• Select Your Topic Then Scroll Down
    Alcohol Bupe Benzos
    Cocaine Heroin Opioids
    RCs Stimulants Misc
    Harm Reduction All Topics Gabapentinoids
    Tired of your habit? Struggling to cope?
    Want to regain control or get sober?
    Visit our Recovery Support Forums

Which is more damaging; Cannabis or Heroin? [split from DC]

Status
Not open for further replies.
paradoxcycle said:

That's a complete load of bullshit. You have no idea what you're talking about. I am so fucking sick of this "pot isn't even a drug, man" bullshit.

Sounds like somebody is in denial.

I completely understand how pot is very much a drug and harmful. I have posted about weed withdrawls on here an awful lot. Ive had them worse than mostly anyone i know..and id still rather that then heroin..
 
Originally posted by RollinWitAcoldBilly
Sounds like somebody is in denial.


Denial about what?

..and id still rather that then heroin..


As I said before, I don't care.
 
Prolonged Opportunity for Ischemic Neuroprotection with Selective -Opioid Receptor Agonist in Rats

From the Departments of Anesthesiology/Critical Care Medicine (T.-Y. C., T.G., T.J.K.T., J.R.K., P.D.H., R.C.K., A.B.) and Neurology (A.B.), Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md; Department of Anesthesiology and Peri-operative Medicine (J.R.K., P.D.H.), Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Ore.

Background and Purpose— We have previously demonstrated that pretreatment with selective -opioid agonist BRL 52537 hydrochloride [(±)-1-(3,4-dichlorophenyl) acetyl-2-(1-pyrrolidinyl) methylpiperidine], provides ischemic neuroprotection following transient focal ischemia in rats. The present study was undertaken to a) define "therapeutic opportunity" for ischemic neuroprotection with BRL 52537, and b) determine if BRL 52537 attenuates ischemia-evoked efflux of dopamine and its metabolites in the striatum in vivo following transient focal ischemia.

Methods— Using the intraluminal filament technique, halothane-anesthetized male Wistar rats were subjected to 2 hours of middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO). In a blinded, randomized fashion, rats were treated with saline (vehicle) or 1 mg/Kg/hr BRL 52537 infusion for 22 hours, initiated at onset, 2, 4, or 6 hours of reperfusion (Rep). In a separate set of experiments utilizing in vivo microdialysis, extracellular levels of dopamine and its metabolites were determined in the striatum during 2 hours of MCAO and 3 hours of reperfusion.

Results— Infarct volume (% of contralateral structure; mean ±SEM) in cortex was significantly attenuated when BRL 52537 was administered at reperfusion (22±6%), 2 hours (21±6%), and 4 hours (18±5%) compared with controls (39±5%). In striatum, infarct volume was significantly attenuated when BRL 52537 was administered at reperfusion (38±9%), 2 hours (40±8%), 4 hours (50±8%), and 6 hours (46±9%) as compared with controls (70±4%). A 6- to 8-fold increase in dopamine in microdialysates occurred within 40 minutes of MCAO. Pretreatment with BRL 52537 did not alter microdialysate levels of dopamine or its metabolites in the striatum during MCAO and early reperfusion, as compared with saline controls.

Conclusions— These data demonstrate that BRL 52537 provides robust ischemic neurprotection with a long therapeutic opportunity (at least 6 hours) without altering ischemia-evoked efflux of dopamine (DA) and its metabolites in striatum during ischemia and early reperfusion.



Morphine Preconditions Purkinje Cells against Cell Death under In Vitro Simulated Ischemia-Reperfusion Conditions.

Anesthesiology. 100(3):562-568, March 2004.
Lim, Young Jin M.D., Ph.D. *; Zheng, Shuqiu M.D., Ph.D. +; Zuo, Zhiyi M.D., Ph.D. ++

Abstract:
Background: Morphine pretreatment via activation of [delta]1-opioid receptors induces cardioprotection. In this study, the authors determined whether morphine preconditioning induces ischemic tolerance in neurons.

