ArticlePDF Available

Safety and Toxicology of Cannabinoids



There is extensive research on the safety, toxicology, potency, and therapeutic potential of cannabis. However, uncertainty remains facilitating continued debate on medical and recreational cannabis policies at the state and federal levels. This review will include a brief description of cannabinoids and the endocannabinoid system; a summary of the acute and long-term effects of cannabis; and a discussion of the therapeutic potential of cannabis. The conclusions about safety and efficacy will then be compared with the current social and political climate to suggest future policy directions and general guidelines. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13311-015-0380-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Safety and Toxicology of Cannabinoids
Jane Sachs
& Erin McGlade
& Deborah Yurgelun-Todd
Published online: 13 August 2015
The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at
Abstract There is extensive research on the safety, toxicolo-
gy, potency, and therapeutic potential of cannabis. However,
uncertainty remains facilitating continued debate on medical
and recreational cannabis policies at the state and federal
levels. This review will include a brief description of canna-
binoids and the endocannabinoid system; a summary of the
acute and long-term effects of cannabis; and a discussion of
the therapeutic potential of cannabis. The conclusions about
safety and efficacy will then be compared with the current
social and political climate to suggest future policy directions
and general guidelines.
Keywords Cannabis
Cannabis safety
Cannabis policy
Cannabis efficacy
There are more than 60 systematic reviews and meta-analyses
discussing the safety, toxicology, potency, and therapeutic po-
tential of exogenous cannabinoids. However , the general con-
sensus of these reports is largely mixed and inconclusive. The
uncertainty surrounding safety and efficacy of exogenous can-
nabinoids is not a product of the lack of research, but rather a
product of the extreme variability in study methodo logy and
quality. This review provides a summary of the current research
on the safety and efficacy of exogenous cannabinoids, includ-
ing a brief description of the chemical constituents of cannabis
and how it interacts with the endocannabinoid system; a sum-
mary of what is known about the acute and long-term e ffects
of cannabis; and a discussion of the therapeutic potential.
Conclusions on safety and efficacy will then be compared
with the current social and political climate in order to high-
light the need for polic y c hanges and general guidelines.
Cannabinoids and the Endocannabinoid System
Marijuana, or cannabis, colloquiallyreferredtoasweed,pot,
illicit drug both nationally and internationally. Roughly, 180.6
million people worldwide report lifetime cannabis use [1], and
24.6 million people in the USA report past-month use [2].
Cannabis is derived from the plant Cannabis sativa, Cannabis
indica,orCannabis ruderalis, which is includes 70 known
cannabinoids, including 7 cannabigerols, 5 cannabichromenes,
7 cannabidiols (CBD), 9-Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabidiols (THC-9),
2-Δ-8-tetrahydrocannabidiols (THC-8), 3 cannabicyclols, 5
cannabielsoins, 7 cannabinols, 2 cannab inodiols, and 9
cannabitriols [3]. In addition to whole-plant cannabinoids, there
are a variety of synthetic cannabinoids (e.g., dronabinol and
nabilone, both synthetic THCs) and cannabinoid extracts
(e.g., the oro-muco sal spray nabi ximols that contain both
THC and CBD) that are used both clinically and in research [4].
THC and CBD are the most commonly researched canna-
binoids in the literature and there is variability in the location,
mechanism, and consequences of their actions. THC has a
high affinity for cannabinoid type 1 receptors (CB
R) [5],
which are found in the highest densities in the neuron termi-
nals of the basal ganglia, cerebellum, hippocampus,
Neurotherapeutics (2015) 12:735746
DOI 10.1007/s13311-015-0380-8
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(doi:10.1007/s13311-015-0380-8) contains supplementary material,
which is available to authorized users.
* Jane Sachs
Department of Psychiatry, University of Utah, 383 Colorow Drive,
Salt Lake City , UT 84108, USA
neocortex, and hypothalamus and limbic cortex [610]. These
brain regions are involved in motor activity, coordination,
short-term memory, executive function, and appetite and se-
dation, respectively, and it is possible that THC activity in
R in these regions may explain many of the acute effects
of cannabis use [9], which will be addressed later. The
endocannabinoid system also contains cannabinoid type 2
receptors (CB
R), which are found primarily in immune cells
and tissues [6, 11]. There is evidence that activity of endog-
enous cannabinoids (e.g., anadamide) and exogenous canna-
binoids (e.g., THC) at CB
R may have opposing effects on
the immune system, with endogenous cannabinoids enhanc-
ing immune response and exogenous cannabinoids having
immunosuppressant effects [12]. In contrast to THC, CBD
has relatively low a ffinity for both CB
R and CB
Despite the relatively low affinity of CBD at CB
R, it demonstrates high potency as an antagonist.
Furthermore, there is evidence that CBD may mitigate some
of the effects of THC [1315], potentially through indirect
agonism, either by augmenting CB
R constitutional activity
or endocannabinoid tone [5].
The already complex interactions of exogenous and endog-
enous cannabinoids in the cannabinergic system are further
obfuscated by different methods of administration, inconsistent
dosing measure s, and highly variable cannabinoid conten t of
cannabis plants. Cannabinoid content and consequent potency
has shown extreme variance depending on the light, tempera-
ture, humidity, and soil type during cultivation, as well as ge-
netic factors [1619]. This is evidenced by changes in potency
over time as more cannabis is grown in doors and as strains are
engineered with diff erent THC and CBD ratios [17, 19, 20].
Furthermore, the method of administration (e.g., oral, smoked,
vaporized) and form of cannabinoid consumed (e.g., stems and
buds, hashish, hash oil, extract, synthetic) can impact the bio-
availability and consequently the response to use [4, 6, 18,
2125 ]. This is particularly salient when comparing recreation-
al and medical forms of cannabis. Collectively, these factors
contribute to the difficulty in deciphering the relative safety
and efficacy of cannabinoids both medically and recreationally.
Safety: Acute and Long-term Effects
Despite the variability in research methodology and quality,
there are some generalizable findings regarding the acute and
long-term effects of exogenous cannabinoids.
Effects on Physical Health
Cannabinoids have shown both acute and long-term cardio-
vascular effects. Acute dose-dependent effects of cannabis
include tachycardia, increased cardiac labor, systemic vasodi-
lation, and increased blood pressure [15, 2629]. More severe
effects such as increased angina, myocardial infarction, cardi-
ac death, and cardiomyopathy have been recorded in individ-
uals with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions [16, 20, 28,
30], and as such it is recommended that these individuals
avoid cannabis use [31]. Paradoxically, the long-term cardiac
effects of chronic cannabis use include bradycardia and hypo-
tension, which may reflect tolerance and down-regulation
over time [16, 32, 33].
Smoking is one of the main methods of cannabis administra-
tion. As such, the impact that smoking cannabis has on the
respiratory system has been a point of serious concern for
policy makers. A number of acute and chronic effects on the
respirato ry s ystem are associat ed with cannabis use.
Specifically, acute cannabis use has been shown to increase
inflammation of large airways, increase airway resistance, and
destroy lung tissue [15, 20, 29]. Further, there is evidence that
chronic cannabis use also results in increased risk of chronic
bronchitis [20, 29, 34], increased risk of emphysema [29],
chronic respiratory inflammation [20, 26, 29, 35], and im-
paired respiratory function [27, 28].
Although there is a pathophysiologic al proc ess by which
chronic cannabis use could confer an increased risk of cancer
the epidemiological literature on the causal relationship is
mixed [3436]. Hashibe et al. [36] found that smoking canna-
bis was not associated with an increased risk of smoking-
related cancers (e.g., lung, head, and neck), but might be as-
sociated with an increased risk of prostate cancer, cervical
cancer, and glioma. Conversely, Reece [29]reportedthat
smoking cannabis is associated with an increased risk of lung
cancer. Other findings suggest that while cannabis does in-
crease the risk of lung cancer, it is still lower than the risk of
lung cancer associated with tobacco [20].
Comparisons of cannabis and tobacco smoke have pro-
duced mixed findings. Repp and Raich [20] found that canna-
bis smoke contains ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, nitric oxide,
and aromatic amines at 35 times the rate of tobacco smoke.
However, Maertens et al. [37
] found that aside from the can-
binoids and nicotine, cannabis and tobacco smoke conden-
sates contained mixtures that were qualitatively similar. They
also found that cannabis smoke condensate and tobacco
smoke condensate influence the same molecular processes
but have subtle pathway differences that potentially account
for differential toxicities and the mixed results with respect to
lung cancer [37].
736 Sachs et al.
Immune System
Given the prevalence of CB
R in immune cells and tissues,
exogenous cannabinoids likely produce immunological im-
pacts both acutely and chronically [11]. However, the influ-
ence of exogenous cannabinoids on the immune system is
multifaceted and while comprehension is improving, contin-
ued research is required [16]. While there is some evidence of
immunosuppressive properties of cannabis [15, 26], there is
evidence of anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects of
CBD [13]. Specifically, CBD inhibits interleukin-10, while
also increasing interleukin-8, which could have potentially
therapeutic results in immune disorders [13]. The presence
of both positive and negative impacts of cannabis on the im-
mune system illustrate the potential biphasic impact on the
immune system, with benefits at high and low levels an d
detriments at moderate levels [13, 15, 26]. Similarly, Suarez-
Pinilla et al. [12] found that endocannabinoids enhanced im-
mune response, while exogenous cannabinoids had immuno-
suppressant effects.
