You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] Dalai_Llama ago  (edited ago)

The form and function concept is very prevalent in biological systems. Because tetrahydracannabinol closely resembles endogenous ligands of the endocannabinoid system, it may exploit a currently existing physiological response. What we are bearing witness to is a biological arms race. Nicotine is a compound produced by plants that binds with the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in humans. This receptor did not evolve for the sole purpose of binding nicotine. Nicotine can function as a pesticide, which is what I mean by a biological arms race. Humans are much more resilient to the effcts of nicotine, so a similar size dose that would act as a pesticide for insects is not fatal to humans but induces effects that may be considered desirable or enjoyable. The same thing goes for caffeine.

So, if a ligand binds with a receptor, does that mean the receptor's sole purpose for existence is to bind that specific ligand?

Let's consider aspartame. It is a synthetically engineered compound that consists of modified, natural amino acids that mimic the shape of a saccharide. The shape allows aspartame to bind with sensory receptors of the tongue in order to induce the sensation of sweetness similar to a saccharide. The body metabolizes saccharides and amino acids differently so the theory is that you get the same same taste sensation without the fattening side effects although recent evidence suggests aspartame could be carcinogenic in certain doses. Regardless, it is very clear to see that the taste bud receptors did not evolve specifically to bind with aspartame. It is simply an exploitation of their biologically relevant function to identify compounds that are beneficial to the organisms overall metabolic needs.

Let us also consider malaria. The Duffy Antigen is a receptor that binds with malaria and allows the invasion of the parasites into the host's erythrocytes. The Duffy Antigen is a common medical name for a chemokine receptor. Chemokines are signalling molecules that are important regulating facors in immune responses, cell growth and differentiation, and angiogenesis. So woud the existence of this receptor mean that humans are supposed to ingest malarial parasites? I think not.

Your line of reasoning is akin to the "banans are made by god" logic that neglects the billions of years of natural selection and more recent centuries of artificial selection that have led to the horticultural achievement of the modern banana.

Furthermore, there is a logical fallacy that organisms evolve with a purpose and a direction. There is no direction to evolution. The compatability of a ligand and a receptor are the result statistical probabilities. The compatability does not imply that they evolved with the sole purpose of complementing one another.

The notion that ligand-receptor compatability is evidence of a predetermined relationship between the two constituents is an erroneous assumption that parallels religious fanatacism.

edit: spelling

edit: It is important to note that the receptors to which you are referring do not solely bind the psychoactive component of marijuana. These receptors bind a hole host of endogenous cannabinoid compounds that are naturally present in humans. Endocannabinoids are not psychoactive.

0
0

[–] Antiseed117 ago  (edited ago)

Be why end something that brings such endless happiness? I could only imagine the impact you could have if that passion for things that potentially kill the human spirit was directed at something truly destructive like alcohol. For that is the only reason I could fathom you advocating against cannabis, your uncommon love for your fellow human Life's simple pleasures are meant to be endlessly repeated.

0
0

[–] Dalai_Llama ago 

Well, I also agree that using alcohol is a sign of weakness. Historically, alcoholic beverages were much less potent and served the purpose of preserving water quality relative to bacterial populations in the water that could be harmful if ingested. Because of the historical importance of alcohol, it has been ingrained in the culture of civilization.

However, I believe that the "happiness" to which you are referring is subjective. The sensations derived from ingesting any kind of compound is different for everyone. I understand the libertarian "hand's off" approach to regulating substances and I do agree with less government control of anything and everything.

But the fundamental disagreement we have is whether someone should be respected for excessively abusing a specific mechanism that brings them some mode of perceived utility, in this instance what you define as "happiness."

My main argument against that is the opportunity cost of excessive THC use. The money spent on pot could be invested in capital goods that could lead to further economic development. The time spent "being high" could be used for more constructive endeavors that could lead to an even overall greater "happiness" level. I think substance abuse is a shortcut to instant gratification that leads to a long term overall decrease in "happiness."