Methods: Cerebellar brain slices from adult Sprague-Dawley rats were incubated with morphine at 0.1-10 [mu]m in the presence or absence of various antagonists for 30 min. They were then kept in morphine- and antagonist-free buffer for 30 min before they were subjected to simulated ischemia (oxygen-glucose deprivation) for 20 min. After being recovered in oxygenated artificial cerebrospinal fluid for 5 h, they were fixed for morphologic examination to determine the percentage of undamaged Purkinje cells.

Results: The survival rate of Purkinje cells was significantly higher in slices preconditioned with morphine (>= 0.3 [mu]m) before the oxygen-glucose deprivation (57 +/- 4% at 0.3 [mu]m morphine) than that of the oxygen-glucose deprivation alone (39 +/- 3%, P < 0.05). This morphine preconditioning-induced neuroprotection was abolished by naloxone, a non-type-selective opioid receptor antagonist, by naltrindole, a selective [delta]-opioid receptor antagonist, or by 7-benzylidenenaltrexone, a selective [delta]1-opioid receptor antagonist. However, the effects were not blocked by the [mu]-, [kappa]-, or [delta]2-opioid receptor antagonists, [beta]-funaltrexamine, nor-binaltorphimine, or naltriben, respectively. Morphine preconditioning-induced neuroprotection was partially blocked by the selective mitochondrial adenosine triphosphate-sensitive potassium channel antagonist, 5-hydroxydecanoate, or the mitochondrial electron transport inhibitor, myxothiazol. None of the inhibitors used in this study alone affected the simulated ischemia-induced neuronal death.

Conclusions: These data suggest that morphine preconditioning is neuroprotective. This neuroprotection may be [delta]1-opioid receptor dependent and may involve mitochondrial adenosine triphosphate-sensitive potassium channel activation and free radical production. Because morphine is a commonly used analgesic, morphine preconditioning may be explored further for potential clinical use to reduce ischemic brain injury.


Opioids are commonly used analgesics in clinical practice. Three opioid receptors (m, d and k) that mediate opioid effects have been identified by molecular cloning. Each type of opioid receptors consists of subtypes of receptors as suggested by pharmacological studies. Although m opioid receptors are the major receptor to mediate the analgesic effects of opioids, d and k receptors are also important in anti-nociception (for example, d and k receptors can mediate spinal analgesia).

Recently, the cytoprotective effects of opioids have been recognized. The presence of opioids during harmful events such as ischemia reduces cell injury in multiple organs including heart and brain. These effects appear to be mediated by d receptors in most studies. A new form of cytoprotection in which a prior exposure to opioids renders protection against cell ischemia (opioid preconditioning) has been identified. In the heart, this opioid preconditioning-induced protection has been well documented by multiple studies and may be mediated by d receptors, Gi/o proteins, protein kinase C, ATPsensitive potassium channels and free radicals. Our initial study suggests that opioid preconditioning also induces neuroprotection. This neuroprotection involves d1 receptors, mitochondrial ATP-sensitive potassium channels and free radical production.

U. Barry and Z. Zuo


Some additional sources:

1) Genovese RF, Moreton JE, Tortella FC. Evaluation of neuroprotection and behavioral recovery by the kappa-opioid, PD117302 following transient forebrain ischemia. Brain Res Bull. 1994; 34: 111–116.

2) Goyagi T, Bhardwaj A, Koehler RC, Traystman RJ, Hurn PD, Kirsch JR. Potent sigma 1-receptor ligand 4-phenyl-1-(4-phenylbutyl) piperidine provides ischemic neuroprotection without altering dopamine accumulation in vivo in rats. Anesth Analg. 2003; 96: 532–538

3) Zhang Z, Chen T-Y, Kirsch JR, Toung TJK, Traystman RJ, Koehler RC, Hurn PD. Kappa-opioid receptor selectivity for ischemic neuroprotection with BRL 52537 in rats. Anesth Analg. 2003; 97: 1776–1783
 
