T
The420Guy
Guest
Although research into the psychoactive components of Cannabis
began before the start of this century, it was not until 1964 that Dr.
Raphael Mechoulam, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, identified
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) as the most active
compound. Mechoulam's discovery led to a lot of research into other
natural and synthetic cannabinoids. In recent years many exciting
discoveries were made. In 1990 the cannabinoid receptor, the "lock" into
which cannabinoids fit, activating the specific biochemical events, was
discovered. This of course intensified the search for the cannabinoid-like
brain molecule that binds to the cannabinoid receptor. In 1992 William
Devane and Raphael Mechoulam identified a natural brain molecule that binds
to the cannabinoid receptor. They called it anandamide, from the Sanskrit
word for "eternal bliss". While the substance mimics the action of THC,
interestingly, it doesn't look anything like it. Additional natural
anandamides have since been found and it is speculated that a family of
receptors may exist.
One thing is certain: the pace of cannabinoid research has picked
up and the field is entering a new and exciting era! An exclusive
interview (June 17 1994) with the man who has been in the forefront of
Cannabis research for the last thirty years: Professor Raphael Mechoulam.
Professor Dr. Raphael Mechoulam (Photo R.C. Clarke)
David Pate: Can you describe anandamide, its possible function in
the brain and where its discovery leads us?
Raphael Mechoulam: It has been known since 1988 that THC acts on
a specific receptor in the brain. This specific receptor obviously was not
built by the brain just for the sake of tetrahydrocannabinol - a compound
present in a plant - which is of course foreign to the
receptor. Presumably the receptor is present because it has a function,
which has nothing to do with a plant constituent. We considered that
possibly this particular receptor is activated by a compound found in the
brain itself. We succeeded 2 years ago to identify such a compound in pig
brain. We called it anandamide. It binds to this cannabinoid
receptor. Anandamide differs completely from THC in its structure. THC
is an aromatic compound, while anandamide is a fatty acid derivative. It
also has a nitrogen atom in it, which is rather unusual for fatty acid
derivatives.
DP: Any speculation as to why it is there, what it actually does,
both the receptor and its ligand?
RM: We know that the cannabinoid receptor system is involved in
sedation; at high doses THC can even cause catalepsy in animals. In humans
we know that Cannabis has a lot of effects which together cause the well
known "high". These also include memory effects and some effects on
movement. Most of the effects caused by THC are also seen with anandamide
in animals. Anandamide has not yet been given to humans but judging from
the animal effects these two compounds seem to parallel each other in
activity. Whatever THC does, anandamide does as well.
DP: What is the role of anandamides in the brain?
RM: Anandamides and the receptor are found in areas of the brain
which have to do with the coordination of movement, with memory and with
emotions. We assume that the brain has anandamides and the receptors to
participate in the regulation of movement and to participate in memory and
emotions. But there is no proof that this is indeed the case, it is a
circumstantial evidence.
DP: Since three natural anandamides have been found, how broad do
you think the family is? Are there multiple types of receptors?
RM: The three anandamides which are known bind to the same
receptor. They are actually a family of closely related compounds. This
is well known with other fatty acid derivatives in the body which also
appear in large families of closely related substances, such as
prostaglandins and the leukotriens. The three anandamides so far known
seem to have the same biological activity, but once we know more about how
and what they do we may find small differences.
DP: Are there families of receptors as well?
RM: This is another point. In the brain, so far, just one
receptor has been found. However, a second receptor has been found in the
spleen, it is related chemically to the brain receptor and anandamide binds
to both the central receptor (in the brain) and to the peripheral receptor
(in the spleen). Anandamide has not been found so far in the periphery, so
chances are that the fact that it binds to the receptor in the spleen is
just because the structures of the two receptors are somewhat close. Maybe
the brain transmits the brain mediator. The peripheral receptor seems to
have its own endogenous ligands. As a matter of fact we have found an
endogenous compound in the gut which binds to both the central and
peripheral receptors. We are working on it at the moment and have not
published its structure or function. I think that the peripheral receptor
has to do with the immune system as it is well known that THC affects this
system. At present however this is just a speculation.
DP: Can you further speculate on what triggers production of
anandamides naturally and whether they are degraded by an enzyme system
like the cannabinoids?