There is mixed evidence regarding the impact of cannabinoids
on sleep [38]. Sedation and somnolence are commonly de-
scribed acute adverse effects of heavy cannabis use [4,
3941]. Furthermore, cannabis has been shown to increase
total sleep time in individuals with difficulty sleeping, includ-
ing in cancer patients with chronic pain [42], individuals with
post-traumatic stress disorder [43], and individuals with in-
somnia [41]. However, cannabis has been show to decrease
slow wave sleep [6, 38]. This suggests that a consequence of
the increased sleep time may be decreased sleep quality. There
is also some evidence that sleep difficulty is a withdrawal
symptom associated with cannabis use disorders [15, 44].
Effects on Cognition
It is clear that exogenous cannabinoids have an effect on cog-
nition; however, there is considerable variability between the
acute neuropsychological, chronic neuropsychological, and
neuroimaging findings.
Acute Effects
Cannabis use has well evidenced acute impacts on cognition
[13, 16, 20, 26, 34, 4548]. Specifically, it has been reported
to impair free recall [16, 20, 45], acquisition [16], working
memory [15,
and procedural memory [20, 45].
Impairments are also demonstrated on measures of attention
[15, 20, 48], impulsivity [15, 20], inhibition [49], sensory
perception [26], and executive function [20, 26, 5052]. On
other measures of cognitive function the, evidence of deficits
is less clear. Some studies report impairments in gross and
simple motor tasks after acute cannabis use [13, 15, 16, 26,
34], whereas others find that evidence on impairments in psy-
chomotor function is inconclusive [45]. Likewise, evidence
for the impact of acute cannabis use on abstract reasoning
and decision making is mixed, with some reports of impair-
ment [20, 34], and other studies demonstrating no impact [15,
45]. Although there are clear acute cognitive effects of canna-
bis use, the majority are relatively short lived and diminish
over time with abstinence [20, 26, 48, 53, 54].
Chronic Effects
Most studies have found limited evidence of persistent neuro-
psychological deficits among cannabis users [20, 45, 47, 51,
5355], particularly for those who initiated cannabis use as
adults [56]. However, the risk of long-term cognitive effects of
cannabis use appears to increase with earlier age of onset [26,
45, 47, 48, 5658], frequency of use [15, 34, 45, 47, 49, 59],
d duration of use [15, 34, 45, 47, 49]. For instance, Repp
and Raich [20] found that adolescents who initiate cannabis
use before the age of 15 years demonstrate persistent pro-
nounced deficits in visual attention, verbal fluency , inhibition,
short-term recall, impulsivity, and executive functioning.
Similarly, Meier et al. [46] found that cessation of cannabis
did not fully restore cognitive deficits among adolescent-onset
cannabis users, and may result in a greater loss of IQ in ado-
lescence [46, 57]. Moreover, adolescent-onset users diag-
nosed with cannabis dependence prior to the age of 18 years
were more likely to become persistent users and showed im-
pairments in executive functioning and processing speed [46].
Other factors that may influence long-term neuropsychologi-
cal effects and make between-study comparisons difficult in-
clude length of abstinence and the THC to CBD ratio [26, 45,
47]. This is particularly interesting because studies of acute
administration suggest that CBD may be protective against the
negative cognitive impacts of THC [45].
Neuroimaging Studies
In addition to the neuropsychological assessments, a number
of studies have applied neuroimaging techniques to examine
the effects of exogenous cannabinoids on brain structure,
function, and connectivity. Recent morphological studies of
adults and adolescents have found structural abnormalities in
R-rich areas, particularly in the medial temporal and fron-
tal cortices and cerebellum, and most notably among chronic
cannabis users [6, 28, 49, 6064]. Specifically, structural neu-
roimaging findings suggest there are reductions in
parahippocampal, hippocampal, and thalamic volume associ-
ated with chronic cannabis use when compared with healthy
controls [47]. Studies of chronic adolescent cannabis users
also showed structural differences in the hippocampus and
Safety and Toxicology of Cannabinoids 737
amygdala [65]; gray matter volume reduction in the medial
temporal cortex, temporal pole, parahippocampal gyrus,
insula, and orbitofrontal cortex [6]; and reduced prefrontal
volumes and white matter integrity when compared with con-
trols [49, 60]. Studies of marijuana users who have also used
alcohol or tobacco have also shown changes in brain mor-
phometry. Heavy marijuana using adolescents with co-
occurring alcohol use were found to have increased cortical
thickness, particularly in frontal and parietal regions [66]. An
investigation by Wetherill et al. [67] comparing adult cannabis
users with and without co-occurring tobacco use reported that
both groups showed smaller thalamic gray matter volume than
nonusers; however, both cannabis groups and a cohort of to-
bacco smokers showed increased left putamen volumes.
Reduced left cerebellum gray matter in nico tine users but
not in cannabis users suggested that nicotine and cannabinoids
exert differential effects on regional brain tissue volume [67].
Moreover, evidence suggests that in adolescents functional
alterations may appear shortly after starting drug use [60].
Therefore, while cannabis use may result in morphological
alteration in adults and adolescents, early onset, longer dura-
tion, and heavier use are associated with more significant al-
terations in structural integrity [49].
Alterations in brain function have also been observed dur-
ing cannabis use. There is strong evidence that acute cannabis
administration increases cerebellar and prefrontal blood flow
[49, 62, 65]. However, resting state prefrontal blood flow is
lower in chronic cannabis users when compared with controls
[49, 60, 62]. This may represent the down-regulation of CB
receptors during the resting state among chronic users [60].
Additionally, acute administration of cannabis may increase
anterior cingulate cortex activity during cognitive tasks and
increase brain metabolism in multiple regions during impul-
sivity tasks [49, 62, 68, 69]. The greater task-related activation
among chronic cannabis users may reflect impaired efficiency
and recruitment of additional regions [49, 60, 62, 70].
Furthermore, there is also evidence that adults who initiated
regular cannabis use in adolescence may have impaired func-
tional connectivity [34]. Specifically , neuroimaging data indi-
cate reduced connectivity within prefrontal networks, which
may be partially responsible for deficits in executive function
among regular heavy cannabis uses who initiated use in ado-
lescence [34]. These abnormalities may be explained by the
influence of cannabis on the still-developing endocannabinoid
system, particularly the disruption of normal pruning during
adolescence when extensive re-organization of gray and white
matter is occurring [57, 60]. However, while changes in white
matter have been reported in adolescent cannabis users, the
mechanisms for the change and long-term effects have not
been fully characterized [65].
Finally, magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) is a non-
invasive measurement technique that enables the in vivo quan-
tification of a range of neurometabolites, including γ-
aminobutyric acid (GABA) and glutamate. The effects of
chronic marijuana exposure have been examined through the
application of MRS imaging. For example Chang et al. [71]
reported reduced glutamate, choline, and myoinositol concen-
trations in the basal ganglia of chronic marijuana users.
Applying MRS imaging, Hermann et al. [72] identified lower
concentrations of N-acetyl aspartate in the dorsolateral pre-
frontal cortex of adult smokers. Prescot et al. applied recently
completed a small pilot study using proton MRS to the ante-
rior cingulate of marijuana smoking and non-smoking adoles-
cents and also found reduced N-acetyl aspartate, as well as
reduced glutamate and creatine in marijuana-using individuals
Effects on Mental Health
Disruptions of the cannabinergic system may have important
implications for a number of neurobehavioral processes [74].
There is evidence of an association between cannabis use and
both acute and chronic mental illness and psychiatric condi-
tions, including depression, anxiety, psychosis, bipolar disor-
der, schizophrenia, and an amotivational state [29, 34].
However, given the variation in the disease process, as well
as inconsistent cannabis dosing and composition, the full na-
ture of the associations remains to be clarified.
In studies of cannabis use and bipolar disorder, it appears
that cannabis use may exacerbate or trigger manic symptoms
among individuals previously diagnosed with bipolar disor-
der. Gibbs et al. [75] found a 3-fold increase in risk for onset of
manic symptoms after cannabis use [75]. However, there does
not seem to be evidence that cannabis use is a risk factor for
developing bipolar disorder [75]. Mixed findings are found
when examining the relationship between cannabis use and
depression and anxiety. There is some evidence that cannabis
e and cannabis withdrawal may result in acute depressed
mood [15, 29, 76]. Similarly, studies suggest that cannabis
may increase acute anxiety [4, 15, 77]. The picture of chronic
anxiety and depression and cannabis use is more complicated,
in part because frequent cannabis users have both a higher
prevalence of anxiety disorders, and individuals with anxiety
have high rates of cannabis use [77, 78]. The fact that individ-
uals who initiate cannabis use in adolescence may develop
depression and anxiety that persists after cessation may also
influence this relationship [20]. Furthermore, interpreting cau-
sality is complicated by the fact that a low concentration of
THC may have anxiolytic effects, whereas higher concentra-
tions produce anxiogenic effects [15, 77], and the evidence
that CBD may mitigate the effects of THC in animal models
of anxiety [5].