At first glance, gloggawogga's cognitive study abstracts show some definite cognitive problems among the groups who are currently using and are addicted to opiates. To me, this evidence isn't enough to show neurotoxicity; all of those studies are flawed in a way that doesn't allow one to draw this conclusion. First, those studies don't have good controls. The heroin groups were all currently using. This tells me that the test subjects simply could have been too "high" to do the tests correctly. They had heroin in their systems or at best were in some stage of withdrawal. Not ideal situations to score 100% of one's capability on cognitive tests. The researchers should have included a third control group. This group would ideally be former heroin addicts. They would have no opiates in their systems. And no history of use of any other drug or heavy alcohol use. Their ages would have been the same as the heroin groups. If this grouped still showed cognitive problems, it would be easier to believe that heroin causes brain damage (is neurotoxic).
The PET abstract doesn't have a good control either. It only shows changes in blood flow (correlates with neural activity) of current users of opiates. No evidence for brain damge.
The EEG study has a better control, but it doesn't mention any long term cognitive problems in former users. (I don't have time today to look up and read the entire paper to check more closely.) I think it showed long-term changes in brainwaves of former users, but that's not the same as brain damage. EEG or fMRI studies have shown long-term changes in brainwaves for certain areas of the brains of musicians.
The studies that show neuroprective effects are interesting. They contradict the idea that heroin is neurotoxic.
 
Last edited:
i am pretty sure most people would agree that you are better off toking up everyday, than shooting up everyday. when i went to detox people were in there for oc's, loritab, heroin, i was in there for an anasthetic myself, there was not one person that was in there for weed,
i personally think one can maintain a normal, fulfilling life using heroin, or another opiate,
the same goes with weed but what from it seems, weed is easier to manage as a habit for most people
perhaps there a few like paradoxcyle that can handle it, and thats great i personally think he is right that heroin CAN be better for you than weed if done right.
but the reality is, more people fuck up their lives from heroin than weed, period.
 
awatknis: I agree, and like I tried hinting at earlier I think a lot of it has to do with culture, motivations and expectations.

--- G.
 
At first glance, gloggawogga's cognitive study abstracts show some definite cognitive problems among the groups who are currently using and are addicted to opiates. To me, this evidence isn't enough to show neurotoxicity; all of those studies are flawed in a way that doesn't allow one to draw this conclusion.
I agree the studies are inconclusive. I was posting the various studies in response to all of the various THC studies being posted, which are also inconclusive.

The studies that show neuroprective effects are interesting.
Yes, as are the studies on the neuroprective effects of THC and cannabanoids.

They contradict the idea that heroin is neurotoxic.
Not necessarily. A substance can be toxic to some cells and protective of others.
 
Don't forget that in marijuana and nature in general there are balances hypothetical chemicals to marijuana that potentially and likely change it's actions. It's pretty much in the air whether there's any validity to claims of brain damage. Peace.
 
Ah fucking drugs. Everything you put into your body causes a reaction so what decides what's a drug? If there is a negative connotation to its' use is it a drug? Hell yeah pot's a drug, but what does that mean anyways? It's not an accurate description. You have no idea what something is when you describe something by the word drug.

You cannot compare chronic, chronic cannabis use to chronic meth use and step back and accurately say, "Wow those models are so similar." In effect and scale they are highly different.

Oh and here's some support for your heroin hating brain-lovers… from… uhh… cough… PubMed… hehehe:

"Forensic Sci Int. 1999 May 31;102(1):51-9.
Related Articles, Links
_
Hypoxic/ischaemic brain damage, especially pallidal lesions, in heroin addicts.

Andersen SN, Skullerud K.