RM: Incidentally, also in answer to your previous question, the
peripheral receptor is found in the spleen, but there is also a receptor in
the testis, we do not know whether it is the peripheral or the central
receptor and we know that THC and anandamides act on the sperm. There is a
paper in publication in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
showing that both THC and anandamides act on activation of the sperm before
it fertilizes the egg. So it is involved, whether that is relevant or not,
I don't know.
We do not know what triggers the production of
anandamides. Incidentally, Bill Devane and J. Axelrod at NIH have now
found an enzyme which synthesizes anandamide in the brain from arachidonic
acid and ethanolamine. The anandamides are labile compounds and they are
degraded by an enzyme - an amidase.
DP: Are there interactions between the cannabinoid receptor and
other receptors or receptor systems?
RM: Most definitely. The cannabinoids (and presumably the
anandamides) like most mediators in the body interact with other systems:
the dopaminergic, the adrenergic, the opiate systems etc. For example we
have found that when anandamides are injected into the brain the
concentration of cortical steroids goes up. There are indications that the
cortical steroids themselves may act on the cannabinoid receptor,
presumably bringing down its activity.
DP: Were you surprised that anandamide was the structure it was
and not a protein?
RM: No, there is no reason why it should be a protein. As a
matter of fact, we thought originally that anandamide should be a
lipid-soluble compound, because the cannabinoids are lipid-soluble, and
therefore chances were that the compound in the body will be lipid-soluble
and it turned out to be a fatty acid.
DP: How do cannabinoids and anandamides happen to fit into the
same receptor, considering their structures are quite different?
RM: We assume that in space and in distribution of electronic
charges the anandamides and the cannabinoids take up the same kind of
structure. A few groups are using models to calculate the electronic
densities and the structures of both types of compounds in space and to
compare them. However, as yet no definite answer has been provided.
DP: Are the relative affinities of cannabinoids and anandamides
and their receptors about the same?
RM: Anandamides and THC have more or less the same affinity for
the receptor. There are synthetic cannabinoids which are a hundred and
maybe a thousand times more active than THC. But that is irrelevant, THC
and anandamide are not very potent, but then the body does not want very
potent compounds. It wants compounds with intermediate potency, because if
the potency is very high and there is a chance increase of the compound the
body will go into stress. Changes in the body are usually gradual so one
does not need very active compounds in the body. This is of course a
generalization which does not aply to all body constituents as there are
some compounds present in the body which act at extremely low concentrations.
DP: Do you think there is sufficient research into cannabinoids
and will cannabinoids play a significant role in the future of therapeutic
medicine? If so, for what indications?
RM: After the identification of delta-9-THC as the active
component of Cannabis there was a huge wave of research in chemistry,
pharmacology and clinical aspects dealing with this plant
constituent. Many thousands of papers were published on it. By the late
1970s research started slowing down as the mode of action was not clear at
all. With the discovery of receptors and of endogenous ligands interest
has very much increased and numerous new laboratories are working on
various aspects. We can expect in the future clarification of many of the
problems associated with cannabinoid activity and possibly advances in the
field of therapeutics. So far the only cannabinoid which has been
legalized is THC for use in cases of vomiting due to cancer
chemotherapy. THC has also been used for a few other things like appetite
stimulation (in cases of AIDS) as well as in glaucoma. There is also
illegal use in some neurological diseases such as spasticity in multiple
sclerosis and even in asthma. In the past several companies worked on
synthetic cannabinoids as analgetics or in reduction of blood pressure but
these projects were terminated. The synthetic compounds produced still
caused psychotropic effects which were unacceptable. In the last few years
we have synthesized and widely tested a cannabinoid, HU-211, which causes
none of the typical psychotropic cannabinoid effects but is a blocker of
the action of the stimulatory transmitter glutamic acid, in particular on
one of its subreceptors named NMDA. This receptor is involved in
stimulatory activity. However, during trauma it causes excessive opening
of ion channels in many cells in the vicinity of the trauma. This
introduces large amounts of calcium ions into the cells and they may
die. Blocking this activity is of considerable potential importance in
cases of trauma and possibly stroke, and a company with which we are
associated is developing HU-211 as an anti-trauma agent. We expect to
start human testing within a few months.
The discovery of anandamide has apparently stimulated interest in
several pharmaceutical companies. I am aware of a Japanese company which
is working in the field as well as a French one. Apparently the French
company has discovered an antagonist to anandamide - the first ever
described antagonist in the cannabinoid series. They are about to present
it at a forthcoming meeting.
