scicop

Well yes, but also remember that "personality" or rather contributing factors that promote the willingess to move to other drugs may also include genetic (such as certain gene alleles or polymorphisms that are associated with susceptability to addiction, such as the OPRM/or V2 receptors..see work by Marc Schukit MD, Gavril Pasternak, PhD), environmental (see work by Bill R Miller, PhD), as well as pyschological (neurochemical imbalance, see work by George Koob and Eric Nestler) disposition (see studies linking depression, schizo, bipolarism to drug abuse). So you're absolutely right, but the reason we think this is intuitive is because we have studies like these that directly address this relationship. Without these studies, any talk or speculation is just warm air. You seem to like this topic, if you do a PhD definately consider Ken MacKie's lab at U.Wash..you'll have alot of fun.

alot of surveys are randomized, not directly specific to users or non users, whereas others only look within a "user" population. Again please read the methods section of some of these studies. Understanding the methods section of any scientific study is essential to not only understanding the data but also considering the implications of such data. I should stress that this is essential for not only surveys, but just regular scientific papers....sometimes you have to read the methods to understand the data. If you go to graduate school...this is one of the first things you will learn!

that's a great point! environmental and psychology do go hand in hand. Now, heres another point...the same is true for nicotine (cigarettes)! People who smoke are more likely to try the harder stuff than those who don't. So one question that has always bothered me is why our sometimes hippocrite govn't deems cigarettes as legal and marijuana as illegal? Even when top PIs feel classify nicotine as a drug as abuse? (seminar I attended last year given by Noura Volkov, head of NIDA, at a narcotic research conference). I know the social and historal story of marijuana..(bassically summarized by a bad rap by racist US congressman) and the social acceptance of nicotine use, but scientifically speaking...and strickly scientifically speaking, I really do not get how the govt can differentiate between making "pot" illegal, and making alcohol "legal" or cigarettes for that matter..legal. Now, ok..alcohol if you drink to much and lets say operate a vehicle..then of course..you go to jail. So, what I don't get is why can't govt say...."OK were going to make MJ Legal..but if you drive or operate machinary, or do anything reckless under the influence of MJ then strait to jail you go! For the record, I am not an anti-marijuana person.

yeah..the data is there! READ!!!!!!!!!!!

I think you mean of people who are not currenly abusing any drugs, would they try do so...yeah..thats been done and its in the surveys. There is a high correalation of people who do use marijuana to abuse other drugs compared to those who are "currently..aka time of survey" who are not using. You'll find all of this on the Samhsa website. Again..Rand..its your choice who you want to go with, but I personally don't think they would be as thorough as the gov't agencies (or rather intellectual abilitiy) put together.

New York City!!! I don't think I need to say anymore.

There is no other point of view, what you just wrote is of NO SCIENTIFIC value. The studies by SAMHSA (as well as NIDA) assess the propensity of marijuana users to try/abuse other illicit drugs. Furthmore their studies assess the drug habits of users of other drugs of abuse, such as heroin and cocaine. These studies include direct surveys (an extrapolation of survey data..but I don't expect many to understand what that means), as well as data obtained from treatment centers around the US (i.e. drug treatment clinics etc). The observation that there is a strong association between use of marijuana and the incidence of using/abusing other drugs of abuse (among teenages and adults) is supportive of the conclusion that marijuana can be a gateway drug. (now read this sentance again, and you'll see this is how scientist write). These conclusion is corroborated by studies in the laboratory that demonstrate the ability of THC (an active compound in marijuana) to sensitize or rather promote neuroadaptive responses, such that exposure to more addictive drugs (i.e. drugs that really excite on VTA DA neurons/dopamine release in NuAcc) can more easily precipitate behaviors indicative of addiction (i.e. drug seeking, and uncontrolled consumption of harmful amount of drugs). So the data is outthere, please LOOK AT IT and READ! Also, yeah I known some drug users in the past, everyone has their choice and not all marijuana users will try other drugs....likewise not all heroin or cocaine users will abuse marijuana. It is essential that one considers the heterogeneity in said population with respect to genetic, environmental, pyschological and social environments. No one study (read my beautiful sentance above) can say 'marijuana is a gateway drug", That would be incorrect to say. But a true scientist, versed in science writing would write: "the data does support that marijuana CAN BE a gateway drug to more addictive illicit drugs of abuse" And this is what the data supports. I've given some excellent references to refer to...again..KREEK, KOOB, NESTLER, SWIFT, O'BRIAN...BIG names in addiction biology.(and RENOUNED Neuroscientist)...read their work!!!! If you want to read more about the molecular target and workings of marijuana, please read work by Ken MacKie MD (U.Washington), a former colleague of mine and great person to collaborate with!!! He does not hesisitate to send you CB1-antibodies or cDNA for the receptor(s) for your experiments!!! Also..go through the NIDA and SAMHSA websites, download their studies!!! They are FREE to download!!! and they're even in PDF formats!!