"Institute of Pathology, National Hospital, University of Oslo, Norway. [email protected]

The occurrence of pallidal lesions with or without other hypoxic/ischaemic brain injuries was evaluated in 100 intravenous (i.v.) heroin addicts. The brains were collected consecutively from forensic autopsies during the period from January 1995 to June 1996. The autopsies were required by the police and performed at The Institute of Forensic Medicine, The National Hospital, Oslo. There were 21 women and 79 men, median age 32 (range 21-47) and 34 (19-60) years, respectively. Of 38 brains with abnormalities, twenty-five cases showed isolated or combined lesions of hypoxic/ischaemic origin. Pallidal lesions were found in nine brains; six lesions were old, one was subacute (a couple of weeks), and two were part of recent, generalized hypoxia/ischaemia. Six persons had old infarcts in the hippocampal formation, and one of them in combination with old pallidal infarcts. In seven brains small and old infarcts were found in watershed areas in the cerebellum. Between five and ten percent of i.v. heroin addicts might have pallidal infarcts, either as the sole lesion, or combined with other manifestations of hypoxic/ischaemic brain injury. This might give severe mental disturbances in the affected persons.

PMID: 10423852 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]"

There's more out there to find too. These are not conclusive though.

There have been a many cases of leukodystrophy from heroin use but probably not heroin itself rather an adulterant. Peace.
 
I think the lesion studies are more convincing than anything else. Still not conclusive, but ... brain lesions. Yuk.
 
Originally posted by Pimp Lazy
There have been a many cases of leukodystrophy from heroin use but probably not heroin itself rather an adulterant.
 
Cannabis is not neurotoxic

This is a long thread, so I'm not sure if y'all are still interested in its title subject, but just in case, I have a couple contributions.

I noticed many of the quoted studies are from ten or fifteen years ago. Here are quotes from some more recent articles; I'll keep them as brief as possible, but please click the links for a thorough--and convincing--discussion.

This from a 2003 review in Brain:

"Although there have been claims that chronic cannabis use may permanently damage the brain, there is little scientific evidence to support these claims (for reviews see Dornbush et al., 1976; Hollister, 1986, 1998; Zimmer and Morgan, 1997)...While it may be possible to demonstrate neurotoxic actions after exposure of neurons to high concentrations of cannabinoids in vitro, there is little evidence for any significant neural damage in vivo after the administration of pharmacologically relevant doses of these drugs."

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/126/6/1252

The same author wrote another review just a few months ago, an excellent overview of the current thoughts on long-term effects of cannabis use:

"The authors [of a previously cited study] concluded that cannabis does not have a long-term effect on global intelligence...This general conclusion was also supported by a review of the 40 published studies that met adequate criteria, which failed to detect any consistent evidence of persisting neuropsychological deficits in cannabis users — although some studies reported subtle impairments in the ability to learn and remember new information [5]."

Iversen, L. Curr Opin Pharm 5(1): Feb 2005, 69-72


BOTTOM LINE: A majority of studies reveals no evidence that cannabis has any long-term neurotoxic effects. A few studies show subtle impairment in some high-level executive functions, but it is debatable whether such impairments would be significant or even noticeable to a person.
 
Re: Cannabis is not neurotoxic

supersnail said:
A few studies show subtle impairment in some high-level executive functions, but it is debatable whether such impairments would be significant or even noticeable to a person.

Wether or not this is noticeable to the person is not relevant, no matter how subtle impairments may be, they're still there. So your statement in the subject line is entirely in-appropriate, you cannot know.
 
Incorrect!

Two cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, have been identified. The CB1 receptor is preferentially expressed in brain, and the CB2 receptor in cells of leukocyte lineage. We identified the mRNA for the CB1 receptor in human neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y cells, and the mRNA and protein for the CB2 receptor in human microglia and THP-1 cells. 2 Delta(9)-and Delta(8)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) were toxic when added directly to SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cells. The toxicity of Delta(9)- THC was inhibited by the CB1 receptor antagonist SR141716A but not by the CB2 receptor antagonist SR144528. The endogenous ligand anandamide was also toxic, and this toxicity was enhanced by inhibitors of its enzymatic hydrolysis. 3 The selective CB2 receptor ligands JWH-015 and indomethacin morpholinylamide (BML-190), when added to THP-1 cells before stimulation with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and IFN-gamma, reduced the toxicity of their culture supernatants to SH-SY5Y cells.