DP: Do you see the very limited use of cannabinoids in medicine
as the result of their intrinsic medicinal value or as the result of the
restrictions surrounding them?
RM: In the past most companies refrained from working on
cannabinoids mostly because of the legal restrictions. It seems reasonable
to expect that as at the moment there are no such legal restrictions
concerning anandamides it will be easier for companies to start projects in
this field. I expect that such research projects will be mostly in the
neurological area and possibly in inflammation research and
immunology. This assumption is based on the high concentrations of the
cannabinoid receptor in the basal ganglia - an area involved in
coordination of movement and the peripheral receptor being in the spleen -
an organ of immune importance.
DP: Do you think new delivery systems would help cannabinoid
therapeutics gain more acceptance?
RM: Definitely. One delivery system which has not been
investigated is the aerosol system. People smoke cannabinoids, this is the
best way of getting them into the body, and getting them to act fast. And
in asthma for example, THC is known to be a bronchodilator. So if people
want to use a compound against asthma, obviously they will prefer
inhalation rather than any other way and very little work has been done in
this area.
DP: Was THC patentable at the time of your discovery? Why didn't
you patent its synthesis?
RM: We didn't patent THC as it was of no apparent medical
use. One cannot patent compounds which have no practical use.
DP: I'm thinking now of the Unimed use of this as a pharmaceutical.
RM: We didn't patent the synthesis either. I had asked my
university authorities about this and they decided against it. There was
no apparent practical use of THC or its synthesis. On the other hand we
should have patented the major cannabinoid metabolite - THC-11-oic-acid
which we identified and synthesized in 1972. This acid stays in the body
for a very long time and most tests of cannabinoid use look for the
presence of this acid rather than for THC itself. Numerous radio immuno
assays are based on this acid and we realize now that it was foolish not to
patent it.
DP: Is this approach basically a reflection of your background,
which is academic rather than industrial?
RM: Yes, now we patent quite a few things, we patented HU-211 and
that's why a company was willing to take it over. We now patent quite a
few more compounds, but at that time we didn't and it is a pity, and the
university lost a lot of money.
DP: Is there any relatively unknown or unusual Cannabis research,
past or present, that deserves a wider mention?
RM: Well, if you look at what is going on now, there is a huge
amount of research going in all kind of directions. For example, groups
working on the immune system may be using the receptor in the
spleen. Research goes into subjects like emotions, asking why does
Cannabis do what it does? People are looking into schizofrenia and finding
some unusual things, some relationship between cannabinoids and
schizofrenia, I think it has to do with the receptor. Even though all
these things are not well defined, I am under the impression that there is
a burst of research in many directions. Where that will lead I don't know.
I think that the most promising approach is to look into neurological
problems, coordination of movement and things of that sort.
DP: So the cannabinoids serve less as prototypes for drugs per
se, but rather as probes of the systems, which other drugs may be later
able to affect.
RM: Many if not most drugs used today are really structural
modifications of natural products, be they plant products of known
therapeutic value, or hormones, or transmitters. In most cases the new
drugs have less side effects than the natural product. I expect that this
is going to happen with the cannabinoids and anandamides. Academic and
industrial research groups will probably try to modify these molecules in
order to minimize the side effects as well as to make the compounds more
specific. This is what we did with HU-211 and this is probably going to be
done with these compounds in other fields as well.
DP: Is there anything else you may want to add to any of the
previous questions?
RM: Research in the last 20 years has shown that Cannabis differs
from most other illicit drugs - it is not a major addictive agent and it
seems to act through mechanisms which are quite different from those of the
opiates and cocaine.
Hence investigations in this field may lead us into understanding
of very basic problems in biology such as memory and emotions. There are
few tools for work in these areas and any additional one may be of great
importance. The National Institute of Drug Abuse of the USA which is the
major granting agency in the field of drug abuse is looking into
cannabinoids with great interest now and this will be of considerable
help. I would like to mention that the United Nations which has a huge
budget devoted to drug abuse prevention does not support research at
all. This is a strange situation and probably reflects the background of
the officials dealing with drug abuse at the UN level. They view drug
abuse as a social problem with little value of research for the solution of
this problem. Too bad.
From: "D. Paul Stanford" <stanford@crrh.org>
Subject: Interview with Professor Dr. Raphael Mechoulam, the discoverer of THC (1994)
began before the start of this century, it was not until 1964 that Dr.