The answer to your question is no. This agent is selective for aminosteroidal NMBA which are derivitives of curare. These drugs are non-cell permiable as is sugammadex. Athletes WANT steroids in their system as a means to enhance their performance, not remove them, so their would not be a market for this purpose. Furthermore a drug like sugammadex would not work since it is purely hydrophilic, not lipophilic like steroids (which pass through the cell membrane with ease..as the sight of action of steroids is intracellular not at the extracellular cell surface. As an anti hangover agent, well I guess if they can find a non-toxic chelator ethanol metabolites (aldehydes..and formaldehydes) then who knows!

Sure there is, one way is called tolerance. That is, more of a certain drug to produce a given high. When one drug doesn't "do it" any more, then there is a high propensity to switch or add on other drugs to obtain that high. See work Mary Jean Kreek, MD (Rockefeller U) a great woman to know and a hell of a woman to work with..but very insightful and accomplished. Again, I strongly urge you to read works by well established and renouned research investigators such as Eric J Nestler, PhD and George F. Koob, PhD, which are HUGE names in addiction biology. You may also want to try works by Robert Swift MD, PhD, and Charles O'brian, MD, PhD also VERY BIG NAMES in addiction biology. As far as whose right, it depends on who you want to believe. I'm more inclined to go with the Samsha data (as well as those of other DHHS agencies) since many other studies have corroborated their findinigs. As far as Rand goes, they are an independant organization (they do alot of anti-terrorism consulting..they're big US governement contract think tank) I don't know if their analysis and access to data would be up to par as the gov't agency, which is associated with well established biostaticians and active prinicipal investigators . At the end of the day, it depends on who's data/interpretation you want to look at, but most studies agree that users of marijuana (as well as heavy users of alcohol) are more inclined to "try" and/or "use" illicit drugs of abuse.

http://oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh.htm Nope not weak at all, according to Samhsa, national survey of drug use and health, there is a very strong correlation between users of marijuana and willingness to try other drugs. Physiologically speaking marijuana use sensitizes the neurocircuitry (plasticity) involved in the development of drug addiction behaviors. Thus the use of a more potent activator of this circuitry can precipiatate the development of addictive behaviors. Read work by George Koob and Eric Nestler, big names in addiction biology. I can go more into detail on this topic if you wish, opioid/cannabinoid interactions is my field of expertise.

At the end of the day, doesn't matter who takes the credit. There is need for team work and when it comes to terrorism, its a team effort that involves everyone. There are many unsung heros out there who are doing their part to help keep a safe US and rather than wasting their time complaining about US politics, they're stepping up to the plate and engaging in career paths and job positions that allow them to directly influence safty and, as a consequence, political aims. However, chances are you'll never know their names! They're satisfied with known that the job has been done. So whether is DHS, FLE/IC, local PD taking the credit, I think we all owe them a big thank you and a big BRAVO!!!!

