Therapeutic aspects of cannabis and cannabinoids

The British Journal of Psychiatry

“HISTORY OF THERAPEUTIC USE

The first formal report of cannabis as a medicine appeared in China nearly 5000 years ago when it was recommended for malaria, constipation, rheumatic pains and childbirth and, mixed with wine, as a surgical analgesic. There are subsequent records of its use throughout Asia, the Middle East, Southern Africa and South America. Accounts by Pliny, Dioscorides and Galen remained influential in European medicine for 16 centuries.”

“It was not until the 19th century that cannabis became a mainstream medicine in Britain. W. B. O’Shaughnessy, an Irish scientist and physician, observed its use in India as an analgesic, anticonvulsant, anti-spasmodic, anti-emetic and hypnotic. After toxicity experiments on goats and dogs, he gave it to patients and was impressed with its muscle-relaxant, anticonvulsant and analgesic properties, and recorded its use-fulness as an anti-emetic.”

“After these observations were published in 1842, medicinal use of cannabis expanded rapidly. It soon became available ‘over the counter’ in pharmacies and by 1854 it had found its way into the United States Dispensatory. The American market became flooded with dozens of cannabis-containing home remedies.”

“Cannabis was outlawed in 1928 by ratification of the 1925 Geneva Convention on the manufacture, sale and movement of dangerous drugs. Prescription remained possible until final prohibition under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, against the advice of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence.”

“In the USA, medical use was effectively ruled out by the Marijuana Tax Act 1937. This ruling has been under almost constant legal challenge and many special dispensations were made between 1976 and 1992 for individuals to receive ‘compassionate reefers’. Although this loophole has been closed, a 1996 California state law permits cultivation or consumption of cannabis for medical purposes, if a doctor provides a written endorsement. Similar arrangements apply in Italy and Canberra, Australia.”

“Results and Conclusions Cannabis and some cannabinoids are effective anti-emetics and analgesics and reduce intra-ocular pressure. There is evidence of symptom relief and improved well-being in selected neurological conditions, AIDS and certain cancers. Cannabinoids may reduce anxiety and improve sleep. Anticonvulsant activity requires clarification. Other properties identified by basic research await evaluation. Standard treatments for many relevant disorders are unsatisfactory. Cannabis is safe in overdose but often produces unwanted effects, typically sedation, intoxication, clumsiness, dizziness, dry mouth, lowered blood pressure or increased heart rate. The discovery of specific receptors and natural ligands may lead to drug developments. Research is needed to optimise dose and route of administration, quantify therapeutic and adverse effects, and examine interactions.”

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/178/2/107.long

The therapeutic potential of novel cannabinoid receptors.

Cover image

“Cannabinoids produce a plethora of biological effects, including the modulation of neuronal activity through the activation of CB(1) receptors and of immune responses through the activation of CB(2) receptors. The selective targeting of either of these two receptor subtypes has clear therapeutic value. Recent evidence indicates that some of the cannabinomimetic effects previously thought to be produced through CB(1) and/or CB(2) receptors, be they on neuronal activity, on the vasculature tone or immune responses, still persist despite the pharmacological blockade or genetic ablation of CB(1) and/or CB(2) receptors. This suggests that additional cannabinoid and cannabinoid-like receptors exist. Here we will review this evidence in the context of their therapeutic value and discuss their true belonging to the endocannabinoid signaling system.”  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19248809

“The therapeutic potential of novel cannabinoid receptors”  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163725809000266

Update on the endocannabinoid system as an anticancer target.

Image result for Expert Opin Ther Targets.

“INTRODUCTION:

Recent studies have shown that the endocannabinoid system (ECS) could offer an attractive antitumor target. Numerous findings suggest the involvement of this system (constituted mainly by cannabinoid receptors, endogenous compounds and the enzymes for their synthesis and degradation) in cancer cell growth in vitro and in vivo.

AREAS COVERED:

This review covers literature from the past decade which highlights the potential of targeting the ECS for cancer treatment. In particular, the levels of endocannabinoids and the expression of their receptors in several types of cancer are discussed, along with the signaling pathways involved in the endocannabinoid antitumor effects. Furthermore, the beneficial and adverse effects of old and novel compounds in clinical use are discussed.

