• CD Moderators: nepalnt21
  • Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

the reason for THC

hedgewitch

hedgewitch

Bluelighter
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
453
tell me if this has already been done but i'v been meaning to ask this for a while a i just saw a similar thread in psycadelics which prompted me to ask,
why do you think gange has THC, there are £ reasons that i can think of
1) to deter animals that will eat it because it you eat a whole marijuana plant even a cow will feel bad/ confused and scared so it tells all that its there with its obvious smell.
2) to encourage animals to eat it to spread the seeds, which would explain why theres the most smell and THC around the bud.
3) the least interesting idea that is just a by-product caused by other functions in the plant.
i doubt anyone knows but it'll be nice to see if anyones thought about it further than "cool, lets get stoned" (not a bad though though)
;)
 
the trichomes (or crystals) are full of cannabinoids which are pretty sticky. That makes them great for catching pollen and also to protect the plant from insects and animals that might want to eat them.

it could just be by chance it gets us stoned, but the mental effect could also prevent animals from eating it.


or it could encourage certain animals to cultivate it, thus allowing it to spread all over the world. evolution works in funny ways like that :)
 
The marijuana plant producing THC to ward off animals does not make sense. The plant wants animals to eat the buds and ingest the seeds, that's why other plants grow sweet-tasting fruit around their seeds. The seeds pass through the animal's body undigested and are deposited a distance away from the original plant in a steaming pile of fertilizer to nurture initial growth and perpetuate the species.
 
I doubt that to be the case salphyus. Most seeds which are like that a) are grown in obvious fruit and b) have a very hard seed case, not like hemp seeds.

The answer is, we don't know. But I suspect it is protective against insects.
 
Are hemp seeds really weak enough to be digested?


Anyone want to eat some and tell us tommorow?:)
 
Apparently THC is produced for two reasons. One to capture the pollen from the male cannabis plant (which is why it's sticky), and two to prevent the plant from drying out or dehydrating.

Sorry I don't have an official link for this, this is just what I've been told by someone I respect as knowing what they're talking about.
 
I like the idea that it gets you high as a way of getting people to cultivate it.
If THC is a deterant used to stop animals from eating it, it might evolve to stop producing THC because so many humans smoke it. Or it might change to another chemical that kills people when smoked.
But I think the cultivation idea is the best guess. It seems kind of far fetched for evolution to work in that way, but I wouldn't doubt it.
 
Does science know the family tree of the cannabis species?

My guess the "reason" for THC is this: as most vertebrates and some invertebrates contain receptors sensitive to cannabinoids, it seems likely there was so some of co-evolution. Nature reuses molecules redundantly, meaning evolution results with similar forms of "unique" molecules in disparate places. I would also agree that there is the added benefit of cannabinoid resin, being sticky, and probably anti-oxidant. Once we know the exact pharmacological/biological/chemical reactions responsible for THC's production and action, then we will actually be able to answer this query. And I think reason is the wrong word, because it implies a logical framework producing a certain molecule (THC). As Darwin said, "Nothing matters but the consequences." It is possible the marijuana plant has THC because it just does, just like apple seeds contain cyanide-related compounds, but humans assume there must be a "Reason," as THC happens to have the chemical profile to produce significant changes in our reality/consciousness.

My personal/non-scientific belief for THC is that nature made sure there was a plant that would give us animals relief at the end of the day. Cannabinoids' moment in the sun has not yet begun, but once it is legal alcohol and especially tobacco will pale in their shadow. THC and its chemical brethen will lead the chill-out revolution about to sweep across the globe though the information highway. Heydoyagotanythingonya?
 