Raphael Mechoulam, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, identified
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) as the most active
compound. Mechoulam's discovery led to a lot of research into other
natural and synthetic cannabinoids. In recent years many exciting
discoveries were made. In 1990 the cannabinoid receptor, the "lock" into
which cannabinoids fit, activating the specific biochemical events, was
discovered. This of course intensified the search for the cannabinoid-like
brain molecule that binds to the cannabinoid receptor. In 1992 William
Devane and Raphael Mechoulam identified a natural brain molecule that binds
to the cannabinoid receptor. They called it anandamide, from the Sanskrit
word for "eternal bliss". While the substance mimics the action of THC,
interestingly, it doesn't look anything like it. Additional natural
anandamides have since been found and it is speculated that a family of
receptors may exist.
One thing is certain: the pace of cannabinoid research has picked
up and the field is entering a new and exciting era! An exclusive
interview (June 17 1994) with the man who has been in the forefront of
Cannabis research for the last thirty years: Professor Raphael Mechoulam.
Professor Dr. Raphael Mechoulam (Photo R.C. Clarke)
David Pate: Can you describe anandamide, its possible function in
the brain and where its discovery leads us?
Raphael Mechoulam: It has been known since 1988 that THC acts on
a specific receptor in the brain. This specific receptor obviously was not
built by the brain just for the sake of tetrahydrocannabinol - a compound
present in a plant - which is of course foreign to the
receptor. Presumably the receptor is present because it has a function,
which has nothing to do with a plant constituent. We considered that
possibly this particular receptor is activated by a compound found in the
brain itself. We succeeded 2 years ago to identify such a compound in pig
brain. We called it anandamide. It binds to this cannabinoid
receptor. Anandamide differs completely from THC in its structure. THC
is an aromatic compound, while anandamide is a fatty acid derivative. It
also has a nitrogen atom in it, which is rather unusual for fatty acid
derivatives.
DP: Any speculation as to why it is there, what it actually does,
both the receptor and its ligand?
RM: We know that the cannabinoid receptor system is involved in
sedation; at high doses THC can even cause catalepsy in animals. In humans
we know that Cannabis has a lot of effects which together cause the well
known "high". These also include memory effects and some effects on
movement. Most of the effects caused by THC are also seen with anandamide
in animals. Anandamide has not yet been given to humans but judging from
the animal effects these two compounds seem to parallel each other in
activity. Whatever THC does, anandamide does as well.
DP: What is the role of anandamides in the brain?
RM: Anandamides and the receptor are found in areas of the brain
which have to do with the coordination of movement, with memory and with
emotions. We assume that the brain has anandamides and the receptors to
participate in the regulation of movement and to participate in memory and
emotions. But there is no proof that this is indeed the case, it is a
circumstantial evidence.
DP: Since three natural anandamides have been found, how broad do
you think the family is? Are there multiple types of receptors?
RM: The three anandamides which are known bind to the same
receptor. They are actually a family of closely related compounds. This
is well known with other fatty acid derivatives in the body which also
appear in large families of closely related substances, such as
prostaglandins and the leukotriens. The three anandamides so far known
seem to have the same biological activity, but once we know more about how
and what they do we may find small differences.
DP: Are there families of receptors as well?
RM: This is another point. In the brain, so far, just one
receptor has been found. However, a second receptor has been found in the
spleen, it is related chemically to the brain receptor and anandamide binds
to both the central receptor (in the brain) and to the peripheral receptor
(in the spleen). Anandamide has not been found so far in the periphery, so
chances are that the fact that it binds to the receptor in the spleen is
just because the structures of the two receptors are somewhat close. Maybe
the brain transmits the brain mediator. The peripheral receptor seems to
have its own endogenous ligands. As a matter of fact we have found an
endogenous compound in the gut which binds to both the central and
peripheral receptors. We are working on it at the moment and have not
published its structure or function. I think that the peripheral receptor
has to do with the immune system as it is well known that THC affects this
system. At present however this is just a speculation.
DP: Can you further speculate on what triggers production of
anandamides naturally and whether they are degraded by an enzyme system
like the cannabinoids?