EXPERT OPINION:

One direction that should be pursued in antitumor therapy is to select compounds with reduced psychoactivity. This is known to be connected to the CB1 receptor; thus, targeting the CB2 receptor is a popular objective. CB1 receptors could be maintained as a target to design new compounds, and mixed CB1-CB2 ligands could be effective if they are able to not cross the BBB. Furthermore, targeting the ECS with agents that activate cannabinoid receptors or inhibitors of endogenous degrading systems such as fatty acid amide hydrolase inhibitors may have relevant therapeutic impact on tumor growth. Additional studies into the downstream consequences of endocannabinoid treatment are required and may illuminate other potential therapeutic targets.”  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21244344

“Update on the endocannabinoid system as an anticancer target”  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1517/14728222.2011.553606?journalCode=iett20

Use of cannabinoid receptor agonists in cancer therapy as palliative and curative agents.

Image result for Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab

“Cannabinoids (the active components of Cannabis sativa) and their derivatives have received renewed interest in recent years due to their diverse pharmacological activities. In particular, cannabinoids offer potential applications as anti-tumour drugs, based on the ability of some members of this class of compounds to limit cell proliferation and to induce tumour-selective cell death. Although synthetic cannabinoids may have pro-tumour effects in vivo due to their immunosuppressive properties, predominantly inhibitory effects on tumour growth and migration, angiogenesis, metastasis, and also inflammation have been described. Emerging evidence suggests that agonists of cannabinoid receptors expressed by tumour cells may offer a novel strategy to treat cancer. In this chapter we review the more recent results generating interest in the field of cannabinoids and cancer, and provide novel suggestions for the development, exploration and use of cannabinoid agonists for cancer therapy, not only as palliative but also as curative drugs.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19285265

“Use of cannabinoid receptor agonists in cancer therapy as palliative and curative agents” http://www.bprcem.com/article/S1521-690X(09)00005-0/abstract

Cannabis-derived substances in cancer therapy–an emerging anti-inflammatory role for the cannabinoids.

“Cannabinoids, the active components of the cannabis plant, have some clinical merit both as an anti-emetic and appetite stimulant in cachexic patients. Recently, interest in developing cannabinoids as therapies has increased following reports that they possess anti-tumour properties.

 Research into cannabinoids as anti-cancer agents is in its infancy, and has mainly focussed on the pro-apoptotic effects of this class of agent. Impressive anti-cancer activities have been reported; actions that are mediated in large part by disruptions to ubiquitous signalling pathways such as ERK and PI3-K. However, recent developments have highlighted a putative role for cannabinoids as anti-inflammatory agents. Chronic inflammation has been associated with neoplasia for sometime, and as a consequence, reducing inflammation as a way of impacting cancer presents a new role for these compounds.

 This article reviews the ever-changing relationship between cannabinoids and cancer, and updates our understanding of this class of agent. Furthermore, the relationship between chronic inflammation and cancer, and how cannabinoids can impact this relationship will be described.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20925645

Cannabinoid receptor ligands as potential anticancer agents–high hopes for new therapies?

Image result for Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology

“OBJECTIVES:

The endocannabinoid system is an endogenous lipid signalling network comprising arachidonic-acid-derived ligands, cannabinoid (CB) receptors, transporters and endocannabinoid degrading enzymes. The CB(1) receptor is predominantly expressed in neurons but is also co-expressed with the CB(2) receptor in peripheral tissues. In recent years, CB receptor ligands, including Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol, have been proposed as potential anticancer agents.

KEY FINDINGS:

This review critically discusses the pharmacology of CB receptor activation as a novel therapeutic anticancer strategy in terms of ligand selectivity, tissue specificity and potency. Intriguingly, antitumour effects mediated by cannabinoids are not confined to inhibition of cancer cell proliferation; cannabinoids also reduce angiogenesis, cell migration and metastasis, inhibit carcinogenesis and attenuate inflammatory processes. In the last decade several new selective CB(1) and CB(2) receptor agents have been described, but most studies in the area of cancer research have used non-selective CB ligands. Moreover, many of these ligands exert prominent CB receptor-independent pharmacological effects, such as activation of the G-protein-coupled receptor GPR55, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma and the transient receptor potential vanilloid channels.

SUMMARY:

The role of the endocannabinoid system in tumourigenesis is still poorly understood and the molecular mechanisms of cannabinoid anticancer action need to be elucidated. The development of CB(2)-selective anticancer agents could be advantageous in light of the unwanted central effects exerted by CB(1) receptor ligands. Probably the most interesting question is whether cannabinoids could be useful in chemoprevention or in combination with established chemotherapeutic agents.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19589225

Is The NFL’s Campaign For Breast Cancer Awareness Really A Scam?

“October is breast cancer awareness month, and with that, the NFL has decided to pitch in to raise both money and awareness for breast cancer research.

But how much of that money is actually going to find a cure for breast cancer? According to a report, not very much.