A significant portion of the literature dedicated to cannabis
use and mental health focuses on the relationship between
cannabis use and schizophrenia and psychosis. A number of
studies suggest that acute cannabis exposure may induce
738 Sachs et al.
temporary psychosis [4, 26]. Additionally, chronic cannabis
use may trigger psychosis and schizophrenia in individuals
with a predisposition or genetic susceptibility to mental illness
[12, 20, 26, 57, 65, 79, 80]. This appears to occur in a dose-
dependent manner, such that heavy cannabis use, longer du-
ration, greater potency, and early onset of use may be more
closely aligned with disease trajectory, often significantly ad-
vancing the first psychotic episode and development of
schizophrenia [15, 20, 57, 65, 80, 81]. Additionally, lifetime
cannabis use has been associated with higher schizotypy
scores [82], and cannabis may exacerbate pre-existing symp-
toms of psychosis and schizophrenia [6]. Furthermore, indi-
viduals with psychosis may be more vulnerable to brain vol-
ume loss, which has been suggested as a result of cannabis
exposure [6, 63, 83].
Although there is strong evidence that early cannabis use
among at-risk individuals may increase the likelihood of de-
veloping schizophrenia or psychosis at a later time point, ad-
ditional research is necessary to parse out the intricacies of the
interaction between THC and CBD on the cannabinergic sys-
tem. For example, several systematic reviews found that while
cannabis use may increase subclinical symptoms of psychosis,
the findings to date do not support an association between
cannabis use and first psychosis [84]. Additionally, there is
some evidence that cannabis with a high CBD and low THC
content may mitigate psychosis [5, 85, 86].
Public Health and Safety
In addition to the physical, psychological, and cognitive ef-
fects of cannabis, there are clear concerns about public health
and safety. A potentially serious public health effect of canna-
bis use is a high incidence of drugg ed driving and motor
vehicle accidents [16, 26]. Moreover, driving impairment oc-
curs in a dose-dependent fashion [26, 87], and individuals
driving under the influence of cannabis are anywhere from 2
to 7 times more likely to be involved in both fatal and nonfatal
motor vehicle collisions [20, 34].
Another risk associated with cannabis use is addiction and
cannabis dependence. Nine to ten percent of individuals who
initiate cannabis use will become addicted [6, 20, 34]. That
number increases to 16
17 % among individuals who initiate
se as an adolescent and 2550 % among individuals who use
cannabis daily [20]. The risk for addiction appears to wane as
the individual ages, such that it is rarely addictive if use begins
after the age of 25 years [65]. However, currently 6.5 % of
twelfth graders in the USA report daily cannabis use [34], and
there is evidence to suggest that as perception of harm de-
creases, prevalence of use increases [88]. This is particularly
important because early exposure to cannabinoids may alter
the reactivity of the dopamine reward centers in the brain,
thereby increasing vulnerability to abuse of and addiction to
other substances, and adding support to the g ateway
hypothesis [34, 89]. Furthermore, heavy cannabis use may
be linked to negative consequences downstream, including
lower income, greater need for socioeconomic assistance, un-
employment, and lower life satisfaction [34].
There is also evidence of negative impacts on maternal and
child health. Cannabis use during pregnancy is associated with
poor physical outcomes, including birth defects, low birth
weight, and an increased risk of childhood cancer, as well as
poor neurodevelopmental outcomes, including aggressive be-
havior and attention problems in girls [20, 29, 35]. For exam-
ple, children who were exposed to marijuana prenatally are
more likely to demonstrate decreased problem-solving skills,
as well as poor memory and attention [90, 91]. Similarly,
babies exposed to marijuana prenatally show traits indicative
of neurological development problems [92, 93].
Therapeutic Potential
Despite the acute and chronic side effects of cannabis use,
there is a growing body of evidence suggesting the therapeutic
potential of cannabis. This is likely facilitated, in part, by the
fact that certain c annabinoids, like CBD, have been well-
studied and are well tolerated and safe in humans, even at high
doses and chronically [94]. Exogenous cannabinoids, includ-
ing nab iximols, CBD extract, and even smok ed cannabis,
have bee n rec ommended medically for ca ncer, a norexia ,
AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine,
and other illnesses for which cannabis provides relief [15, 34].
Additionally, the American Academy of Neurology published
a position statement concluding that medical cannabis is
probably effective for some symptoms of multiple sclerosis
(MS), including spasticity, central pain, spasms, and urinary
dysfunction; is probably ineffective for levodopa-induced
dyskinesia of Parkinsons disease (PD); and of unknown ef-
ficacy in nonchorea symptoms of Huntingtons disease (HD),
Tourettes syndrome, cervical dystonia, and epilepsy [6, 95].
Neurological Conditions
The literature on the therapeutic potential of exogenous can-
nabinoids in the treatment of MS has been the most promising.
There is evidence that cannabinoids may have neuroprotective
and anti-inflammatory effects in individuals with MS through
the regulation of cytokine levels [96]. However, it should be
noted that the degree of therapeutic potential varies according
to preparation. There is evidence that oral cannabis extract and
nabiximols, an oral mucosal spray containing a 1:1 ratio of
CBD:THC, reduce spasticity in patients with MS [4, 6, 20,
95]; however, smoked marijuana is of uncertain efficacy [95].
Similarly, the American Medical Association found that a re-
view of small, short-term randomized controlled trials demon-
strated that smoked cannabis reduces neuropathic pain,
Safety and Toxicology of Cannabinoids 739
improves appetite, and may relieve spasticity and pain in pa-
tients with MS [97]. There is also some evidence of reduced
muscle stiffness, relief from pain, and improved sleep quality
among patients with MS using oral cannabis extract [6]; how-
ever, these findings arise from subjective assessment of symp-
tom relief and may be secondary to improvements in spasticity
[6, 96]. While many studies suggest that cannabis may be a
useful therapy for MS-related symptoms, it is important to
note that not all studies assess adverse physical and cognitive
impacts. Wade et al. [98] found that patients with MS who
demonstrate symptom relief after use of nabiximols can con-
tinue use in the long term without tolerance, intoxication, se-
rious adverse effects, or decrease in subjective symptomatic
relief. Although the literature suggests only mild adverse
physical effects associated with medical cannabis use for treat-
ment of MS, recent studies of cannabis use in patients with
MS have reported cognitive diminishment and impairment of
cerebral compensatory mechanisms when compared directly
with patients with MS who have not used cannabis [99101].
Investigators from these studies raised concerns regarding the
use of cannabis in a patient group with cognitive challenges
prior to cannabis use.
Evidence for efficacy in other neurological conditions relies
heavily on testimonials and anecdotes [20]. Animal models
demonstrate the antiepileptic potential of cannabis [6, 102],
and suggest that CBD may enhance the efficacy in preclinical
models of epilepsy [5]. Nevertheless, there have been few con-
trolled trials. One systematic review found that short-term daily
cannabis use is safe in individuals with epilepsy, but there is
currently insufficient evidence to form a conclusion about effi-
cacy [34, 102]. Similarly, preclinical models Alzheimersdis-
ease, PD, and HD are mechanistically promising [6, 95, 103].
R expression correlates with levels of β-amyloid-42 and
plaque density [104]. Furthermore, cannabinoids may inhibit
tau hyperphosphorylation and prevent β-amyloid aggregation
[105, 106 ], suggesting therapeutic potential in models of
Alzheimers disease. Similarly, the presence of striatal canna-
binoid receptors on GABA terminals demonstrates a mecha-
nism in which cannabinoids could improve dyskinesia by im-
proving GABA transmission in the globus pallidus in patients
with PD [107]. Finally, animal models of HD using cannabi-
noids as treatment demonstrate preservation of striatal neurons
[108]. However, despite the success of these preclinical animal
models, evidence from human studies remains scant [6].
Psychiatric and Psychological Conditions
Research on the therapeutic benefits of exogenous cannabinoids
on psychological conditions is equally sparse. Early clinical tri-
als have demonstrated that high-dose oral CBD may have an
anxiolytic effect, possibly through 5-HT
agonism [5, 41]. In
patients with schizophrenia elevated anadamide levels are neg-
atively correlated with psychotic symptomology, which
suggests a protective role [ 86]. In spite of this, the benefits of
CBD monotherapy are not consistently demonstrated in individ-
uals with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia [41, 109, 110]. There
is some evidence that cannabis may have a beneficial impact on
sleep quality among individuals with post-traumatic stress dis-
order [6, 43]. However, more research is needed to confirm and
further explore the therapeutic ef fects of cannabis or synthetic
cannabinoids on psychological conditions.
Other Medical Conditions
Some of the first conditions medicinal cannabis was approved
for include glaucoma, chronic pain, and nausea and vomiting
associated with cancer treatments and AIDS. There is good
evidence that exogenous cannabinoids can decrease intraocu-
lar pressure in individuals with glaucoma [20, 21]. However,
in order to have a clinically significant impact the dose and
frequency of use needs to be extremely high, which may in-
crease the likelihood of negative side effects [34]. Medicinal
cannabis has also been used to treat chronic neuropathic pain,
particularly when conventional methods do not work. Current
research suggests that cannabinoids, including oral cannabis,
THC, and nabiximols, provide effective analgesia [4, 6, 34,
111113]. There is also some evidence that cannabinoids may
be safe and moderately effective in the treatment of pain as-
sociated with fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis [34, 42,
114]. Treatment with medicinal cannabis has resulted in de-
creased need for antiemetic in individuals undergoing chemo-
therapy [34, 39, 113, 115, 116]. Additionally, while medicinal
cannabinoids (e.g., nabilone, dronabinol, and levonantradol)
are not significantly better at treating nausea or vomiting than
conventional medications, patients receiving chemotherapy
often prefer them [34, 39, 116, 117].