RM: Incidentally, also in answer to your previous question, the
peripheral receptor is found in the spleen, but there is also a receptor in
the testis, we do not know whether it is the peripheral or the central
receptor and we know that THC and anandamides act on the sperm. There is a
paper in publication in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
showing that both THC and anandamides act on activation of the sperm before
it fertilizes the egg. So it is involved, whether that is relevant or not,
I don't know.
We do not know what triggers the production of
anandamides. Incidentally, Bill Devane and J. Axelrod at NIH have now
found an enzyme which synthesizes anandamide in the brain from arachidonic
acid and ethanolamine. The anandamides are labile compounds and they are
degraded by an enzyme - an amidase.
DP: Are there interactions between the cannabinoid receptor and
other receptors or receptor systems?
RM: Most definitely. The cannabinoids (and presumably the
anandamides) like most mediators in the body interact with other systems:
the dopaminergic, the adrenergic, the opiate systems etc. For example we
have found that when anandamides are injected into the brain the
concentration of cortical steroids goes up. There are indications that the
cortical steroids themselves may act on the cannabinoid receptor,
presumably bringing down its activity.
DP: Were you surprised that anandamide was the structure it was
and not a protein?
RM: No, there is no reason why it should be a protein. As a
matter of fact, we thought originally that anandamide should be a
lipid-soluble compound, because the cannabinoids are lipid-soluble, and
therefore chances were that the compound in the body will be lipid-soluble
and it turned out to be a fatty acid.
DP: How do cannabinoids and anandamides happen to fit into the
same receptor, considering their structures are quite different?
RM: We assume that in space and in distribution of electronic
charges the anandamides and the cannabinoids take up the same kind of
structure. A few groups are using models to calculate the electronic
densities and the structures of both types of compounds in space and to
compare them. However, as yet no definite answer has been provided.
DP: Are the relative affinities of cannabinoids and anandamides
and their receptors about the same?
RM: Anandamides and THC have more or less the same affinity for
the receptor. There are synthetic cannabinoids which are a hundred and
maybe a thousand times more active than THC. But that is irrelevant, THC
and anandamide are not very potent, but then the body does not want very
potent compounds. It wants compounds with intermediate potency, because if
the potency is very high and there is a chance increase of the compound the
body will go into stress. Changes in the body are usually gradual so one
does not need very active compounds in the body. This is of course a
generalization which does not aply to all body constituents as there are
some compounds present in the body which act at extremely low concentrations.
DP: Do you think there is sufficient research into cannabinoids
and will cannabinoids play a significant role in the future of therapeutic
medicine? If so, for what indications?
RM: After the identification of delta-9-THC as the active
component of Cannabis there was a huge wave of research in chemistry,
pharmacology and clinical aspects dealing with this plant
constituent. Many thousands of papers were published on it. By the late
1970s research started slowing down as the mode of action was not clear at
all. With the discovery of receptors and of endogenous ligands interest
has very much increased and numerous new laboratories are working on
various aspects. We can expect in the future clarification of many of the
problems associated with cannabinoid activity and possibly advances in the
field of therapeutics. So far the only cannabinoid which has been
legalized is THC for use in cases of vomiting due to cancer
chemotherapy. THC has also been used for a few other things like appetite
stimulation (in cases of AIDS) as well as in glaucoma. There is also
illegal use in some neurological diseases such as spasticity in multiple
sclerosis and even in asthma. In the past several companies worked on
synthetic cannabinoids as analgetics or in reduction of blood pressure but
these projects were terminated. The synthetic compounds produced still
caused psychotropic effects which were unacceptable. In the last few years
we have synthesized and widely tested a cannabinoid, HU-211, which causes
none of the typical psychotropic cannabinoid effects but is a blocker of
the action of the stimulatory transmitter glutamic acid, in particular on
one of its subreceptors named NMDA. This receptor is involved in
stimulatory activity. However, during trauma it causes excessive opening
of ion channels in many cells in the vicinity of the trauma. This
introduces large amounts of calcium ions into the cells and they may
die. Blocking this activity is of considerable potential importance in
cases of trauma and possibly stroke, and a company with which we are
associated is developing HU-211 as an anti-trauma agent. We expect to
start human testing within a few months.
The discovery of anandamide has apparently stimulated interest in
several pharmaceutical companies. I am aware of a Japanese company which
is working in the field as well as a French one. Apparently the French
company has discovered an antagonist to anandamide - the first ever
described antagonist in the cannabinoid series. They are about to present
it at a forthcoming meeting.