Every October, NFL teams sport pink shoes, gloves, towels, hats and shirts, all designed to raise money and awareness. The NFL’s fundraising effort is multifaceted: There’s the off-field auction of autographed NFL paraphernalia and there’s the NFL online store that entices shoppers to purchase officially licensed NFL breast cancer gear.

A report from Business Insider revealed that 5% of purchases of officially licensed gear go back to the American Cancer Society. The rest of the cash goes directly into the NFL’s pockets.

Through four seasons of this pink initiative, the NFL has raised just $3 million for breast cancer research. To put that into perspective, the NFL made $9.5 billion last year.”

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/10/11/is-the-nfls-campaign-against-breast-cancer-really-a-scam/

The NFL’s Campaign Against Breast Cancer Is a Total Scam

 

The NFL's Campaign Against Breast Cancer Is a Total Scam“Have you noticed that during the month of October, the NFL suddenly becomes intensely concerned with making sure you’re aware of breast cancer? Pink jerseys! Huge Ass Pink Ribbons at midfield! Pink motherfucking cleats! Fans interested in aware-ing on their own can even click on over to the NFL’s store and purchase ugly pink crap of their own under the assumption that their good intentions will actually contribute to the fight against cancer. Well, I hate to burst your Pepto Bismo Pink bubble, wearers of dangly earrings that contain both ribbons and tiny footballs, but you’ve been had — the NFL’s Breast Cancer Awareness Month campaign does raise itsy bitsy amounts of money for the fight against cancer, but the amount of money it raises pales in comparison to the amount of money it raises for billionaire NFL owners.

The NFL claims that its pink philanthropy efforts “support the fight against breast cancer” by “promoting awareness” and providing funds to the American Cancer Society. But what they’re mostly promoting is, uh, buying NFL gear, the profits from which are overwhelmingly pocketed by the NFL.

According to Business Insider, the NFL’s October Breast Cancer Awareness Month fundraising effort is multi-pronged. There’s the on-field onslaught of pink (AWARENESS), the off-field auction of autographed or otherwise noteworthy NFL paraphernalia (MONEY FOR THE CURE!), and the part of the NFL store that entices shoppers to purchase officially licensed NFL breast cancer gear, a portion of which goes to FINDING A CURE. According to the League, 100% of the proceeds from the specialty auction go to the American Cancer Society, but the total percentage of purchases of officially licensed gear that actually goes to FINDING A CURE is actually kind of pathetic — 5%. If you want to look at this cynically, in a way, the on-field wearin’ o’ the pink serves as an ad to direct consumers to purchase pink fan items.

BUT WAIT, you might say, AT LEAST THEY’RE DOING SOMETHING. And 5% is still something! Well, kind of. As BI pointed out, if NFL products are sold at a 100% markup and only 5% of sale proceeds go to the American Cancer Society, then the NFL is pocketing 90% of sales of Breast Cancer Awareness products, many of which would not be purchased if they didn’t come with a promise that consumers were “helping.” And, more perspective: while the American Cancer Society isn’t, say, Komen, they still don’t use 100% of the money they receive to “fight” breast cancer. Only 70% of donations taken in by the organization go toward cancer research. So, if you spend $10 on pink stink from the NFL, only about 35 cents is going to finding a cure for breast cancer. And $4.50 goes right back to the NFL, where I like to imagine that it’s spent on gas for a Lake Minnetonka pleasure cruise. For the cure.

But what about awareness?! Surely the NFL is helping keep people aware and alert and vigilant that at any moment, breast cancer could be lurking around a corner in a dark alley waiting with a hot pink switchblade to steal your purse and boobs. The thing about awareness is that it’s all but impossible to quantify — and everyone knows about breast cancer. If you asked 100 people if they’re aware that breast cancer is a thing and that it’s almost impossible to predict and most often affects women, I’d bet that most of them would nod before slowly backing away from you. Breast cancer awareness is so ubiquitous that if deadly diseases attended the same high school, breast cancer would probably be voted prom queen. The “awareness” that comes from the NFL’s sales of pink branded items doesn’t justify the extent to which the league is taking advantage of consumers’ good intentions to pad their wallets. Even if no NFL player ever touched another pink thing again, Americans would go right on being aware of the disease. Unless the Buffalo Jills or New Orleans Saintsations cheerleaders are holding up signs that show women how to give themselves breast self-exams or tickets come with 5 page printouts of places low income women can obtain breast health screening for low or no cost, the type of awareness the NFL is providing is useless, vague garbage.