Although there is evidence for the therapeutic potential of
exogenous cannabinoids in the treatment of a number of con-
ditions there is still serious trepidation regarding the potential
negative side effects. A large systematic review of the adverse
events associated with the use of medical cannabis demon-
strated that short-term use of existing medical cannabinoids
increases the risk of nonserious adverse events including mild-
to-moderate sedation, dizziness, dry mouth, nausea, and poor
attention [117]. The rates of serious adverse events (e.g., re-
lapse of MS, vomiting, and urinary tract infections) were not
different from controls [117]. Further research is needed to
better understand the long-term effects of medical cannabis.
Policy Perspective
Policy Timeline and Research Limitations
Perception s and policy regarding cannabis have vacillated
widely over the years, reflecting the relative temporal valence
740 Sachs et al.
of scientific evidence compared with public opinion at a given
point in time. For example, California legalized medical can-
nabis in 1996, despite the federal ban [118]. Shortly thereafter,
the Institute of Medicine issued a report acknowledging the
potential therapeutic benefits of cannabis, but calling for more
research. More recently, the pace and quality of research has
been limited by stagnant policy. Cannabis was and still is
categorized as a Schedule I drug, which means it is identified
as potentially addictive without any medical benefit. As a
Schedule I drug, the process for conducting research is ex-
tremely complicated. Researchers must have a Drug
Enforcement Agency Schedule I license, approval from their
institution, and funding. Obtaining all 3 is extremely challeng-
ing and has been a limiting factor in the advancement of cur-
rent cannabis research. In lieu of the ability to conduct ran-
domized controlled trials, many researchers must instead fo-
cus their efforts on retrospective cohort studies, case reports,
and observational studies. There has been significant debate
over the merits of re-classifying cannabis as a Schedule II
drug, as it would greatly increase research accessibility and
consequently methodological quality [119]. Ironically, the
limited clinical research coupled with divisive public opinion
and perception hinders the reclassification. In addition to re-
classification, research regarding cannabis safety and efficacy
is affected by a lack of standardization. Current clinical re-
search findings are constrained by inconsistency in definitions
of what constitutes a standard dose and how to quantify and
standardize methods of administration [120]. Additionally, a
great deal of the research relies on subjective, patient report,
and patient-driven symptoms rating scales [95]. Ultimately,
the federal policies remain stagnant because the process is
circular; the c linical research methods and standardization
are limited by the current policy, but the current policy is
difficult to change because the lack of research standardization
produces mixed findings.
Public Perspective and Perceived Risk
Despite the stagnant federal policy, public perspective and
perceived risk has demonstrated a noticeable shift.
According to the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use a nd
Health, cannabis is the most commonly used illicit drug in
the USA with a national prevalence of cannabis use in the past
month at 7 % [121]. Similarly, the Monitoring the Future
Study has documented increased rates of use and decreased
perceived risk between 2002 and 2012 among high-school
students [88, 122]. This is further evidenced by the fact that
62 % of recent cannabis initiates were 18 years of age or
younger when they first used [121]. The epidemiological ev-
idence on use and perceived risk demonstrates a relatively
clear trend in public opinion that is reflected in state but not
federal policy. Despite a federal ban and limitations in the
quality of evidence surrounding the potential risks associated
with cannabis use, medical cannabis is currently legal in 23
states and the District of Columbia, and recreational cannabis
is legal in 4 states [6, 123].
Implementation Variation
Currently, there is state-by-state variation in the way medical
cannabis legislation is designed and implemented.
Specifically, there is inconsistency in the way in which states
regulate patient use and access, caregiver rights, the role of
dispensaries, and product safety and packaging requirements
[124]. First and foremost, states can choose to enact medical
cannabis legislation by 1 of 2 mechanisms, either through the
introduction of statutory provisions or through the creation of
an amendment to the states constitution. The majority of
states with medical cannabis laws have opted to enact statuto-
ry provisions, in part because the process is easier, though also
less stable. The next aspect of legislative design is determining
who qualifies for medical use and how they obtain permission.
Because physicians are subject to sanctions from the federal
government, they cannot prescribe cannabis but rather must
recommend use. The contexts for which a recommendation
can be given vary. Some states require diagnosis of a medical
condition in addition to a physician recommendation, whereas
others simply require a physician recommendation [124].
After obtaining a physician recommendation there are 2 ap-
proaches an individual can follow to procure medical canna-
bis: home cultivation or from an approved dispensary.
Currently, 15 out of 24 jurisdictions allow home cultivation;
however, the circumstances under which home cultivation is
permissible and the defined quantity allowed in circulation
varies by jurisdiction (Table 1)[123]. Similarly, 19 out of 24
states allow dispensaries or compassionate care centers to en-
gage in some combination of dispensing activities, including
acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacturing, delivery,
transfer, selling, supplying, and dispensing of cannabis [123,
]. Finally, there is variation in legal protections afforded to
ysicians, caregivers, and patients who may be involved in
recommending, acquiring, or using medical cannabis. There
are 2 types of protections: legal privilege that prevents the
state from bringing criminal chargers, and affirmative defense
that allows the individual to prevail against the criminal
charges. Currently, legal protections for patients and care-
givers differ from t hose for recommending physicians.
Namely, the pro tections p revent the state from bring ing
charges against the physicians, whereas patients and care-
givers may be tried but have affirmative defense that excuses
criminal culpability [124].
While policy should be supported by the scientific evi-
dence, the ability to generate quality evidence thus far has
been hindered by federal policy. This has resulted in a piece-
meal state-based system without the ability to fully assess or
implement safeguards [97]. As legalization of medical and
Safety and Toxicology of Cannabinoids 741
recreational cannabis at the state level becomes more preva-
lent, jurisdictions are making an effort to implement safe-
guards, including safety testing, packaging requirements, la-
beling requirements, media advertisement restrictions, and
distribution site features. However, of the 24 jurisdictions that
have legal medical or recreational cannabis law, only 15 have
product testing and regulation requirements, and only 8 have
mandatory testing [123]. Therefore, while public perspective
trends suggest continued state-based legislative change, the
lack of federal regulation and infrastructure poses serious safe-
ty concerns.
Discussion: Future Directions
The literature on medical and recreational cannabis suggests
clear discordance between current federal and state policies,
public opinion, and the scientific evidence. Moreover, this
discordance appears to hinder the implementation of both high
quality research and adequate safeguards.
The scientific evidence is often inconclusive and burdened
by methodological inconsistency. The classification of canna-
bis as a Schedule I drug limits the type and quality of research,
forcing assessments of safety and efficacy to rely on observa-
tional studies. Furthermore, definitions of standard dose vary,
as do means of administration, cannabinoid content, potency,
and reason for use (recreational and medical). Despite the
methodological challenges, the findings to date illustrate rela-
tively clear acute cardiovascular, respiratory, cognitive, psy-
chological, and public health effects associated with both rec-
reational and medical cannabis use. However, the documented
persistence of these acute effects is considerably more vari-
able. Long-term cardiovascular and respiratory consequences
of cannabis use are fairly well evidenced. However, the find-
ings regarding long-term cognitive, psychological, and im-
mune effects are less clear. Few studies have assessed the
long-term impact o f cannabis on the immune system, and
questions remain regarding the relative impacts of THC and
CBD on immunity. Likewise, among healthy adults there is
mixed evidence for long-term cognitive and psychological
impacts of heavy cannabis use after discontinuation and wash-
out [4, 20, 4547, 55]. Some studies do report long-term def-
icits in learning and memory, but the findings are inconsistent
[4, 15, 34, 45, 47 , 55]. It appears that persistent cognitive
diminishment and psychological impacts are closely related
to early age of onset, increased duration, and frequency of
Table 1 Medical and recreational marijuana legislation by jurisdiction [123]
Jurisdiction State authorizes
medical marijuana
States authorizes
recreational marijuana
State regulates
Product safety
Alaska Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Arizona Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
California Yes No Yes Yes Yes No
Colorado Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Connecticut Yes No Yes No Yes Yes
District of Columbia Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Delaware Yes No Yes No Yes Yes
Hawaii Yes No Yes Yes No No
Illinois Yes No No No Yes Yes
Massachusetts Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Maryland Yes No No No Yes No
Maine Yes No Yes Yes No Yes
Michigan Yes No Yes Yes Yes No
Minnesota Yes No No No No Yes
Montana Yes No Yes Yes Yes No
New Hampshire Yes No Yes No Yes No
New Jersey Yes No No No Yes Yes
New Mexico Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Nevada Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
New York Yes No No No Yes Yes
Oregon Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Rhode Island Yes No Yes Yes Yes No
Vermont Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Washington Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
742 Sachs et al.
use. Age of onset and frequency of use also have an impact
substance abuse and dependency later on, with addiction rates
of 1617 % among individuals who initiate use as an adoles-
cent and 2550 % among individuals who use cannabis daily
[20]. Collectively, these findings begin to depict vulnerable
populations who may be negatively affected by the effects of
by cannabis use, including adolescents, individuals with cur-
rent or past substance use disorders, individuals with a per-
sonal or family history of mental illness, those that have com-
promised cardiovascular, respiratory, or immune systems, and
those who are pregnant [31]. However, among the average
adult user the health risks associated with cannabis use are
likely no more dangerous than many other indulgences, in-
cluding alcohol, nicotine, acetaminophen, fried foods, and
downhill skiing [125128]. This viewpoint is echoed in regard
to medical cannabis as therapy. The side effects of conven-
tional medications are weighted against the potential benefits,
but this same logic is rarely applied to discussions of medical
cannabis. This dilemma is further exacerbated by the fact that
research on the the rapeutic potential of cannabis relies on
testimony and anecdote and is consequently heavily
Given these findings one option for the future direction of
research on cannabis is to approach cannabis as a legitimate
therapeutic agent. This would include reclassification, as well
as more stringent and uniform supervision of its use and dis-
tribution in a safe, ethically, and scientifically justified manner
[125128]. Such policies would allow for improved research
and consequently a better understanding of the safety and
efficacy of cannabis.