Stop using your lame human minds to get into the plant's point of view. All this hippie bullshit is giving is just bullshit. No the plant does not make THC for people or animals. You only think that because you want it to be that way. The truth is the THC exists to me high and me only. The rest of you should be happy that you stole my idea of smoking cannabis.
 
thanks loads, i've been through this in my mind before but it seems that most agree. i think that the idea of catching pollen while good defeats the object because, correct me if i'm wrong, the "hairs" are what the pollen needs to touch to pollinate the plant(stigmas) and if its stuck to the outside then it cant get to the stigmas. i had a similar thought about hops (closely related and get you high) cos when i work with hops my hands are like glue by the end. the bud hairs may not be stigmas but if they are then also why do crystals develop on the leaves? i hate when i ruin such good sounding ideas.. as THC is non water soluble then the idea of a water barrier is a good idea. as i type this i just remembered that cannabis growing in hotter climates produces much more resin so that would fit.
:X too many possibilities.
p.s i eat hempseeds on their own cos they taste nice and the shells are easily cracked with teeth but a beak will just swallow them whole. ( but if the bird is stoned then it cant get far to disperse the seeds :D )
sorry for the essay sized post.
 
Addiction
Volume 97 Issue 4 Page 389 - April 2002
doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00024.x

Psychotropic substance-seeking: evolutionary pathology or adaptation?
R. J. Sullivan & E. H. Hagen

ABSTRACT

According to a conventional evolutionary perspective, the human propensity for substance use is the product of a 'mismatch' between emotional mechanisms that evolved in a past without pure drugs or direct routes of drug administration, and the occurrence of these phenomena in the contemporary environment. The primary purpose of this review is to assert that, contrary to the conventional view, humans have shared a co-evolutionary relationship with psychotropic plant substances that is millions of years old. We argue that this 'deep time' relationship is self-evident both in the extant chemical-ecological adaptations that have evolved in mammals to metabolize psychotropic plant substances and in the structure of plant defensive chemicals that have evolved to mimic the structure, and interfere with the function, of mammalian neurotransmitters. Given this evidence, we question how emotional mechanisms easily triggered by plant toxins can have evolved. Our argument is also supported with archeological and historical evidence of substance use in antiquity suggesting that, for people in the past, psychotropic plant substances were as much a mundane everyday item as they are for many people today. Our second, and more speculative objective is to suggest provisional hypotheses of human substance-using phenomena that can incorporate the evolutionary implications of a deep time relationship between psychotropic substances and people. We discuss hypotheses of selective benefits of substance use, including the idea that neurotransmitter-analog plant chemicals were exploited as substitutes for costly, nutritionally constrained endogenous neurotransmitters. However, even if substance seeking was adaptive in the environment of our hominid ancestors, it may not still be so in the contemporary environment. Thus, the implications of our argument are not that the mismatch concept does not apply to human substance-using phenomena, but that it must be reconsidered and extended to incorporate the implications of a substance-rich, rather than substance-free, evolutionary past.
 
Nobody really knows the reason. We will never know because we can't ask a weed plant "Why do you produce THC?" Well, Maybe you could if you were really stoned! ;) LOL.
 
Oh, and IMHO I believe that the marijuana plant produces THC as a natural pesticide and animalcide and also to protect the plant.
 
Yeah but that paper is ass 5-HT2. I mean, that shit about "neurotransmitter-analog plant chemicals were exploited as substitutes for costly, nutritionally constrained endogenous neurotransmitters" I mean thats just laughable. It's like, "hey dude, you ever heard of amino acids?"
 
"No living organism would develop a trait that meant the death of it."

Take an introductory biology class and you will discover that assumption is false. Examples off the top of my head include male praying mantis which is eaten by the female during the act of mating. Or how about a bird "killing" a bit of plant or mushroom and spraying its shit everywhere, crudely distributing clones. If you want more examples check biology 101 out yourself.

Nature/Existance (or if your a pantheist like me-God) does not think in terms of death or life, it has no need for those terms. Life/Death = 2 Sides of the Same Coin

While you, YetiMan, laugh at my personal rationalization of THC's origin, the universe proceeds blindly outside, laughing back at you. (See Newton's 3rd Law :) )

Stop Building Tanks and Start subsidizing Solar Energy on Antarctica...
 
"No living organism would develop a trait that meant the death of it."

Male frogs try to croak the loudest to gain the female mate, but this also means becoming a target for bats and other predators.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top