Since the program’s inception four years ago, the NFL has raised $3 million for breast cancer. In 2009, the League made $8.5 billion. Last year, they made $9.5 billion. Commissioner Roger Goodell has set a revenue goal of $25 billion per year by the year 2027. A million per year out of between $8.5 and $9.5 billion in revenues? Pardon me while I don’t slobber all over the NFL’s pink-drenched marketing campaign.

Want to cure breast cancer? Give directly to an organization that cures breast cancer, or to an advocacy group that seeks actual cures, not marketing and corporate profits. Besides, wearing those horrid pink NFL breast cancer rain boots actually causes cancer. Of the eyes.”

http://jezebel.com/5950971/the-nfls-campaign-against-breast-cancer-is-a-total-scam

Is the pink ribbon campaign a scam?

“The pink ribbon has become synonymous with solidarity for women who battle breast cancer. After all, a diagnosis of breast cancer changes the life of the diagnosed and the lives of all those involved — many times for the worse.

But, did you ever stop to think about what the pink ribbon campaign is all about? Is it really meant to bring “awareness” to breast cancer? Hasn’t everyone heard of breast cancer? Some have questioned the motives of those who stand behind those pretty pink ribbons.

Some have suggested that Breast Cancer Awareness month can be seen as a push for women to be corralled into the mammography suite so they can await their breast cancer diagnosis when the mammography is complete.

The science behind mammography is clear. Mammography does more harm than good.

Yes, the concept seems harsh. After all, most people who wear pink ribbons are innocent. They just go along with the rest. It’s a chance to show that they support the cause, whatever that is.

The pink ribbon campaign, however, is not completely innocent. Take for example this questionable involvement in the pink ribbon campaign. In October 2010, KFC filled and sold the “Bucket for the Cure,” donating 50 cents to breast cancer for each bucket sold. If KFC had a real interest for preventing breast cancer or for finding its cure, wouldn’t they close their doors forever? After all, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) sued KFC for not disclosing to its customers that the chicken sold at KFC contained a dangerous carcinogen. “KFC should post warnings because its aggressively marketed new product harbors a chemical that increases the risk of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and other forms of this lethal disease,” commented Dr. Neal Barnard, of PCRM.

While some participants in the pink ribbon campaign do send raised funds to breast cancer charities, such as Komen for the Cure, others do not follow through with contributions. The Better Business Bureau has issued warnings to consumers regarding this shell game.

Pink Ribbons have hope. On the other hand, the entire breast cancer awareness initiative would be worthwhile if we continued to raise money to advertise the information that we already have about breast cancer prevention: diet, exercise, stress management prevent breast cancer. Why is it that people do not know that eating a low-fat whole plant foods diet is the single most important thing you can do to prevent breast cancer? Why don’t breast cancer organizations teach what we already know instead of continuing to look for a cure that comes in an expensive pill, treatment, or surgery?

Who’s benefiting here, anyway?”

Marijuana: A cure for breast cancer

“Cannabis, or rather marijuana, has been known as an illegal drug that is used primarily to get “high” and has no other value. This is what many people have thought of marijuana for at least the last 75 years.

Over the years, numerous research studies have been conducted on cannabis and there were discussions about its medicinal benefits for cancer treatment; however, because this is an illegal drug, much of the research hasn’t been known to the average citizen.

Within the last 10-15 years, the interest in cannabis as a possible cure for cancer has increased substantially. In addition, there has been an increase in citizens demanding the ability to use medicinal cannabis as a treatment for their disease or illness.

These recent studies have shown that cannabis may be a cure for cancer.  One study
conducted in 2007 by the California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco, CA determined that a compound in cannabis called “Cannabidiol” was effective at inhibiting aggressive breast cancers. It was discovered that a certain “key gene caused breast cancer to spread and that cannabidiol could inhibit that aggressive gene by stopping the spread of the tumor cells”.  This study was published in the Washington Post and Science Daily
as well.

Unfortunately, cannabis is a schedule 1 drug which means that additional research and FDA approval would be required for cannabis to be used for the treatment of cancer.  It would require the removal of cannabis as a schedule 1 drug.

There is information that may suggest the U.S. Government and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) may have already known about the benefits of cannabis to treat cancer. The National Cancer Institute published a study in 1974. Due to federal law, no further studies were conducted until the 1990’s. All research conducted since then has been via test tube and animal studies.

In an October 2003 review on test tube and animal research indicated that cannabinoids inhibit tumors of the lung, uterus, skin, breast, prostate, and brain. Cannabis is also known to provide nausea relief to cancer patients and to increase appetite.

Medicinal cannabis may be the cure for cancer. Additional research is needed; however, it may require reclassifying cannabis in order to obtain government approval.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/marijuana-a-cure-for-breast-cancer