In addition to rescheduling cannabis, further thought may
be given to policy design. As state-based legalization becomes
more common policymakers should consider how their poli-
cies affect production, price, and use. There is some evidence
that legalization deflates production costs [129, 130], thereby
potentially decreasing the market price. However, it has also
been suggested that decreased cost may lead to increased use,
particularly among adolescents [129]. As a result, policy
makers ought to consider mechanisms to control cost. Taxes
may be a useful tool to influence price and potentially adoles-
cent use [130, 131]. Furthermore, revenue from those taxes
can be utilized to promote prevention programs. Another
mechanism to alter use includes limiting media promotion.
Currently, only 6 jurisdictions have implemented policies
restricting media advertising [123], so there is limited evi-
dence on efficacy, but evidence from similar policies in alco-
hol and tobacco prevention is promising.
In conclusion, despite the general uncertainty on the safety and
efficacy of medical and recreational cannabis use there are some
general themes that remain consistent. There are clear acute car-
diovascular , respiratory, cognitive, psychological, and public
health effects of cannabis use. Additionally, persistent cardiovas-
cular and respiratory consequences are fairly well documented in
chronic users. The evidence of other long-term impacts of can-
nabis are mixed, and likely influenced by age of first use, dura-
tion of use, frequency of use, potency , and co-morbid conditions.
Finally, there is evidence suggesting a therapeutic impact of can-
nabis on reducing spasticity associated with MS, chronic neuro-
pathic pain, and nausea and vomiting in individuals undergoing
chemotherapy. However, studies of patients with MS who used
cannabis raise a cautionary note regarding further cognitive di-
minishment, which may affect clinical outcomes. Therapeutic
potential in the treatment of other diseases is unclear and requires
more research. Collectively , these findings support the continued
therapeutic use of cannabis when conventional treatments are
ineffectiv e. However , when recommending medical cannabis,
physicians and patients would benefit from discussions of the
risks, benefits, and uncertainties associated with cannabis use.
Furthermore, medical cannabis should be avoided in vulnerable
populations, including individuals under the age of 25 years,
individuals with current or past substance use disorders, individ-
uals with a personal or family history of mental illness, those that
have compromised cardiovascular , respiratory, or immune sys-
tems, and those who are pregnant. Finally , efforts to reclassify
cannabis should continue and policy makers must consider im-
pacts on production, price, and use when crafting legislation.
Required Author Forms Disclosure forms provided by the authors are
available with the online version of this article.
Open Access This article is distributed un der the terms of t he
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http:// 0/), which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link
to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
1. UNODC. World Drug Report 2013. United Nations Publication
V ienna, 2013.
2. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA). Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug
Use and Health: Summary of natio nal findings. Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Servicels Administration, Rockville,
MD, 2014.
3. Elsohly MA, Slade D. Chemical constituents of marijuana: the
complex mixture of natural cannabinoids. Life Sci 2005;78:
4. Borgelt LM, Franson KL, Nussbaum AM, Wang GS. The phar-
macologic and clinical effects of medical cannabis. Pharmacother
Safety and Toxicology of Cannabinoids 743
5. McPartland JM, Duncan M, Di Marzo V, Pertwee RG. Are
cannabidiol and Delta(9) -tetrahydrocannabivarin negative modu-
lators of the endocannabinoid system? A systematic review. Br J
Pharmacol 2015;172:737-753.
6. Benbadis SR, Sanchez-Ramos J, Bozorg A, et al. Medical mari-
juana in neurology. Exp Rev Neurother 2014;14:1453-1465.
7. Mackie K. Signaling via CNS cannabinoid receptors. Mol Cell
Endocrinol 2008;286:S60-S65.
8. Pertwee R. The diverse CB1 and CB2 receptor pharmacology of
three plant cannabinoids: Δ9tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiol
and Δ9t etrah ydrocannab ivarin. Br J Pharmac ol 200 8;153:
9. Pertwee RG. Cannabinoid pharmacology: the first 66 years. Br J
Pharmacol 2006;147(Suppl. 1):S163-S171.
10. Piomelli D. The molecular logic of endocannabinoid signalling.
Nat Rev Neurosci 2003;4:873-884.
11. Pertwee R. Receptors and channels targeted by synthetic cannabi-
noid receptor agonists and antagonists. Curr Med Chem 2010;17:
12. Suarez-Pinilla P, Lopez-Gil J, Crespo-Facorro B. Immune system:
a possible nexus between cannabinoids and psycho sis. Brain
Behav Immun 2014;40:269-282.
13. Machado Bergamaschi M, Helena Costa Queiroz R, Waldo Zuardi
A, Crippa AS. Safety and side effects of cannabidiol, a Cannabis
sativa constituent. Curr Drug Saf 2011;6:237-249.
14. Pope C, Mechoulam R, Parsons L. Endocannabinoid signaling in
neurotoxicity and neuroprotection. Neuroto xicology 2010;31:
15. Schatman ME. Medical Marijuana: the state of the science.
Medscape Neurology [Internet] 2015. [cited 2015 April 20].
Available from:
16. Adams IB, Martin BR. Cannabis: pharmacology and toxicology in
animals and humans. Addiction 1996;91:1585-11614.
17. Cascini F, Aiello C, Di Tanna G. Increasing delta-9-
tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ-9-THC) content in herbal cannabis over
time: systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr Drug Abuse Rev
18. Fitzgerald KT, Bronstein AC, Newquist KL. Marijuana poisoning.
Top Companion Anim Med 2013;28:8-12.
19. McLaren J, Swift W, Dillon P, Allsop S. Cannabis potency and
contamination: a review of the literature. Addiction 2008;103:
20. Repp K, Raich A. Marijuana and health: a comprehensive review
of 20 years of research. Washington County Oregon: Department
of Health and Human Services; 2014.
21. Robson P. Human studies of cannabinoids and medicinal canna-
bis. Handb Exp Pharmacol 2005;(168):719-786.
22. Scallet AC. Neurotoxicology of cannabis and THC: a review of
chronic exposure studies in animals. Pharmacol Biochem Behav
23. Wall ME, Sadler BM, Brine D, Taylor H, PerezReyes M.
Metabolism, disposition, and kinetics of delta9tetrahydrocan-
nabinol in men and women. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1983;34 :
24. Zuurman L, Ippel AE, Moin E, Van Gerven J. Biomarkers for the
effects of cannabis and THC in healthy volunteers. Br J Clin
Pharmacol 2009;67:5-21.
25. Zuurman L, Passier P, de Kam M, Kleijn H, Cohen A, van Gerven
J. Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic effects of the intrave-
nously administered CB1 receptor agonist Org 28611 in healthy
male volunteers. J Psychopharmacol 2009;23:633-644.
26. Grotenhermen F. The toxicology of cannabis and cannabis prohi-
bition. Chem Biodivers 2007;4:1744-1769.
27. Hall W. The adverse health effects of cannabis use: what are they,
and what ar e their implications for policy? Int J Dr ug Policy
28. Hall W, Degenhardt L. Adverse health effects of non-medical
cannabis use. Lancet 2009;374:1383-1391.
29. Reece AS. Chronic toxicology of cannabis. J Clin Toxicol
30. Thomas G, Kloner RA, Rezkalla S. Adverse cardiovascular, cere-
brovascular, and peripheral vascular effects of marijuana inhala-
tion: what cardiologists need to know. Am J Cardiol 2014;113:
31. Kahan M, Srivastava A, Spithoff S, Bromley L. Prescribing
smoked cannabis for chronic noncancer pain: preliminary recom-
mendations. Can Fam Physician 2014;60:1083-1090.
32. Parakh P. Adverse health effects of non-medical cannabis use.
Lancet 2010;375:196-197.
33. Tormey W. Adverse health effects of non-medical cannabis use.
Lancet 2010;375:196.
34. Volkow ND, Baler RD, Compton WM, Weiss SR. Adverse health
effects of marijuana use. N Engl J Med 2014;370:2219-2227.
35. Kalant H. Adverse effects of cannabis on health: an update of the
literature since 1996. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol
Psychiatry 2004;28:849-863.
36. Hashibe M, Straif K, Tashkin DP, Morgenstern H, Greenland S,
hang ZF. Epidemiologic review of marijuana use and cancer risk.
Alcohol 2005;35:265-275.
37. Maertens RM, White PA, Williams A, Yauk CL. A global
toxicogenomic analysis investigating the mechanistic differences
between tobacco and marijuana smoke condensates in vitro.