Dai dai dai...Forza Italia!!!! Francese....vaffa bagno...ti odio!

with the help of some outstanding US civilians!!! Can't go into further details, but people like you all have plenty of opportunity to help DHS, IC, FLE and local PD! couldn't have done it without them!

for american Life: DVDs of the TV series: COPS

I forgot to add, he wrote a Microbiology text book that was used by alot of pre-health students.

Probably did, he was big guy on campus

Oh by the way Ecoli, I use to know the person who had "Ecoli" on his NYS license plates. I guess the ORGINAL:-) Ecoli. Ed Alcamo, PhD. He was a Prof of Microbio at SUNY Farmingdale. He passed away a few years ago.

The funny part to all this is that the shuttle cannot fly!!! I.e. its wings do not give it any form of lift that can sustain flight, especially at the maximal altitudes that a 747 can fly! Basically the space shuttle is nothing more than a "rock" with a body-shape/ wings that allow for a "controlled" drop (i.e. some steering capabilities), so forget about a shuttle being able to escape earth's gravity at the maximal height that a 747 can fly. P.S. I've had the pleasure of meeting two astronauts in person, including one from the Neruolab mission (a MD, PhD, and guest lecturer who ran one of my journal clubs in grad school), and his video(s) were amazing! Basically had footage (from escorting jets) showing how the shuttle (his own) just dropped like a rock upon reentry. Basically the escorting jets were in a kinda of nose dive to keep up with the shuttle...neat footage..direct from NASA.

Howdy, i would imagine that you would have a cirriculum to adhere to no? but anyway here's an idea for you, its actually something I experience in my first year of graduate school. It was a biochemisty/cell/molecular biology/molecular genetics course. The way it was focused on the cell. We started from the center of the cell and work our way to the cell membrane/and extracellular matrix, then worked our way back to the center of the cell!!!!! So we started with DNA, not just simple DNA, we discussed chromatin regulation (organization etc) then replication (all the molecular details), transcription and how messages are exported thorough the nuclear pore complex and translated in the ER etc etc. We went VERY VERY VERY deep in to these mechanism (consistant with the top notch PHd program I went to) and all of our topics were supplemented by Journal articles (peer reviewed studies) in an accompanied journal club. Each lecturer was a leader in field they were discussing i.e. HHMI investigators and/ top notch very well funded investigators/ and lecturers by nobel lauretes. So, I don't have to say how rigorous and demanding the course was. After about 4 months we got to the cell surface (around christmas time) and discussed hormones, neurotransmitters/modulators/ and then through the investigation of signal transduction cascades we worked our way back to the nucleus, and back to the DNA. This took another 5 months, and involved a trip back to the cell surface to discuss the further implications of gene expression with a panacrine/endocrine point of view. I thought that was an awesome way to cover the molecular biology of the cell and we covered EVERYTHING..from metabolism, to molecular evolution, to pathology and sites of pharmacological intervention. Obviously you don't have to be so rigorous, you're not teaching PhD students, but you can follow a similar format. Guest lecturers are good and so are insights into possible careers.

You'll burn yourself out. Its ok to go through the books at a superficial level to see what you're in for, but you wont have any direction. This is why we take college courses. If people can learn just from reading books then they wouldn't have college. Enjoy your summer; relax, and engage studies again in the fall. PS I didn't get from the post, are you a physics major?

I agree with benji, but who says we're giving up our freedom for security? If you're not doing anything wrong, why should you care if big-brother is reading your emails. I don't. Security does not mean sacrifice of freedom. It means minor inconviences from time to time, but you still get to do what you wanna do! I can still go to Cuba! Its just a little more inconvienient.

Well I've figured out the meaning of life. Its Paper. When you're born, you get your first piece of paper (birth certificate) When you go to school you get your diploma (another piece of paper) When you do something good get a certificate (piece of paper that says "your good"! When you get arrested, you get a piece of paper (multple pieces actually, its called a record) Then you go to college to get another piece of paper (degree) why? To get more paper...(money). And the pursuit of the piece of paper can last a life time. but the final piece of paper you get, you'll never get to hold. You death certificate (a piece of paper that says you're dead).