That many participants also increased unhealthy eating and decreased exercise underscores findings from a recent Brazilian study, which found that increased unhealthy behaviors were associated with loneliness, sadness, and anxiety, particularly for young people. Notably, proportions reporting increased drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, and vaping nicotine were lower than proportions reporting increased cannabis use. That finding could possibly relate to the fact that fewer participants used these other substances . Overall, changes in substance use, including cannabis, can reflect a number of possibilities, including changes in access or environment, changes in use motives , increased or decreased craving, concerns about health, changes in finances affecting ability to purchase, changes in daily structure , and so on. The potential fallout in these areas due to the pandemic remains to be seen. The emotional toll of the pandemic is evident among these emerging adults, many of whom were symptomatic for depression or anxiety based on clinical screeners . Consistent with a recent report documenting pandemic-related increases in mental health symptoms and coping related substance use, most participants surveyed reported increases in loneliness, anxiety, stress, and depression and decreases in hopefulness and happiness. Still, although the majority felt that the pandemic has negatively impacted their lives, some found positive impacts. This nuanced impact is underscored by the qualitative data showing that some participants identified bright sides,indoor plant table such as temporary increases in income due to unemployment benefits, less anxiety or stress, and being able to cultivate some relationships during this stressful time .
It will be important to continue to monitor the cumulative impact of ongoing changes in psychosocial responses to the pandemic in vulnerable populations. Despite the novelty of this work and the depth of our assessment, our study has inherent limitations. First, COVID-19 is an unfortunate situation, yet it provided an opportunity to embed questions in an ongoing study wherein some participants had received a pilot intervention, which is a limitation of the current analysis focused on COVID-19, despite the importance of cannabis interventions for public health. Note that we do provide descriptive information for those who did and did not receive an intervention, showing no differences in cannabis consumption, and few other differences. While the intervention may have altered some individuals’ cannabis use in particular, we cannot examine intervention outcomes during an ongoing trial. Instead, we rely on participants’ self-reported perceptions of changes related to the pandemic and not the intervention itself as our COVID-19 survey prompts were phrased in relation to the pandemic. The sample size is a limitation and precluded a number of statistical analyses yet nonetheless adds substantively to the field given we have not yet uncovered other research that includes such an in-depth assessment of individuals who use cannabis regularly. Although this small sample from a pilot study is not nationally representative, a major strength of this paper is the involvement of a sample of clinical interest and the rich assessment data, which can provide a starting point for more generalizable research studies. Finally, causal interpretations are beyond the scope of these cross-sectional data. Limitations notwithstanding, this paper presents novel data regarding individuals’ perceptions of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA, particularly among youth regularly using cannabis.
While disease prevention remains a priority, psychosocial impacts are emerging and should be fully understood and addressed. Emerging adults are in a vulnerable position in the life course and emotional stressors combined with disrupted financial and educational opportunities could have long-lasting impacts on their life trajectories. Ongoing stress and social isolation among young people who are using cannabis regularly could escalate the potential consequences of cannabis use. Public health interventions targeting reduced substance use and bolstering resilience and coping are urgently needed on a large scale to help address this aspect of the COVID-19 crisis.There is currently a great deal of research activity around the potential for phytocannabinoids, i.e. compounds that occur naturally in the hemp plant , to treat a wide range of medical conditions, including anxiety, glaucoma, epilepsy, spasticity, infammation, neurodegenerative diseases, affective disorders, and even cancer . Indeed, a Medline database search using the term “cannabis” returns >14,000 journal hits since the year 2000, including nearly 900 literature reviews with cannabis- or a cannabinoid-related term in the title. The opportunities around the therapeutic potential of cannabinoids are however weighed against a range of drawbacks, including adverse health effects, potential for abuse, cognitive and motor impairment, psychiatric disturbances, legal issues, and the environmental impacts of marijuana cultivation. Beyond this, herbal cannabis has been shown to contain >500 chemical entities, including around 100 cannabinoids alongside a variety of other terpenes, phenolics, favonoids, lipids, and steroids, the toxicity and mutagenic nature of which are largely unexplored .