Toxicology 2013;308:60-73.
38. Gates PJ, Albertella L, Copeland J. The effects of cannabinoid
administration on sleep: a systematic review of human studies.
Sleep Med Rev 2014;18:477-487.
39. Tramèr MR, Carroll D, Campbell FA, Reynolds DJM, Moore RA,
McQuay HJ. Cannabinoids for control of chemotherapy induced
nausea and vomiting: quantitative systematic review. BMJ
40. Yamamoto I, Watanabe K, Matsunaga T, Kimura T, Funahashi T,
Yoshimura H. Pharmacology and toxicology of major constituents
of marijuanaon the metabolic activation of cannabinoids and its
mechanism. Toxin Rev 2003;22:577-589.
41. Zhornitsky S, Potvin S. Cannabidiol in humansthe quest for
therapeutic targets. Pharmaceuticals 2012;5:529-552.
42. Lynch ME, Campbell F. Cannabinoids for treatment of chronic
noncancer pain; a systematic review of randomized trials. Br J
Clin Pharmacol 2011;72:735-744.
43. Roitman P, Mechoulam R, Cooper-Kazaz R, S halev A.
Preliminary, open-label, pilot study of add-on oral Delta9-
tetrahydrocannabinol in chronic post-traumatic stress disorder.
Clin Drug Investig 2014;34:587-591.
44. Kobayashi H, Suzuki T, Kamata R, et al. Recent progress in the
neurotoxicology of natural drugs associated with dependence or
addiction, their endogenous agonists and receptors. J Toxicol Sci
45. Crane NA, Schuster RM, Fusar-Poli P, Gonzalez R. Effects
of can nabis on n euroco gni tive functioning: recent a dvances ,
neurodevelopmental influences, and sex differences. Neuropsychol
Rev 2013;23:117-137.
46. Meier MH, Caspi A, Ambler A, et al. Persistent cannabis users
show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife. Proc
Natl Acad Sci 2012;109:E2657-E2664.
47. Schoeler T, Bhattacharyya S. The effect of cannabis use on mem-
ory function: an update. Subst Abuse Rehabil 2013;4:11-27.
48. Ehrler M, McGlade EC, Yurgelun-Todd D. Subjective and cogni-
tive effects of cannabinoids in marijuana smokers. In:
Campolongo P, Fattore L, editors. Cannabinoid modulation of
emotion, memory, and motivation. New York: Springer; 2015. p.
744 Sachs et al.
49. Wrege J, Schmidt A, Walter A, et al. Effects of cannabis on im-
pulsivity: a systematic review of neuroimaging findings. Curr
Pharm Des 2014;20:2126.
50. Crean RD, Crane NA, Mason BJ. An evidence based review of
acute and long-term effects of cannabis use on executive cognitive
functions. J Addict Med 2011;5:1.
51. Gonzalez R, Carey C, Grant I. Nonacute (residual) neuropsycho-
logical effects of cannabis use: a qualitative analysis and system-
atic review. J Clin Pharmacol 2002;42(Suppl.1):48S-57S.
52. Solowij N, Pesa N. Cognitive abnormalities and cannabis use. Rev
Bras Psiquiatr 2010;32:531-540.
53. Pope HG, Gruber AJ, Hudson JI, Huestis MA, YurgelunTodd D.
Cognitive Measures in longterm cannabis users. J Clin Pharmacol
2002;42(Suppl. 1):41S-47S.
54. Pope Jr HG, Gruber AJ, Yurgelun-Todd D. Residual
neuropsychologic effects o f cannabis. Curr Psychiatry Rep
55. Grant I, Gonzalez R, Carey CL, Natarajan L, Wolfson T. Non-
acute (residual) neurocognitive effects of cannabis use: a meta-
analytic study. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2003;9:679-689.
56. Schweinsburg AD, Brown SA, Tapert SF. The influence of mari-
juana use on neurocognitive functioning in adolescents. Curr Drug
Abuse Rev 2008;1:99.
57. James A, James C, Thwaites T. The brain effects of cannabis in
healthy adolescents and in adolescents with schizophrenia: a sys-
tematic review. Psychiatry Res 2013;214:181-189.
58. Pope HG, Gruber AJ, Hudson JI, Cohane G, Huestis MA,
Yurgelun-Todd D. Early-onset cannabis use and cognitive deficits:
what is the nature of th e association? Drug Alcohol Depend
59. Pope HG, Yurgelun-Todd D. The residual cognitive effects of
heavy marijuana us e i n college studen ts. JAMA 1996 ;275 :
60. Batalla A, Bhattacharyya S, Yucel M, et al. Structural and func-
tional imaging studies in chronic cannabis users: a systematic re-
view of adolescent and adult findings. PloS One 2013;8:e55821.
61. Lorenzett i V, Lubma n DI, Whittle S, Solowij N, Yucel M.
Structural MRI findings in long-term cannabis users: what do
we know? Substance Use Misuse 2010;45:1787-1808.
62. Martin-Santos R, Fagundo AB, Crippa JA, et al. Neuroimaging in
cannabis use: a systematic review of the literature. Psychol Med
63. Rapp C, Bugra H, Riecher-Rössler A, Tamagni C, Borgwardt S.
Effects of cannabis use on human brain structure in psychosis: a
systematic review combining in vivo structural neuroimaging and
post mortem studies. Curr Pharm Des 2012;18:5070.
64. Lopez-Larson MP, Bogorodzki P, Rogowska J, et al. Altered pre-
fron tal and insular cortical thickness in adolescent marijuana
users. Behav Brain Res 2011;220:164-172.
65. McCormick MA, Shekhar A. Review of marijuana use in the
adolescent population and implications of its legalization in the
United States. J Drug Metab Toxicol 2014;5:2.
66. Jacobus J, Squeglia LM, Meruelo AD, et al. Cortical thickness in
adolescent marijuana and alcohol users: a three-year prospective
study from adolescence to young adulthood. Dev Cog Neurosci
2015 Apr 27 [Epub ahead of print].
67. Wetherill RR, Jagannathan K, Hager N, Childress AR, Rao H,
Franklin TR. Cannabis, cigarettes, and their co-occurring use:
disentangling differences in gray matter volume. Int J
Neuropsychopharmacol 2015:pyv061.
68. Gruber SA, Yurgelun-Todd DA. Neuroimaging of marijuana
smokers during inhibitory processing: a pilot investigation. Cog
Brain Res 2005;23:107-118.
69. Churchwell JC, Yurgelun-Todd DA. Neuroimaging, adolescence,
and risky behavior. In: MT B, DH F, R M (eds) Inhibitory control
and drug abuse prevention. Springer, ??, 2011, pp. 101-122.
70. Kanayama G, Rogowska J, Pope HG, Gruber SA, Yurgelun-Todd
DA. Spatial working memory in heavy cannabis users: a function-
al magnetic resonance imaging stud y. Psychopharmacol
71. Chang L, Cloak C, Yakupov R, Ernst T. Combined and indepen-
dent effects of chronic marijuana use and HIV on brain metabo-
lites. J Neuroimmune Pharmacol 2006;1:65-76.
72. Hermann D, Sartorius A, Welzel H, et al. Dorsolateral prefrontal
cortex N-acetylaspartate/total creatine (NAA/tCr) loss in male rec-
reational cannabis users. Biol Psychol 2007;61:1281-1289.
73. Prescot AP, Renshaw PF, Yurgelun-Todd DA. γ-Amino butyric
acid and glutamate abnormalities in adolescent chronic marijuana
smokers. Drug Alcohol Depend 2013;129:232-239.
74. Crippa JAS, Derenusson GN, Ferrari TB, et al. Neural basis of
anxiolytic effects of cannabidiol (CBD) in generalized social anx-
iety disorder: a preliminary report. J Psychopharmacol 2011;25:
75. Gibbs M, Winsper C, Marwaha S, Gilbert E, Broome M, Singh
SP. Cannabis use and mania symptoms: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. J Affect Disord 2015;171:39-47.
76. Lev-Ran S, Roerecke M, Le Foll B, George TP, McKenzie K,
Rehm J. The association between cannabis use and depression: a
systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudin al studies.
Psychol Med 2014;44:797-810.
77. Crippa JA, Zuardi AW, Martin-Santos R, et al. Cannabis and anx-
iety: a critical review of the evidence. Hum Psychopharmacol
78. Nussbaum AM, Thurstone C, McGarry L, Walker B, Sabel AL.
Use and diversion of medical marijuana among adults admitted to
inpatient psychiatry. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 2015;41:166-172.
79. Ferretjans R, Moreira FA, Teixeira AL, Salgado JV. The
endocannabinoid system and its role in schizophrenia: a system-
atic review of the literature. Rev Bras Psiquiatr 2012;34:163-193.
80. Semple DM, McIntosh AM, Lawrie SM. Cannabis as a risk factor
for psychosis: systematic review. J Psychopharmacol 2005;19:
81. Moore THM, Zammit S, Lingford-Hughes A, et al. Cannabis use
and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a sys-
tematic review. Lancet 2007;370:319-328.
82. Szoke A, Galliot AM, Richard JR, et al. Association between
cannabis use and schizotypal dime nsions
meta-analysis of
cross-sectional studies. Psychiatry Res 2014;219:58-66.
