the journal Nature found that one in five of its readers had taken brain-boosting drugs, and half those people had used modafinil—trials have not yet been done on modafinil's long-term effectiveness or safety. © 2016 Scientific American
Sara Reardon Prozac (fluoxetine) and similar antidepressants are among the most prescribed drugs in the United States, but scientists still don’t know exactly how they work. Now one piece of that puzzle — the structure of a protein targeted by several widely used antidepressants — has been solved. The finding, reported on 6 April in Nature1, could enable the development of better, more-targeted depression drugs. But it may come too late for drug companies, many of which have abandoned the search for depression treatments. Prozac and its kin — drugs called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — were first discovered2 in 1972. They address one hallmark of depression: low levels of the molecule serotonin, which neurons use to signal one another. By preventing a protein called serotonin transporter (SERT) form absorbing the serotonin back into neurons that release it, the drugs boost serotonin levels in the junctions between cells. But the details of this mechanism have long eluded researchers, who have sought to crystallize and visualize the SERT protein since the early 1990s. “It’s tough to make, and once you make it, it tends to fall apart in your hands,” says Eric Gouaux, a crystallographer at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland. Gouaux and his colleagues finally succeeded by creating small mutations in the SERT gene to make the protein more stable. For the first time, they were able to see the pocket in which two SSRIs — Paxil (paroxetine) and Lexapro (escitalopram) — bind. They also identified a second pocket, called an allosteric site. When escitalopram binds to both sites, the transporter protein and the drug bond more tightly, which increases the medicine's effect. © 2016 Nature Publishing Group
Link ID: 22083 - Posted: 04.07.2016
JUST say no. That’s supposed to be our reaction to recreational drugs. The trouble is, lots of people say yes please. As a result, the world’s governments have been waging a war on drugs for more than a century. Since 1961, the battle has been orchestrated via international treaties targeting all parts of the supply chain, from the producers to the smugglers, the sellers to the buyers. Yet this supposedly united front has developed some conspicuous cracks. Now those countries backing a different approach have called a UN meeting later this month to make the case for change. The question is whether the UN is ready to soften its stance or whether it will plough on despite mountains of evidence suggesting its zero-tolerance approach has failed. As the reformers collate this to present at the meeting, New Scientist looks at how the approaches taken by different countries stack up (see “Drugs around the world”, below), and asks what can happen next. Some nations are already taking change into their own hands. Portugal allows personal use of any drug – including cocaine and heroin – and several South and Central American countries are moving in the same direction. As for cannabis, the number of places where its open sale has been decriminalised in some form grows ever larger. © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.
Keyword: Drug Abuse
Link ID: 22082 - Posted: 04.07.2016
By Chris Brown, Chris Corday, Canada's infatuation with getting a legal high may soon lead straight to Mary Jean Dunsdon's Vancouver kitchen. The self-described diva of cooking with cannabis has been baking and selling intoxicating edibles for the better part of 20 years. "I've easily sold 700,000 to one million cookies," she told CBC News recently in her kitchen. To her customers, Dunsdon, best known by her nickname Watermelon, is a trusted brand. Package "I've done it all: 'nice cream cones', marijuana bacon, I've made 'weedish meatballs'," she said. With legalization on the way in Canada, Dunsdon is hoping her underground bakery and the goodies she sells to a loyal base of medical and recreational customers will finally emerge from the shadows and capture a slice of a new market for marijuana edibles. She has good reason to be optimistic about her future in the business of bud. In the U.S. states where recreational marijuana is already legal, edibles — basically any food or drinks containing marijuana — are the fastest growing segment of the market. New Frontier Financials, which tracks the growth of the U.S. marijuana industry, says Washington state's sale of about 280,000 units of edible marijuana in March is double what it was just 10 months ago. For Canada, it's a trend line that offers a glimpse into the future and also a cautionary tale. "Edibles will be more popular. Way more popular than smoking," said Dunsdon. Watermelon During our visit, Dunsdon ground up marijuana leaf and bud and sprinkled the herb mixture over a fillet of wild B.C. chinook salmon. The topping bears a striking resemblance to pesto. "If you eat it, and eat just the right amount, it's probably the nicest thing you've ever felt," she said. ©2016 CBC/Radio-Canada.
Keyword: Drug Abuse
Link ID: 22081 - Posted: 04.07.2016
Mo Costandi This spectacular image – which took the best part of a year to create – shows the fine structure of a nerve terminal at high resolution, revealing, for the very first time, an intricate network of fine filaments that controls the movements of synaptic vesicles. The brain is soft and wet, with the consistency of a lump of jelly. Yet, it is the most complex and highly organized structure that we know of, containing hundreds of billions of neurons and glial cells, and something on the order of one quadrillion synaptic connections, all of which are arranged in a very specific manner. This high degree of specificity extends down to the deepest levels of brain organization. Just beneath the membrane at the nerve terminal, synaptic vesicles store neurotransmitter molecules, and await the arrival of a nervous impulse, whereupon they fuse with the membrane and release their contents into the synaptic cleft, the miniscule gap at the junction between nerve cells, and diffuse across it to bind to receptor protein molecules embedded at the surface of the partner cell. 3D model of a nerve terminal in atomic detail The process of neurotransmitter release is tightly orchestrated. Ready vesicles are ‘docked’ in the ‘active zone’ lying beneath the cell membrane, and are depleted when they fuse with the membrane, only to be replenished from a reservoir of pre-prepared vesicles located further inside the cell. Spent vesicles are quickly pulled back out of the membrane, reformed, refilled with neurotransmitter molecules, and then returned to the reservoir, so that they can be shuttled into the active zone when needed. An individual nerve cell may use up hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of vesicles every second, and so this recycling process occurs continuously to maintain the signalling between nerve cells. © 2016 Guardian News and Media Limited
Keyword: Development of the Brain
Link ID: 22067 - Posted: 04.04.2016
Opioids are becoming the latest serious addiction problem in this country. Among these drugs manufactured from opium, heroin is the most serious, dangerous, cheap and available everywhere. In April's edition of Harper's Magazine, Dan Baum has examined a new response to this latest addiction problem: the legalization of drugs. NPR's Linda Wertheimer asks Baum about how he began to delve into the topic of America's war on drugs and why he calls attempts at legalization a big risk based on our approach to solving the widespread problem. Interview Highlights You go back, covering the war on drugs, I wonder if you could tell us the story which kicks off your article. I was starting a book on the politics of drug enforcement. And in 1994 I got word that John Erlichman was doing minority recruitment at an engineering firm in Atlanta. Well, I'm 60. Erlichman was one of the great villains of American History, a Watergate villain. And he was Richard Nixon's drug policy advisor. And Richard Nixon was the one who coined the phrase, "war on drugs." And he told me an amazing thing. I started asking him some earnest, wonky policy questions and he waved them away. He said, "Can we cut the B.S.? Can I just tell you what this was all about?" The Nixon campaign in '68 and the Nixon White House had two enemies: black people and the anti-war left. He said, and we knew that if we could associate heroin with black people and marijuana with the hippies, we could project the police into those communities, arrest their leaders, break up their meetings and most of all, demonize them night after night on the evening news. And he looked me in the eyes and said, "Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." © 2016 npr
Keyword: Drug Abuse
Link ID: 22046 - Posted: 03.29.2016