Of the two major cannabinoids that occur in cannabis, i.e. ∆9 -tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol , the deleterious effects are primarily attributed to the former, and for that reason CBD has often been singled out for pharmacological investigations . While the use of CBD appears to circumvent most of the drawbacks of using cannabis preparations, there remain significant issues associated with its use: All marijuana extracts, including CBD, are controlled substances in most countries, although some have decriminalized the use of cannabis primarily for therapeutic purposes. CBD is derived by extraction from the cannabis plant. A wide range of impurities may be present, and there is a growing concern for contamination by pesticides , particularly in the current, largely unregulated climate. Even if pure CBD is marketed, the deliberate chemical conversion of CBD to THC is technically trivial. Were CBD to become freely available, it could lead to a culture similar to that of the pseudoephedrine-to-methamphetamine “meth lab” phenomenon, except that conversion of CBD to THC would involve a logistically far simpler chemical transformation. Pure THC, containing no CBD to antagonize its psychotropic effects, is a potentially dangerous drug. A collateral liability of the derivation of CBD from cannabis is the cultivation of hemp, with potential environmental impacts in terms of heavy water usage and pesticide/herbicideefuent burden. Legalization of marijuana will inevitably also lead to private cultivation using methods not intended to manage potential environmental damage. Finally, the impact of legalized cannabis on healthcare systems, which in the US has been recently highlighted in the areas of accidental injuries, unintentional ingestion of cannabis edibles by children, and reproductive health, may be considerable. Among the potential medical indications of cannabis, it can be argued that its highest profile use is as an anti-epileptic. Epilepsy is the general term given to a spectrum of conditions characterized by recurrent, unpredictable seizures, the consequences of which often have a profound effect on quality of life. Historical and anecdotal evidence, along with a number of case studies documenting the practically unique efficacy of cannabis to treat some refractory cases of epilepsy, have led to strong advocacy in favor of the legalization of marijuana. This has recently culminated in US Food and Drug Administration approval of Epidiolex for the treatment of Lennox-Gastaut and Dravet syndromes. Preclinical evidence for anticonvulsant activity of CBD and THC in acute animal models of seizures is also strong. Here,hydroponics flood table we describe the antiepileptic potential of 8,9-dihydrocannabidiol , a synthetic cannabinoid that differs structurally from CBD only by the saturation of the exocyclic carbon-carbon double bond. An immediate advantage of H2CBD is that, despite its similarity to CBD, it is not present in cannabis extracts and therefore not presently a controlled substance. Importantly, there is no reasonable synthetic route for the conversion of H2CBD to THC, in stark contrast to CBD itself. Although H2CBD has been prepared from natural CBD, we opted to employ an effcient, fully synthetic approach in order to avoid the intermediacy of any scheduled substance and thereby also circumvent any necessity for the cultivation of hemp to supply H2CBD. H2CBD has previously been the subject of a limited number of studies involving cannabinoid pharmacology. Consistent with CBD, H2CBD shows an inhibitory effect on cytochrome P450, which can be measured by CO complex formation during hepatic microsomal metabolism of H2CBD, and antioxidant activity quantified by inhibition of the production of reactive oxygen intermediates, nitric oxide, and tumor necrosis factor in murine macrophages. While there is evidence to show that the documented sedative effects of CBD may be due to in vivo conversion to THC in the acidic gastric environment, H2CBD, which cannot undergo this reaction, shows little if any evidence of narcotic activity.
Mechanistically, synaptic transmission can be regulated by activation of the cannabinoid receptor CB1, and endocannabinoids are known to play a protective role in central nervous system disorders, particularly those associated with neuronal hyperexcitability. Herbal cannabinoids are CB1 agonists and have been shown to exhibit CB1 receptor-dependent anticonvulsant activity in models of epilepsy, while conversely, the application of the CB1 receptor antagonists induces epileptiform activity in these models. However, the precise role of CB1 activation in seizure mitigation has yet to be fully elucidated, and the protein targets of CBD have not all been identifed, so we do not at this point propose a mechanistic interpretation of the action of H2CBD in this context.In the seizure mitigation study, a total of 60 male Wistar Han rats were randomly divided into 5 groups of 12 animals each and received either vehicle , vehicle plus a positive control , or vehicle plus H2CBD via intraperitoneal injection one hour prior to administration of the convulsant agent pentylenetetrazole . An overall effect of treatment upon the percentage of animals that exhibited tonic-clonic seizures was found =10.48; P=0.033, where pairwise comparisons revealed that significantly fewer animals that received CBD or H2CBD exhibited tonic-clonic seizures than the vehicle treated group . Furthermore, maximum seizure severity was also affected by treatment , where pairwise comparisons revealed that animals that received CBD or H2CBD exhibited significantly less severe seizures as coded by the Racine scale than the vehicle treated group , H2CBD 200 mg kg−1 : 2 , CBD 200 mg kg−1 : 2 , P<0.001 in both cases. These results unequivocally demonstrate that H2CBD exhibits a dose-dependent anticonvulsant action in acute, PTZ-induced generalised seizures in rats, with a maximal protective effect comparable to a matching dose of the established anticonvulsant CBD. While these preliminary data provide a clear indication for the use of H2CBD as an anticonvulsant agent, further work will establish the inherent pharmacokinetic profile of H2CBD which, for the purposes of this study, was assumed to be identical to CBD, although indications from the bio-analyte results suggest differences in plasma and brain concentration at matching doses , despite a comparable anticonvulsant effect. This may suggest the magnitude of the anticonvulsant effect of H2CBD could be being attenuated by suboptimal dosing intervals, preventing the effect from being assessed at maximal drug concentration. In conclusion, it has been demonstrated that prophylactic administration of H2CBD to rats significantly reduces incidence of tonic-clonic seizures as well as maximum seizure severity as compared to vehicle treatment, with a comparable anticonvulsant effect as seen in positive control CBD. We summarize the advantages of H2CBD over CBD as a potential antiepileptic drug as follows: Being fully synthetic, H2CBD is not a controlled substance and thereby may circumvent legal issues surrounding cannabis-based therapies. Te preparative approach to H2CBD is efcient, inexpensive, and scalable. Unlike CBD, which has to be isolated from a mixture of hundreds of other extractives and may also be contaminated with pesticides, synthetic H2CBD is easy to obtain in pure form. Preparation of H2CBD from readily available, non-cannabis based precursors eliminates the necessity to cultivate marijuana and its attendant social and environmental concerns. The comparable antiepileptic activity between natural CBD and synthetic, racemic H2CBD suggest that both enantiomers of H2CBD have comparable potency, consistent with literature studies on unnatural -CB. In contrast to CBD, there is no pathway from H2CBD to THC, either in vivo or in the laboratory. Thus, assuming the principal medical justification for pursuing cannabis-based therapies is their extraordinary anticonvulsant activity, and that all other indications can be effectively managed with non-controversial drugs, H2CBD may fnd application as a safer alternative in terms of its lack of abuse liability and absence of psychotropic effects.Chemicals were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich and used as received.