83. Malchow B, Hasan A, Fusar-Poli P, Schmitt A, Falkai P, Wobrock
T. Cannabis abuse and brain morphology in schizophrenia: a re-
view of the available evidence. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin
84. J van der Meer F, Velthorst E, J Meijer C, WJ Machielsen M, de
Haan L. Cannabis use in patients at clinical high risk of psychosis:
impact on prodromal symptoms and transition to psychosis. Curr
Pharm Des 2012;18:5036-5044.
85. Iseger TA, Bossong MG. A systematic review of the antipsychotic
properties of cannabidiol in humans. Schizophr Res 2015;162:
86. Roser P, S Haussleiter I. Antipsychotic-like effects of cannabidiol
and rimonabant: systematic review of animal and human studies.
Curr Pharm Des 2012;18:5141-5155.
87. Calabria B, Degenhardt L, Hall W, Lynskey M. Does cannabis use
increase the risk of death? Systematic review of epidemiological
evidence on adverse effects of cannabis use. Drug Alcohol Rev
88. Johnst on LD, Miech R A, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG,
Schulenberg JE. Use of alcohol, cigarettes, and number of illicit
drugs declines among U.S. teens. Ann Arbor, MI, 2014/
Retrieved 20 Apr. 2015. Report No.
89. National Intstitute of Drug Abuse (NIDA). Research Report
Series: Marijuana. 2015.
Safety and Toxicology of Cannabinoids 745
90. Goldschmidt L, Day NL, Richardson GA. Effects of prenatal
marijuana exposure on child behavior problems at age 10.
Neurotoxicol Teratol 2000;22:325-336.
91. Richardson GA, Ryan C, Willford J, Day NL, Goldschmidt L.
Prenatal alcohol and marijuana exposure: effects on neuro-
psychological outcomes at 10 years. Neurotoxicol Teratol
2002;24:309- 320.
92. de Moraes Barros MC, Guinsburg R, Mitsuhiro S, Chalem E,
Laranjeira RR. Neurobehavioral profile of healthy full-term new-
born infants of adolescent mothers. Early Hum Dev 2008;84:281-
93. Fried PA, Makin J. Neonatal behavioural correlates of prenatal
exposure to marihuana, cigarettes and alcohol in a low risk popu-
lation. Neurotoxicol Teratol 1987;9:1-7.
94. Mincis M, Pfeferman A, Guimarães R, Ramos O, Zukerman E,
Karniol I, et al. [Chronic administration of cannabidiol in man.
Pilot study]. AMB Rev Assoc Med Bras 1973 ;19:18 5-190
(in Portu guese).
95. Koppel BS, Brust JC, Fife T, et al. Systematic review: efficacy and
safety of medical marijuana in selected neurologic disorders: re-
port of the Guide line Development Su bcommittee of the
American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2014;82:1556-
96. Lakhan SE, Rowland M. Whole plant cannabis extracts in the
treatment of spasticity in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review.
BMC Neurol 2009;9:59.
97. OReilly K. AMA meeting: delegates support review of mari-
juanas schedule I status. American Medical New [Internet]
2009. [cited 2015 Apr 20]. Available from: http://www.
98. Wade DT, Makela P, House H, Bateman C, Robson P. Long-term
use of a cannabis-based medicine in the treatment of spasticity and
other symptoms in multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis 2006;12:
99. Pavisian B, MacIntosh BJ, Szilagyi G, Staines RW, O'Connor P,
Feinstein A. Effects of cannabis on cognition in patients with MS
A psychometric and MRI study. Neurology 2014;82:1879-1887.
100. Honarmand K, Tierney MC, O'Connor P, Feinstein A. Effects of
cannabis on cognitive function in patients with multiple sclerosis.
Neurololgy 2011;76:1153-1160.
101. Ghaffar O, Feinstein A. Multiple sclerosis and cannabis: a cogni-
tive and psychiatric study. Neurology 2008;71:164-169.
102. Gloss D, Vickrey B. Cannabinoids for epilepsy. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev 2012;6:CD009270.
103. Krishnan S, Cairns R, Howard R. Cannabinoids for the treatment
of dementia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;(2):CD007204.
104. Solas M, Francis PT, Franco R, Ramirez MJ. CB 2 receptor and
amyloid pathology in frontal cortex of Alzheimer's disease pa-
tients. Neurobiol Aging 2013;34:805-808.
105. Esposito G, De Filippis D, Carnuccio R, Izzo AA, Iuvone T. The
marijuana component cannabidiol inhibits β-amyloid-induced tau
protein hyperphosphorylation through Wnt/β-catenin pathway
rescue in PC12 cells. J Mol Med 2006;84:253-258.
106. Eubanks LM, Rogers CJ, Beuscher AE, IV, et al. A molecular link
between the active component of marijuana and Alzheimer's dis-
ease pathology. Mol Pharm 2006;3:773-777.
107. Fox SH, Henry B, Hill M, Crossman A, Brotchie J. Stimulation of
cannabinoid receptors reduces levodopainduced dyskinesia in the
MPTPlesioned nonhuman primate model of Parkinson's disease.
Mov Disord 2002;17:1180-1187.
108. Sagredo O, Ruth Pazos M, Valdeolivas S, Fernández-Ruiz J.
Cannabinoids: novel medicines for the treatment of Huntington's
disease. Recent Pat CNS Drug Discov 2012;7:41-48.
109. McLoughlin BC, PushpaRajah JA, Gillies D, et al. Cannabis and
schizophrenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;10:CD004837.
110. Zuardi AW, Hallak JE, Dursun SM, et al. Cannabidiol monother-
apy for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. J Psychopharmacol
111. Boychuk DG, Goddard G, Mauro G, Orellana MF. The effective-
ness of cannabinoids in the management of chronic nonmalignant
neuropathic pain: a systematic review. J Oral Facial Pain Headache
112. Eisenberg E, Ogintz M, Almog S. The pharmacokinetics, efficacy,
safety, and ease of use of a novel portable metered-dose cannabis
inhaler in patients with chronic neuropathic pain: a phase 1a study.
J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother 2014;28:216-225.
113. Martin-Sanchez E, Furukawa TA, Taylor J, Martin JL. Systematic
review and meta-analysis of cannabis treatment for chronic pain.
Pain Med 2009;10:1353-1368.
114. Richards BL, Whittle SL, Buchbinder R. Neuromodulators for
pain managem ent in rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database
Syst Rev 2012;1:CD008921.
115. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
(CADTH). CADTH rapid response reports. CADTH, Ottawa,
116. Machado Rocha FC, Stefano SC, De C assia Haiek R, Rosa
Oliveira LM, Da Silveira DX. Therapeutic use of Cannabis sativa
on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among cancer pa-
tients: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer Care
117. Wang T, Collet JP, Shapiro S, Ware MA. Adverse effects of
medical cannabinoids: a systematic review. CMAJ 2008;178:
118. Mack A, Joy J. Marijuana as medicine?: the science beyond the
controversy: National Academies Press, 2000.
119. Kassirer JP. Federal foolishness and marijuana. N Engl J Med
120. Lopez -Pelayo H, Batalla A, Balcells MM, Colom J, Gual A.
Assessment of cannabis use disorders: a systematic review of
creening and diagnostic instruments. Psychol Med 2015;45:
121. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA). Results from the 2012 National Survey on Drug
Use and Health: summary of national findings. Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration, Rockville, MD,
122. Okaneku J, Vearrier D, McKeever RG, LaSala GS, Greenberg MI.
Change in perceived risk associated with marijuana use in the
United States from 2002 to 2012. Clin Toxicol 2015;53:151-155.
123. Research PHL. Laws, maps & data: law atlas . Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation.
124. Pacula RL, Hunt P, Boustead A. Words can be deceiving: a review
of variation among legally effective medical marijuana laws in the
United States. J Drug Policy Anal 2014;7:1-19.
125. Blumenson E, Nilsen E. No rational basis: the pragmatic case for
marijuana law reform. Va J Soc Pol'y & L. 2009;17:43.
126. Bostwick JM. Blurred boundaries: the therapeutics and politics of
medical marijuana. Mayo Clin Proc 2012;87:172-186.
127. Bostwick JM. The use of cannabis for management of chronic
pain. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2014;36:2-3.
128. Cohen PJ. Medical marijuana 2010: it's time to fix the regulatory
vacuum. J Law Med Ethics 2010;38:654-666.
129. Caulkins JP, Hawken A, Kilmer B, Kleiman MA. Marijuana
Legalization: what everyone need s to know. Oxford, Oxford
University Press, 2012.
130. Kilmer B. Policy designs for cannabis legalization: starting with
the eight Ps. Am J Drug Alcohol Ab 2014;40:259-261.
131. Caulkins JP, Hawken A, Kilmer B, Kleiman MA. High tax states:
options for g leaning revenue from legal cannabis. Or L Rev
746 Sachs et al.
... Demências* CBD ou CBD + THC CBD 5 mg à 200 mg ao dia (Mueller et al., 2020). CBD + THC: 2,5 mg à 200 mg ao dia (Mueller et al., 2020 (Gottschling et al., 2020;Sachs, McGlade, Yurgelun-Todd, 2015). ...