DP: Do you see the very limited use of cannabinoids in medicine
as the result of their intrinsic medicinal value or as the result of the
restrictions surrounding them?
RM: In the past most companies refrained from working on
cannabinoids mostly because of the legal restrictions. It seems reasonable
to expect that as at the moment there are no such legal restrictions
concerning anandamides it will be easier for companies to start projects in
this field. I expect that such research projects will be mostly in the
neurological area and possibly in inflammation research and
immunology. This assumption is based on the high concentrations of the
cannabinoid receptor in the basal ganglia - an area involved in
coordination of movement and the peripheral receptor being in the spleen -
an organ of immune importance.
DP: Do you think new delivery systems would help cannabinoid
therapeutics gain more acceptance?
RM: Definitely. One delivery system which has not been
investigated is the aerosol system. People smoke cannabinoids, this is the
best way of getting them into the body, and getting them to act fast. And
in asthma for example, THC is known to be a bronchodilator. So if people
want to use a compound against asthma, obviously they will prefer
inhalation rather than any other way and very little work has been done in
this area.
DP: Was THC patentable at the time of your discovery? Why didn't
you patent its synthesis?
RM: We didn't patent THC as it was of no apparent medical
use. One cannot patent compounds which have no practical use.
DP: I'm thinking now of the Unimed use of this as a pharmaceutical.
RM: We didn't patent the synthesis either. I had asked my
university authorities about this and they decided against it. There was
no apparent practical use of THC or its synthesis. On the other hand we
should have patented the major cannabinoid metabolite - THC-11-oic-acid
which we identified and synthesized in 1972. This acid stays in the body
for a very long time and most tests of cannabinoid use look for the
presence of this acid rather than for THC itself. Numerous radio immuno
assays are based on this acid and we realize now that it was foolish not to
patent it.
DP: Is this approach basically a reflection of your background,
which is academic rather than industrial?
RM: Yes, now we patent quite a few things, we patented HU-211 and
that's why a company was willing to take it over. We now patent quite a
few more compounds, but at that time we didn't and it is a pity, and the
university lost a lot of money.
DP: Is there any relatively unknown or unusual Cannabis research,
past or present, that deserves a wider mention?
RM: Well, if you look at what is going on now, there is a huge
amount of research going in all kind of directions. For example, groups
working on the immune system may be using the receptor in the
spleen. Research goes into subjects like emotions, asking why does
Cannabis do what it does? People are looking into schizofrenia and finding
some unusual things, some relationship between cannabinoids and
schizofrenia, I think it has to do with the receptor. Even though all
these things are not well defined, I am under the impression that there is
a burst of research in many directions. Where that will lead I don't know.
I think that the most promising approach is to look into neurological
problems, coordination of movement and things of that sort.
DP: So the cannabinoids serve less as prototypes for drugs per
se, but rather as probes of the systems, which other drugs may be later
able to affect.
RM: Many if not most drugs used today are really structural
modifications of natural products, be they plant products of known
therapeutic value, or hormones, or transmitters. In most cases the new
drugs have less side effects than the natural product. I expect that this
is going to happen with the cannabinoids and anandamides. Academic and
industrial research groups will probably try to modify these molecules in
order to minimize the side effects as well as to make the compounds more
specific. This is what we did with HU-211 and this is probably going to be
done with these compounds in other fields as well.
DP: Is there anything else you may want to add to any of the
previous questions?
RM: Research in the last 20 years has shown that Cannabis differs
from most other illicit drugs - it is not a major addictive agent and it
seems to act through mechanisms which are quite different from those of the
opiates and cocaine.
Hence investigations in this field may lead us into understanding
of very basic problems in biology such as memory and emotions. There are
few tools for work in these areas and any additional one may be of great
importance. The National Institute of Drug Abuse of the USA which is the
major granting agency in the field of drug abuse is looking into
cannabinoids with great interest now and this will be of considerable
help. I would like to mention that the United Nations which has a huge
budget devoted to drug abuse prevention does not support research at
all. This is a strange situation and probably reflects the background of
the officials dealing with drug abuse at the UN level. They view drug
abuse as a social problem with little value of research for the solution of
this problem. Too bad.
From: "D. Paul Stanford" <stanford@crrh.org>
Subject: Interview with Professor Dr. Raphael Mechoulam, the discoverer of THC (1994)