JWH-015 was more effective against neurotoxicity of human microglia than THP-1 cells. The antineurotoxic activity of JWH-015 was blocked by the selective CB2 receptor antagonist SR144528, but not by the CB1 receptor antagonist SR141716A. This activity of JWH-015 was synergistic with that of the 5-lipoxygenase (5-LOX) inhibitor REV 5901. 4 Cannabinoids inhibited secretion of IL-1beta and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) by stimulated THP-1 cells, but these effects could not be directly correlated with their antineurotoxic activity. 5 Specific CB2 receptor ligands could be useful anti-inflammatory agents, while avoiding the neurotoxic and psychoactive effects of CB1 receptor ligands such as Delta(9)-THC.

Kinsmen Laboratory of Neurological Research, University of British Columbia, 2255 Westbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z3.
 
Blowmonkey, the body of my message argues that the vast majority of cannabis studies show no persistent neurotoxic effects. Only a very few studies show any contrary evidence. There will always be dissenting opinions, especially in an area of research that is still in its infancy. You are correct that I cannot say with certainty that cannabis is not neurotoxic, but given the current evidence, that it the most reasonable conclusion to make.

I realize that my statement about the significance of potential neurotoxicity is not relevant to the central question. It was aimed at the casual cannabis user who is trying to make an informed cost-benefit analysis of his usage.
 
Re: Incorrect!

paradoxcycle said:
Two cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, have been identified. The CB1 receptor is preferentially expressed in brain, and the CB2 receptor in cells of leukocyte lineage. We identified the mRNA for the CB1 receptor in human neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y cells, and the mRNA and protein for the CB2 receptor in human microglia and THP-1 cells. 2 Delta(9)-and Delta(eight, stupid smiley)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) were toxic when added directly to SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cells. The toxicity of Delta(9)- THC was inhibited by the CB1 receptor antagonist SR141716A but not by the CB2 receptor antagonist SR144528. The endogenous ligand anandamide was also toxic, and this toxicity was enhanced by inhibitors of its enzymatic hydrolysis. 3 The selective CB2 receptor ligands JWH-015 and indomethacin morpholinylamide (BML-190), when added to THP-1 cells before stimulation with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and IFN-gamma, reduced the toxicity of their culture supernatants to SH-SY5Y cells.

JWH-015 was more effective against neurotoxicity of human microglia than THP-1 cells. The antineurotoxic activity of JWH-015 was blocked by the selective CB2 receptor antagonist SR144528, but not by the CB1 receptor antagonist SR141716A. This activity of JWH-015 was synergistic with that of the 5-lipoxygenase (5-LOX) inhibitor REV 5901. 4 Cannabinoids inhibited secretion of IL-1beta and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) by stimulated THP-1 cells, but these effects could not be directly correlated with their antineurotoxic activity. 5 Specific CB2 receptor ligands could be useful anti-inflammatory agents, while avoiding the neurotoxic and psychoactive effects of CB1 receptor ligands such as Delta(9)-THC.

Kinsmen Laboratory of Neurological Research, University of British Columbia, 2255 Westbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z3.
Another inconclusive cell culture study. At what dosages did THC have neurotoxic efects on neuroblastoma?
Also, the result with anandamine makes me question the entire study. anandamine is an endogenous ligand. (Anandamide, also known as arachidonoylethanolamine or AEA, is a naturally occurring endogenous cannabinoid neurotransmitter found in the brain of animals, as well as other organs.) Why would it be neurotoxic?!! That result is ridiculous. You can't make the conclusion from those results that either chemical is toxic at normal physiological (and recreational) concentrations. They must have used extremely high and unrealistic concentrations of both drugs to get neurotoxic effects.
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: Incorrect!

socko said:
Why would it be neurotoxic?!! That result is ridiculous. .

Why would glutamate? We've got that stuff in our bodies as well, pretty fucking useless but hey.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top