... Além disso, estudos relatam vasoespasmo reversível, bem como desaceleração e reversão de fluxo na artéria cerebral média. Eventos adversos mais severos como piora da angina, infarto do miocárdio, morte cardíaca e cardiomiopatia foram relatados em indivíduos com doenças cardiovasculares pré-existentes (Sachs, McGlade, Yurgelun-Todd, 2015;Thomas, Kloner, Rezkalla, 2014;Reece, 2009). ...
... O uso da Cannabis está associado ao aumento da inflamação e da resistência das vias aéreas, assim como destruição do tecido pulmonar. Além disso, evidências demonstram que o uso crônico de Cannabis aumenta o risco de bronquite, enfisema, inflamação respiratória crônica e comprometimento da função respiratória (Sachs, McGlade, Yurgelun-Todd, 2015;Reece, 2009). ...
... Due to ethical considerations, the LD50 (the lethal dose at which 50 percent of the sample population dies) of THC has not been measured in humans; however, it ranges between 40 and 130 mg/ kg intravenously in animals. The LD50 of THC inhaled from smoked Cannabis in Fisher rats is 42 mg/ kg, comparable to the IV vascular access port value, indicating that THC is the psychoactive component of smoked cannabis [191,195] [175] to Cannabis vary and are impacted by potency, mode of use, patient age and gender, the presence of other psychoactive substances, and Cannabis or different drug tolerance [196]. Combining Cannabis with other psychoactive chemicals, such as alcohol, can raise the risk of toxicity and lead to greater intoxication than using either substance alone. ...
... Frequently, the scientific data is equivocal and plagued by methodological inconsistencies. The categorization of Cannabis as a Schedule I drug restricts the type and quality of research, forcing safeness and effectiveness evaluations to rely on observational investigations [196]. Despite methodological limitations, the studies to date demonstrate reasonably clear acute cardiovascular, psychosocial, cognitive, respiratory, and public health impacts of recreational and medical Cannabis use. ...
Full-text available
Medicinal and aromatic plants have been one of the most important sources of medicine since the dawn of human civilization. Indigenous communities have used products from these plants in different conditions throughout history. Cannabis sativa L. is one of the most widely employed herbaceous medicinal plants for textiles, and fibers, in medicine, as a source of food, animal food, animal bedding, and agriculture for seeds. This paper highlights the traditional applications, botany, phytochemistry, and pharmacological properties of C. sativa. Extensive database retrieval, such as Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, ResearchGate,, PubMed, SciFinder, ChemSpider, CNKI, PubFacts was performed using the keywords “Hemp” and “Cannabis,” as well as the scientific name of this plant species (Cannabis sativa). Besides, reviews of relevant textbooks, documents, and patents were also employed to collect sufficient information. This study revealed numerous pharmacological activities of C. sativa that could help with several health issues. Additionally, more than 565 bioactive constituents have been isolated and identified from diverse parts of C. sativa. This could help discover potential therapeutic effects and develop new medications to benefit human health.
... Regarding chronic consumption, special attention must be paid to patients diagnosed with psychiatric conditions, because cannabis may exacerbate pre-existing symptoms of psychosis and schizophrenia (Ganesh and D'Souza, 2022;Gibbs et al., 2015). • Tachycardia, increased blood pressure, systemic vasodilatation and increased cardiac labor in a dose-dependent manner (Ravi et al., 2018) • myocardial infarction, cardiomyopathy, and sudden cardiac death for patients with a history of cardiac diseases (Jouanjus et al., 2011;Frost et al., 2013;Thomas et al., 2014;Tait et al., 2016) Effect on respiratory system • Inflammation of large airways, increase airway resistance, and injure lung tissue (Sachs et al., 2015;Joshi et al., 2022) • Chronic bronchitis or infections associated with the respiratory tract (Hancox et al., 2010;Tashkin and Tan, 2022) Psychiatric conditions ...
Full-text available
Cannabis enjoyed a “golden age” as a medicinal product in the late 19th, early 20th century, but the increased risk of overdose and abuse led to its criminalization. However, the 21st century have witnessed a resurgence of interest and a large body of literature regarding the benefits of cannabinoids have emerged. As legalization and decriminalization have spread around the world, cancer patients are increasingly interested in the potential utility of cannabinoids. Although eager to discuss cannabis use with their oncologist, patients often find them to be reluctant, mainly because clinicians are still not convinced by the existing evidence-based data to guide their treatment plans. Physicians should prescribe cannabis only if a careful explanation can be provided and follow up response evaluation ensured, making it mandatory for them to be up to date with the positive and also negative aspects of the cannabis in the case of cancer patients. Consequently, this article aims to bring some clarifications to clinicians regarding the sometimes-confusing various nomenclature under which this plant is mentioned, current legislation and the existing evidence (both preclinical and clinical) for the utility of cannabinoids in cancer patients, for either palliation of the associated symptoms or even the potential antitumor effects that cannabinoids may have.
... For respiratory disorders: Cannabis is mostly consumed by smoking in the presence or absence of tobacco. Smoking is one of the leading causes of respiratory diseases, there upon smoking cannabis might have some adverse effects on the respiratory system [172]. Indeed, cannabis smoke has the same impact as tobacco. ...
There has been an increased interest of the scientific community in cannabis and its constituents for therapeutic purposes. Although it is believed that cannabinoids can be effective for a few different conditions and syndromes, there are little objective data that clearly support the use of cannabis, cannabis extracts or even cannabidiol (CBD) oil. This review aims to explore the therapeutic potential of phytocannabinoids and synthetic cannabinoids for the treatment of several diseases. A broad search covering the past five years, was performed in PubMed and databases, to identify papers focusing on the use of medical phytocannabinoids in terms of tolerability, efficacy and safety. Accordingly, there are preclinical data supporting the use of phytocannabinoids and synthetic cannabinoids for the management of neurological pathologies, acute and chronical pain, cancer, psychiatric disorders and chemotherapy-induced emetic symptoms. However, regarding the clinical trials, most of the collected data do not fully support the use of cannabinoids in the treatment of such conditions. Consequently, more studies are still needed to clarify ascertain if the use of these compounds is useful in the management of different pathologies.
... A pesar de que la evidencia científica ha demostrado que el consumo agudo de cannabis aumenta la inflamación de las vías respiratorias, destruye el tejido pulmonar, y que simultáneamente hay estudios que muestran cómo el uso crónico de cannabis resulta en un mayor riesgo de enfermedades crónicas como bronquitis, de enfisema, inflamación respiratoria crónica y deterioro de la función respiratoria (33) , fumar marihuana sigue siendo un práctica que va en aumento, tanto en Medellín como en diferentes ciudades de la región (18,34,35,36,37) . Todos los efectos adversos que se presentan en vías respiratorias y tejido pulmonar están estrechamente relacionados con la principal manera de consumo de la marihuana. ...
Full-text available
El cannabis o marihuana es una de las sustancias psicoactivas más consumida en todo el mundo, por lo que conocer la composición y el tipo de cannabis que se comercializa en los entornos urbanos es un insumo necesario para el diseño de políticas en salud pública sustentadas en la evidencia científica. Este estudio caracterizó los principales fitocannabinoides de muestras de marihuana (cigarrillos o cogollos) obtenidas en áreas urbanas y rurales de la ciudad Medellín, en octubre de 2021. Se realizó un muestreo no probabilístico a conveniencia en el que se recolectaron 87 muestras de marihuana donadas por consumidores en diferentes puntos de recolección en toda la ciudad, aplicando las técnicas de cromatografía de gases masas e ionización de llama para la caracterización de los fitocanabinoides. Se encontró el tetrahidrocannabinol como el constituyente principal de la marihuana circulante en Medellín, donde el 67,8% de las muestras presentaba un rango toxicológico alto o superior para THC; lo anterior en un contexto donde el mercado desregulado limita la posibilidad que tienen los consumidores en la práctica de calibrar o decidir la concentración de cannabinoides en sus dosis.
... Although the therapeutic use of cannabinoids dates back to at least the 15 th century 1,2 , their use in modern therapy, for instance as analgesics, has been slowed by their sedative and mood-altering effects, and by concerns over their reinforcing and addictive properties 3,4 . With changes in cannabis' legal status, an ongoing epidemic of chronic pain, as well as an effort to reduce reliance on opioids for pain management, has come a renewed interest in understanding both the endocannabinoid system and how to leverage it for therapeutic development 5 . ...
Full-text available
Docking tangible virtual libraries can reveal unexpected chemotypes that complement the structures of biological targets. Seeking new agonists for the cannabinoid-1 receptor (CB1R), we docked 74 million tangible molecules, prioritizing 46 high ranking ones for de novo synthesis and testing. Nine were active by radioligand competition, with > 50% radioligand displacement, a 20% hit-rate. Structure-based optimization of one of the most potent of these (K i = 731 nM) led to ‘3234 , a 1.9 nM binder and a full CB1 agonist. A cryo-EM structure of the ‘3234 -CB1-G i1 complex confirmed its docked pose, providing a template for further optimization. The new agonist was strongly analgesic especially against thermal pain, with a 10-fold therapeutic window over sedation and no observable catalepsy or conditioned place preference or aversion. These findings suggest that new cannabinoid chemotypes may be able to disentangle the characteristic “tetrad” side-effects from its desired analgesic effect, supporting the further development of cannabinoids as pain therapeutics.
Full-text available
cannabinoid enfeksiyon
Full-text available
Kenevir ve sağlık